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: 6
26
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 10:18 PM
link   

CirqueDeTruth
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


Well, every single event that happens is classed a "false flag" event by CTer's. Every single one! Colorado, Sandy Hook, Boston, 911 - all of it false flag happenings that didn't happen.

But that doesn't make the horror or the carnage of the events not happen! Runners and spectators did die at that marathon, children did die at that school. People did die in that theater. It also doesn't mean the government was responsible for any of these events.

I would also include the assassination of JFK.

The official stories of the events you mentioned are suspicious at best and complete BS at worst. What would you have people do, ignore obvious lies and or inconsistencies?

Unless you witnessed it first hand, you dont know anything. You know what youre told or shown.

Operation Northwoods.


At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases.

The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone [a remotely controlled unmanned aircraft]. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida.

From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Elgin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status.




posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Aloysius the Gaul

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!!


To add to your response to boymonkey74 - Prior to the US being a nation did the Europeans not slaughter a few million Native Americans during their expansion? Did we not compound that mess by trying to "civilize" Native Americans? Should we go down the religious aspect in terms of telling the Native Americans to convert or die?

Should we take a look at the Salem witch trials?
How about the Ku Klux Klan?
How about those good Christians, whose religion prohibits them from murder, that will blow up clinics that perform abortion and murder the doctor (regardless of religious background of the Doctor / patients)? Nothing forced there right?

Based on your logic I am guessing you would call the inquisitions nothing more than tough love for heretics.

Before you make the claim none were jihadists you need to understand 3 things -
First off - Jihad does not mean holy war - It means struggle, so please use it correctly.
Secondly - Before you attempt to seize the moral high ground as well by claiming the immigrants were not "jihadists", you should probably understand how that immigration occurred and what the ramifications were to the Native Americans to start out with. Then we can move into slavery, civil rights, etc.
Third - Islam actually prohibits the killing of non combatants / women and children. It prohibits suicide. It prevents sharia law from being applied to non Muslims. It prohibits the forced conversion of a person to Islam, as the choice to embrace Allah must be done freely.

By ignoring those facts, we are taking a religion and generalizing it and its followers when in fact small groups or moronic fanatics are giving the entire religion a bad name. Before you try and argue that point, make sure you read up on your bible, because it contains just as many religious directives in terms of killing people for stupid things.

Because none of those actions ever occurred because of religious grounds... right?

/end sarcasm.


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

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



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Xcathdra

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.



Whaa...?

Do you want to take a second crack at that?



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Leonidas

Xcathdra

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.



Whaa...?

Do you want to take a second crack at that?


Nope - read up on the Palestine mandate...
What ME territories were controlled by what nations prior to the onset of WWII?
What ME territories were controlled by what nation after WWII?
How did Israel come into existence? Ill give you a hint - Great Britain.
Who controlled Syria? - A hint - France.

How did the Ottoman Empire lose its ME territories? Again a hint - They lost in WWI.

Or is there some other issue you have that I am missing?
edit on 23-1-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


This is a very though provoking post Xcathdra.

It's the first in the thread to give my own stance and feelings pause and sit back and consider what my position represents and say's about me personally. In all honesty, I want those refugee's safe. I really do. I want all of our American soldiers home and safe to. I don't want anyone to die anymore, or any wars to continue. Relocate them. But why to a western society? When half the other world is of closer and more compatible ways to their culture?

Here's the thing. I'm scared. I am scared of Islam. I can't be more honest than that and I know there's a phobia attached to that and I'm okay with it and will own it. I fear Islam. When I study it, read the tenets, my knees shake, my lips tremble, and I cry. Deep down, what they teach is total world domination. That's their projected end game. Oppression of women. Slavery. If you do not covert, your infidel, lesser than them. Christianity and Judaism is of the same cloth. I fear them all and I do not believe war will ever end ... until there is only one.

CdT



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Double Post.

Apologies.

CdT


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



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



UN 181 was in 1947. What date are you using for when the United States "existed"?

Don't dispute your assertion that Britain was the driving force behind post WWI division of the Ottoman empire into the map most people are familiar with.



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 10:40 PM
link   
Just a few quick questions. If the US has a moral duty to take in the refugees (assuming they're not terrorists) because they are in imminent danger of death, starvation, wars, and being defriended, what is our moral obligation for taking in people from Mexico?

How dire must the person's peril be, before we take them in as refugees? And if we are to provide services for refugees, shouldn't we keep space and welfare more available for them by deporting illegals? Do we have a moral obligation to uphold our immigration laws?



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 





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.


Alright then lets switch up the names:

Let's say Russia started arming the Tea Party in this country.

Gave them ak-47s,RPGS, T-90s, Hind helicopters to fight their 'oppressive government'.

That legal ?

Which would create thousands of 'refugees' fleeing north of the border.

Didn't think the world needs a law for common decency.



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Leonidas
 


The day the Crown gave up the fight and surrendered to the colonists - late 1700's, depending on whether you go with the first setup of government or the final version we ended up with - 1770's-1790's +/-. Prior to that the US did not exist and was an extension of the British Empire / French Empire / Spanish Empire.



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by CirqueDeTruth
 


Dont be afraid of Islam or Muslims. Extremist Muslims are to Islam as the KKK is to Christianity. There are 100's of millions of them living peacefully.

Organized religion is a drag on society and democratic society in general. All of them.



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


The answer depends on what country you are fleeing from and what your reason for requesting asylum is. There is no real one immigration law for all when it comes to asylum / refugee requests.

Basic List -
Religious persecution
Political persecution
Criminal persecution / retribution.
Stability of the originating country
Current relations with the originating country.

Our immigration / refugee policy towards Cuba is different than that of Mexico is different than that of Syria.

As for people making the criminal argument towards Syrian refugee's - Please keep in mind they are innocent until they violate a law and are proved guilty in a court of law.

By trying to play the paranoia game, we are chipping away at our own rights. The government is doing a bang up job at chipping away our rights. Lets not help them in the process...



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I read your original post wrong, I thought you were saying that America was founded after WW2...lol

Hence my "Wha...?"



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 10:56 PM
link   

neo96
Alright then lets switch up the names:

Let's say Russia started arming the Tea Party in this country.

Gave them ak-47s,RPGS, T-90s, Hind helicopters to fight their 'oppressive government'.

That legal ?


From a Russian standpoint absolutely.
From a US standpoint absolutely not.

Changing the names wont change the outcome of the question in general. Also, trying to compare apples to zebras doesn't work either. You are leaving out those pesky things like politics / government type / how long that government has been in existence (stability).

However, the US is not arming the Russian opposition party no more than the Russians are arming the Tea Party.
The examples you gave revolved around a nation with 3rd party involvement by 2 other nations.
The Us armed Turkey during the cold war and the Soviets armed Cuba.

No one nation can claim a moral high ground.

We can look at the Georgia conflict...
South Ossetia...

The recent issues in Ukraine...



neo96
Which would create thousands of 'refugees' fleeing north of the border.

Didn't think the world needs a law for common decency.

and Canada can either accept the refugees or they can seal the border and prevent entrance. They can place them in refugee camps to process into other nations who will accept them (as we are apparently doing with Syria).

the reason for that is because surrounding countries of Syria are maxed on refugee's. Turkey, Jordan they both had a very large influx.

That leaves Iran, who sided with the Syrian government. So if you are a refugee because you don't support Assad you wont be going to Iran.

Iraq is trying, but are screwed with there recent security issues and don't have the needed resources to care for large quantities of people.

Lebanon is a no go simply because of how fragmented the government there is while also taking into account Syria essentially occupied / ran Syria until recently via proxy.

I don't see people fleeing en masse to Israel...

Turkey is maxed..

Where do we go from there? What countries have the resources available for an influx of 30k people?



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Leonidas
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I read your original post wrong, I thought you were saying that America was founded after WW2...lol

Hence my "Wha...?"


No worries.. It happens.

what's worse is when 2 threads on different topics somehow pick up the same conversation on a mutual topic. Ive had those days where I responded in the wrong threads, confusing the hell out of myself and the other posters.

Does the US have responsibility for issues in the ME? Absolutely.
Are we the sole country responsible for the mess in the ME? Nope.

That was my point.. sorry bout the confusion.



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 11:05 PM
link   
One other question to all on the off chance I just missed it.

Did the OP ever explain the whole Constitutional Rights being stripped away from the pilots comment?



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 





Changing the names wont change the outcome of the question in general. Also, trying to compare apples to zebras doesn't work either.


No it is the same thing.




You are leaving out those pesky things like politics / government type / how long that government has been in existence (stability).


And ?

Governments do what they do regardless of politics.




However, the US is not arming the Russian opposition party no more than the Russians are arming the Tea Party.


We were through 'allies' in the middle east and the EU, and arms dealers.

Lord of War comes to mind when a 'government' want the appearance of clean hands.




The examples you gave revolved around a nation with 3rd party involvement by 2 other nations.


We were the 3rd nation in an AB conversation.

We have a historical track record of doing that.




he Us armed Turkey during the cold war and the Soviets armed Cuba.


We shouldn't be arming anyone. Because theres where that politics comes in to play.

Our government denies us those dangerous weapons, but has no quams giving them, and worse to any so called 'friend' of the day.





Where do we go from there? What countries have the resources available for an influx of 30k people?


Stop interfering with internal matters of other countries.

Which creates refugees.

Other countries internal matters are not our problem.

Our problem is the idiots in DC making them our problem under the false delusion of 'it's right'.
edit on 23-1-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 11:10 PM
link   

CaticusMaximus

Human0815

And there is no reason to be scared because of the Word
"Muslim"!


But of course. Ignorant Americans... dont they know that Islam is the "religion of peace"?



I certainly wouldn't categorize Islam as the religion of peace however anyone with half a brain wouldn't call Christianity a religion of peace either so what we are left with is human beings on all sides where some are good and, some are bad to claim anything different would be a lie.
edit on 23-1-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 11:23 PM
link   
What a map of American Ancestry looks like:

i.dailymail.co.uk...

Source of the data behind the map:

www.census.gov...

Pretty much every single identifiable group represented on that map and in the census data above suffered from persecution, segregation and prejudice.

It is the 21st century. When will reasoned intellect take the place of ignorance and fear?



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 11:37 PM
link   

CirqueDeTruth
This is a very though provoking post Xcathdra.

It's the first in the thread to give my own stance and feelings pause and sit back and consider what my position represents and say's about me personally. In all honesty, I want those refugee's safe. I really do. I want all of our American soldiers home and safe to. I don't want anyone to die anymore, or any wars to continue. Relocate them. But why to a western society? When half the other world is of closer and more compatible ways to their culture?


Where else could they be sent to? Just because a nation is closer to the issue at hand does not mean they are going to accept refugees. The reasons are going to be the same people in here are talking about. The reasons are completely valid, while at the same time invalid if that makes sense.

The United States, while far from the immediate area, is unique (in my opinion) in that our country prided itself on taking people in, regardless of where they came from. The Us has a bad rep in the ME and for good reason. However, how can the US lay claim to being a beacon of hope, land of opportunity, send us your poor huddled masses, if in the end, we ignore those very principles that formed our nation simply because we are scared of what might happen should that many refugees from that part of the world with that specific of a religion come here?

If the US is going to lead, then we will have to do it by example.

Absent that we will have lost what little moral fibers we have left. Its impossible to lead when we deny the very opportunities to a group of people who need just that - opportunity. Its impossible to lead when we espouse how great the US is only to deny the very thing that made the US what it is.



CirqueDeTruth
Here's the thing. I'm scared. I am scared of Islam. I can't be more honest than that and I know there's a phobia attached to that and I'm okay with it and will own it. I fear Islam. When I study it, read the tenets, my knees shake, my lips tremble, and I cry. Deep down, what they teach is total world domination. That's their projected end game. Oppression of women. Slavery. If you do not covert, your infidel, lesser than them. Christianity and Judaism is of the same cloth. I fear them all and I do not believe war will ever end ... until there is only one.

CdT



Being scared is normal and acceptable. It takes time to understand a culture / religion when we arent exposed to it on a daily basis. Until 9/11 we only watched events in the Me on tv and rarely did it concern Islam. After 9/11 we witnessed it first hand. Not only did we witness it, we were introduced to a fundamentalist / radicalized group of people who laid claim to a religion while defiling the same religion by their actions.

The 99.95% of Islam is in fact peaceful. While there religious doctrine discusses some of the things we hear about, people lose sight of the fact that Christianity / Judaism doctrines have the very same issues. While I know its a tv show, I think it drives home the point -




There is nothing wrong with a religion that requires men to have beards or for females to wear burquas. It only becomes a problem when non compliance becomes a crime against the state.

The other ting about Islam is the fact its more than just a religion. It is a way of life / government as well. While the Vatican is a nation state and runs its government based on Catholic doctrine, the religion has moved beyond imposing its views in a forceful manner (don't get me wrong - the inquisitions etc are a stain).

Personally speaking I have taken the time to learn about Islam and to ask people who are Muslims about it. I still have yet to experience any hatred towards me for not being Muslim. I have not had any Muslims threaten me when I ask questions and challenge some of their beliefs viewpoints. I don't do it to pick a fight I do it because its the only way I found to seek the answers I was looking for.

Should we be scared of Islam? Personally no because the people doing the things that scare the hell out of us in the name of Islam are an extreme element that does not reflect the thought of the whole. The best way I found to move beyond scared is to simply ask questions.

Do you think a Muslim would take offense to a person who wishes to understand their religion and what It stands for asking questions about it? To be honest I would think they would be downright surprised simply because of how they are being portrayed as a whole, instead of focusing on the elements that hijacked it.

2 more videos to help - From an awesome segment called "What would you do". The premise behind the show is to take a social issue and to put that issue on display in public to see how people will act when confronted with racial / religious bigotry. The person being discriminated against and the person doing the discriminating are actors and they take real life situations and explore them.
The results gave me hope -





Are there evil people in the world? Sure are.
Can those people kill? Sure can.

However, when we take action based on Paranoia, resulting in people being denied rights / discriminated against, then those people who hijack the religion won the battle simply because we gave in.

Ill take the risk of being killed over the erosion of individual rights based on paranoia.

that's just me though..
edit on 24-1-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join