It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
reply to post by IndieA
Interesting... You say the media is saying one thing...
But all the garbage that just came out of you is all the stuff the media is actually saying.
Don't you find that really odd?
But I ask you.
Why does it have to be free-will. What happened to
plain old "will?" To be a person of will, of self control.
To have will, the path of self correction. To know
will, and recognize it in others.
Where and how did the concept of will get married
to the word "free." Are the people who speak of
free-will bringing out the worst in consumers?
I appeal to the best in people. Not their impulses.
I'm just saying the things that people with a concience are saying. Or things that people that understand how the world has really been operating have been saying. Some people in the media fall into that catagory and also they can't ignore the outrage so they have to address it then downplay it. Dude, the government and the media are constantly lying to the American people to reach their own agendas. They want the war, trust me. Most of the rest of us don't.
Once upon a time, you told me "that's the most rebellious thing I ever read on ATS."
Saying that free-will is not necessarily reality?
That is true, and if only people really understood that.
reply to post by TarzanBeta
You're right about us being played, but you're totally wrong about who's trying to play us. It's not the Syrians, it's our own crooked lying government. If you can's see that you're a fool.
Firstly, Obama seems to have no fear continuing to be demonized for his speech, neither his actions. Don't you find that a little interesting? Some say it's because he is just playing his part. But the man is human, also. He will possibly have nowhere to go in this world for him and his family to enjoy at all, anywhere, because of the action that he is willing to take. In order for someone to sacrifice so much, he must believe in -something- opposed to his own aspirations. There is some credit due here.
I, by myself, could play all of you like this, if I so desired. Imagine what an entire community of elite conspirators can do to you.
Okay, first of all, that description about the men ganging up on the woman in the bar was pretty disturbing. Women aren't resources.
Second of all, yeah, you hit upon an important point. Believing in something opposed to one's own aspirations allows for Western society to function.
If that falls apart, not a single one of us is going to be able to survive in a world where everyone is out for themselves. And we are quite possibly headed straight there.
And the last sentence of yours I quoted. I don't think that is good at all that you can do that if you wanted to. Although this is not a personal insult, I mean it as a symptom of the future.
Think about a world where everyone could "play all of you like this." How quickly would your personal bluff be called? How long until it got exhausting? How many years do you think you would make it out of 30 or so?
Just some meta-analysis. Actually, I agree with your thread, I'm just adding another level to it. All of the psychological evidence presented in your thread actually points to someone with your perspective trying to play people, possibly without even realizing it.
My immediate reaction is to come to the exact opposite conclusion than the one you are presenting.edit on 10-9-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)
Seeming Madness: The Suffocating Unreality that Kills
Several of Sam's friends are viciously murdered. Sam says he knows who did it, and he can prove it. Most people, including Sam, think that the suspected murderer is hiding in Tom's house. Sam demands that Tom surrender the alleged killer. Tom responds that he'd be happy to do so; Tom requests only that Sam show him the evidence that the suspected killer is, in fact, guilty. Sam insists he has the evidence, so Tom can't imagine why the request would be problematic.
Sam refuses Tom's offer and repeats his demand that Tom surrender the supposedly guilty man without conditions. Tom says again that he'd be glad to comply with Sam's demand; he only asks that Sam offer the evidence that Sam says he has. This back-and-forth continues; neither Sam nor Tom will alter his position. In frustration, Tom finally declares: "Look, I'll do everything you demand. You say you have evidence proving he's guilty. So show it to me. Then you can have him. You can have everything you say you want."
At that point, Sam yells: "THIS MEANS WAR!!" Sam means it. He kills Tom and his entire family, destroys Tom's house, murders several of his neighbors and wrecks much of the neighborhood.
It's a short time later. Sam thinks that one of his neighbors, Henry, is hiding a huge stock of weapons. Many people aren't entirely sure why Sam believes this, but Sam never liked Henry very much. Maybe that's the explanation. (Sam would occasionally use Henry to cause harm to other neighbors Sam liked even less, but Sam still never liked Henry himself.) Sam regularly adds, in an especially threatening tone of voice, that Henry has a lot of weapons that are illegal. It's not clear to anyone why Sam believes this, but Sam repeatedly says it as if it's a fact beyond dispute. A lot of people are additionally puzzled by the fact that everyone knows Sam himself has the biggest collection of weapons in the neighborhood, in the entire city in fact.
Sam keeps repeating his accusations about Henry, and he keeps making them sound more and more ominous. Even if Sam's accusations were true, it's not readily apparent why that would represent a problem. What would Henry do with his weapons? It doesn't appear Henry could do much of anything. Despite all these questions about Sam's views and his reasons for them, Sam repeats the accusations over and over again -- and he regularly adds that something needs to be done.
Henry just wants to avoid trouble. So he tells Sam that Sam can send people to his, Henry's, house and search it from top to bottom. Henry knows they won't find anything. Sam takes him up on the offer; none of the dreaded weapons are found, and certainly no illegal ones, just as Henry had said. But Sam says that's not good enough. He knows that Henry's hiding something! So Henry says: "Then send the people to inspect my house again! You won't find anything. Inspect it as much as you like! You can have everything you say you want!"
At that point, Sam screams: "THIS MEANS WAR!!" Sam means it. He kills Henry and his entire family, destroys Henry's house, murders several of his neighbors and wrecks more of the neighborhood. This time, Sam also destroys part of the surrounding city.
The Purpose of Argument is to alter the Nature of Truth
"There's no need for you to get defensive, I have already administered the drug!"
from your DM link
reply to post by SexNinja
when did he deny having them? from the beginning this has been the issue , he has Chems , they must not fall into rebel hands.... look that up,He denies using them would you shoot your self in the foot ? I still think it was the rebels that did it, to bring the US in and so far it has not worked , bet anything an other attack comes. before Russia has a chance to get them out. The rebels need US to win or they lose.
'Bashar Assad's Foreign Ministry flatly denied the American charges. "Of course Syria has no chemical weapons. They (Americans) have been talking for years about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But so far, the presence of these weapons has not been confirmed," said ministry spokeswoman Bouthayna Shaaban.
you do know this was during BUSH as POTUS and Syria had no Chems at that time , not till a few weeks later. it is in 2012 is when i was referring to the the Chemical weapons a history review and for reference use en.wikipedia.org... from the link
President Bush warned Syria on Sunday not to harbour Iraqi leaders and charged that Damascus has chemical weapons.
"We expect cooperation, and I'm hopeful we'll receive cooperation," he said. Bush stopped short of threatening Syria with military action but added: "People have got to know that we are serious about stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction."
President Assad held talks with Foreign Office Minister Mike O'Brien, who arrived in Damascus as part of a tour that would also take him to Iraq.
Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
It helps to do a little reading , but they say they did not have before 2012 , thought it was 2011, but the real threat is not Chemicals but Nuke from the link
On July 23, 2012 Syria admitted to possessing a stockpile of chemical weapons which it claims are reserved for national defense against foreign countries. During the Syrian civil war in August 2012, the Syrian military restarted chemical weapons testing at a base on the outskirts of Aleppo. Chemical weapons were a major point of discussion between the Syrian government and world leaders, with military intervention being considered by the West as a potential consequence of the use of such weapons.
this is much bigger for they are in bed with DPRK. but then one threat at a time Chemicals are easy to make a nuke is not.
Syria is a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and maintains a civil nuclear program. On September 6, 2007, Israel unilaterally bombed a site in Syria which it believed had hosted a nuclear reactor under construction. U.S. intelligence officials claimed low confidence that the site was meant for weapons development. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has said the site in discussion was just "a military site under construction" and that Syria's goal is a nuclear-free Middle East. Syria allowed the IAEA to visit the site on June 23, 2008, taking environmental samples that revealed the presence of man-made uranium and other materials consistent with a reactor. On May 24, 2011, IAEA Director General Amano released a report which assessed that the destroyed facility was a reactor, and the IAEA Board of Governors voted 17-6 (with 11 abstentions) to report this as non-compliance to the UN Security Council.