It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pilots Stripped Of Constitutional Rights Forced To Transport Tens Of 1000's Of Illegal Muslims To U

page: 5
26
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 





lol - you are obviously confused - perhaps you should consider your reasoning in light of how the USA was founded??


What is there to be confused about ?

The US armed and funded the opposition in Syria that led to over 100,000 Syirans being killed.

Then says, 'OH crap the least we can do is let some come here' with blood stained hands.




the status of "illegal immigrant" is something that applies only to their status as immigrants. "illegal" is an adjective in this instance, not a noun. Being an "illegal combatant" in their homeland no more makes them an illegal immigrant than them being an "illegal driver" would.


For the life of me Don;t understand this argument over nothing.

After everything that has been said in this thread all someone wants to talk about is definitions.

Alrighie then.




For a third time - you need to go do some study about this - seriously you REALLY need to deny some of that ignorance!


Yeah someone does need to study over the GD events in Syria that lead to this topic.




posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 03:58 PM
link   

MmmPie

This thread is one of the most racist things I've read in a long time.


"Muslim" isnt a race.



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 03:58 PM
link   

neo96
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 





no it doesn't - the status of refugee is explicit - you are obviously someone who needs to go find out about it so my suggestion still applies - go study it!


Nope.

The simple fact of arming the FSA to fight it's own government makes them illegal,

Arming opposition to a lawful government is ILLEGAL.

Thus making them illegal immigrants.


Based on your reasoning then France should be dragged before the Hague for supplying "arms, equipment and aid" to the "terrorists" who decided to tell King George where he could shove his crown.

Trying to control the high ground with morals that lack a foundation does not work and by cherry picking history you come across as extremely naïve.

You are better than that Neo.
edit on 23-1-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 04:00 PM
link   

CirqueDeTruth
reply to post by smurfy
 


I'm not religious. I use to be a new agey type - love and peace will save the world sort.

Then I joined the military and realized. I was wrong.

CdT


You missed my point entirely. Put it this way....Meh, just re-read you words above, I can't be bothered.



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


Then neither should I, I suppose.

Be bothered.


CdT



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Another db.

Sorry. My computer mouse is broken I think. I click. Nothing happens. I wait, to make sure the click didn't register, and click again and low and behold. Double post.


CdT
edit on 23-1-2014 by CirqueDeTruth because: double post



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 04:05 PM
link   

neo96
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 





lol - you are obviously confused - perhaps you should consider your reasoning in light of how the USA was founded??


What is there to be confused about ?

The US armed and funded the opposition in Syria that led to over 100,000 Syirans being killed.

Then says, 'OH crap the least we can do is let some come here' with blood stained hands.


well let's see:

1/ Syrians were already being killed - by their own government. Many of them decided to fight back.

2/ as I indicated - consider how the USA was founded - was that not revolution against the government - so doesn't that make het USA illegal too?



For the life of me Don;t understand this argument over nothing.

After everything that has been said in this thread all someone wants to talk about is definitions.


The OP article calls them illegals - that is it's whole point - that these are illegal immigrants.

To point out that they are NOT illegal immigrants, and hence the OP is wrong (as well as being hate filled and bigoted) is not "argument over nothing" - it is pointing out that he article from eth OP is BS, and why it is BS.


Yeah someone does need to study over the GD events in Syria that lead to this topic.


no - that is not the point - the point is that refugees are not illegal immigrants, and to understand WHAT AND WHY the difference is!



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 04:06 PM
link   

CirqueDeTruth
Another db.

Sorry. My computer mouse is broken I think. I click. Nothing happens. I wait, to make sure the click didn't register, and click again and low and behold. Double post.


CdT
edit on 23-1-2014 by CirqueDeTruth because: double post


Just think twice, that's alright!



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 





Based on your reasoning then France should be dragged before the Hague for supplying "arms, equipment and aid" to the "terrorists" who decided to tell King George where he could shove his crown.


Well it was illegal from King Georges viewpoint.

There is a lot to choose from History.

Iran Contra- illegal.

Arming Drug Cartels in Mexico illegal,

Arming the 'resistance' to the Soviet backed government in Afghanistan in the 80s.

That was a precursor to events of the last decade.

So is it 'right' only when the Us government does it, and wrong when others do it ?




Trying to control the high ground with morals that lack a foundation does not work and by cherry picking history you come across as extremely naïve.


I do have the high ground I haven't killed anyone which is more than what our government can say.

Creating instability around the world then 'offers' a 'helping hand'.



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 05:26 PM
link   

QuickWick


I myself am not religious but I would like to quote an excerpt from the bible that I found on another forum in regards to this matter.

47 “Because you did not serve the Lord your God with joy and gladness of heart, for the abundance of everything, 48 therefore you shall serve your enemies, whom the Lord will send against you, in hunger, in thirst, in nakedness, and in need of everything; and He will put a yoke of iron on your neck until He has destroyed you. 49 The Lord will bring a nation against you from afar, from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flies, a nation whose language you will not understand, 50 a nation of fierce countenance, which does not respect the elderly nor show favor to the young. 51 And they shall eat the increase of your livestock and the produce of your land, until you are destroyed; they shall not leave you grain or new wine or oil, or the increase of your cattle or the offspring of your flocks, until they have destroyed you.

I have always felt the presence of a civil war coming in the future; let's just see how long until then.

Please feel free to drop your opinions and comments on the situation to include the criticizing of my own opinion.
edit on 23-1-2014 by QuickWick because: (no reason given)


 


Mod Note: All Caps – Please Review This Link.


edit on 23-1-2014 by _BoneZ_ because: Replaced all-caps, changed source of article to original source.


I really think that paragraph describes the effect on the Romans on the Egyptians and Israelites. The Roman Empire expanded simply to gain access to new resources. The Romans depended on Greeks for fashion, education and medicine, while the rest of the empire served to produce food. At the peak of the empire, Roman elites sought to outdo each other in terms of banquets and exotic meals, thus the demand for wild animals, grain and vegetables. There are actually documented Roman era (2000 years ago) recipes like the Apicius



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 06:33 PM
link   
I'm really wondering how the # people get so retarded lately? Really knowledgeable when you make a dubious claim and believing it yourself. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT PEOPLE..



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Xellios
 


Then tell us oh person who haseth just one posteth to thy name....Can you point out the facts then instead of telling us to get our facts in order?....sorta helps us know what side of the fence you are on.

Back to the OP If they are refugees then we have an obligation to help them.
Also every country If it closes it's borders will become stagnate and die off.
Embrace immigrants because our ancestors were all immigrants at one point or another.


edit on 23-1-2014 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-1-2014 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by boymonkey74
 


Let's start with Iraq's 'involvement' in 9/11 and that being the reason for the U.S. invasion being absolute nonsense as there was no cooperation between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. One of the main reasons was to disarm Iraq of any weapons of 'mass destruction' which Iraq did NOT have. Making such a statement is just pure ignorance.



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by boymonkey74
 


Yes, America was built with immigrants but none of them were jihadist, neither took tax dollars money and became dependent on the welfare system, all that came after.



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Every single American posting here is either an immigrant or offspring of an immigrant (unless you are Native American). The xenophobic fear on display in this thread is shameful.

It reminds me of the story of the immigrant on Ellis Island: Once he got to the . of the line he turned around and screamed "All you immigrants F**K OFF!"

Take a hard look in the mirror tonight.



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 08:40 PM
link   

marg6043
reply to post by boymonkey74
 


Yes, America was built with immigrants but none of them were jihadist,


Neither are refugees - and refugees is pretty much what a great number of US immigrants have always been - religious, political and economic!


neither took tax dollars money and became dependent on the welfare system, all that came after.


Indeed - you often had indentured and child labour instead. I hear slavery was also a great way to get immigrants.

No doubt you would be delighted to return to those capitalist systems.......

Oh and of course these days the ACTUAL illegal immigrantsdon't get welfare either.....so you're really arguing that something that doesn't happen shouldn't happen!!

Congratulations on denying ignorance!!



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by QuickWick
 


I call BS. Redfagnews is a joke. Check out some of the other stories they posted. Looks to me like more propaganda to get people pissed off at Muslims. keep garbage like this off ATS. You're just spreading hate.



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 09:03 PM
link   

marg6043
reply to post by boymonkey74
 


Yes, America was built with immigrants but none of them were jihadist, neither took tax dollars money and became dependent on the welfare system, all that came after.



Got any proof thatthe "Muslims" comming here are jihadist? Oh? You don't? That's right. I didn't think so.



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 10:08 PM
link   

neo96
So is it 'right' only when the Us government does it, and wrong when others do it ?

Nope, however you missed the larger point. That point being the blame cannot placed solely at one countries door. For every example you show for an argument against the US action / foreign policy there is an equal and opposite entity running their own foreign policy.

The situation in the ME has been a mess long before the US existed. The current partition was created after world war 2 and was the result of France and the UK. Prior to them it was the Ottomans... Prior to that etc etc etc.

In terms of legal or not legal we would need to defer to established law, both domestic and international, as opposed to a "guilty" verdict based on personal morals.

As for some of those on the list, you seem to be forgetting / ignoring that little thing called the cold war, where just about any nation on the planet could be swayed from one sphere to the other via clandestine support. While it does not excuse the actions, they occurred very frequently by ALL nations and not just the US.

The US supplied material / support to the Mujahideen as they were outgunned by Soviet technology. Once the soviets withdrew groups in Afghanistan wanted the US to back one group over the other in order to assist that group in controlling the country. The US said no and withdrew aid / support. That action is what turned Bin Laden off for the US. That we would support and then stop. He felt we should have backed one group over the others.

If you want to get technical the action by the Soviet Union violated law by invading Afghanistan. You seem to be ignoring that action, so again, stop dropping the argument on the doorstep of the US. The US is not the sole player, and when it comes to the world of arms and clandestine operations you will find all sorts of nations hands in the pot in one form or another.



neo96
I do have the high ground I haven't killed anyone which is more than what our government can say.

Creating instability around the world then 'offers' a 'helping hand'.


No sir, you don't have the moral high ground. The moral high ground cannot be seized via cherry picking your argument / actions of other nations.

Secondly, whether you think so or not, the Us government is in fact your government, regardless if you voted for them. Again cherry picking your morals argument is without base. More so if you take into account that operations we see in one country could easily have started many administrations prior.

Do I think the Us should play world cop? Nope.

However, if we fail to act when we see nation abusing its own people, at what point does inaction become silent support for those actions we disdain?

Not doing something when we can makes us no different than the government of the country in question who murders its own people for political expediency?

Regardless of thought, at the very basic / bottom level the US can at least state we made an attempt, whether that attempt worked or failed. I don't see many other nations able to make that claim. I always found it amusing watching some of the western countries take the US to task for trying to stop something while at the same time they made no attempt to stop the very action they criticize the US for.

So again there is no claiming of the moral high ground. If we act, it will be viewed as immoral. If we don't act, it will be viewed as immoral.

in case you forgot we live in a representative republic, which means the actions of the Us government are in fact being done in your name, no matter how you try to disassociate yourself with its actions. Failure to participate in government, especially when you are seeing injustice / illegal actions by elected officials, makes you a part of the very group you are accusing.

just food for thought.



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 10:16 PM
link   



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join