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.
originally posted by: combatmaster
originally posted by: Gianfar
originally posted by: combatmaster
originally posted by: Gianfar
originally posted by: combatmaster
originally posted by: minkmouse
If you took over my house and forced me to live in the cellar because a book of fairy tales you showed me said the house was promised to you by someone on page five hundred and twelve, I'd be miffed! I'd probably burn the whole house down!
Good analogy...
But what if it wasnt your house to begin with, and you were just squating there! what then?
I'm a little confused by your statement, are you referring to the Israeli Jews squatting on Arab land?
Not arab land.... ottoman, british mandate after that... the people residing there didnt really own it per say. the empire did!
The Ottomans and Brits were foreign occupiers who may have exercised some control over lands and populations
and the french? does this mean you believe that jordan isnt a sovereign state either since it was literally invented by tptb, the same powers that won ww1?
and regardless, if it was not their land.... then please tell me, which sovereign entity had a right to that land then?
originally posted by: combatmaster
a reply to: Gianfar
Go to israel... youll get your answer!
originally posted by: smithjustinb
a reply to: zysin5
One word- Destabilization.
There's no conspiracy. This is just foreign policy common sense.
originally posted by: zysin5
originally posted by: smithjustinb
a reply to: zysin5
One word- Destabilization.
There's no conspiracy. This is just foreign policy common sense.
Indeed, destabilization.
Lets just hope our weapons do not end up in ISIS hands.
Oh wait, they already have.
No conspiracy? Strange. Sure does have all the hallmarks of a good conspiracy. And not common sense policy.
unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.
originally posted by: zysin5
a reply to: smithjustinb
Let me make the word "conspiracy" clear for you.
unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.
Source
I like how you say it was merely an accident. In your own words, you said it was part of common sense policy.
Which means at some point. It was a plan formulated in secret by those in charge.
Its NOT a conspiracy theory.
It is a conspiracy. IN your own words. You said Destabilization. That was an unlawful act. At some point planned in secret in our past. It is a CRIME to ARM such terrorist. Or are you going to defend the terrorists? I didn't think so.
Look up the definition for yourself. You seem to toss around the word conspiracy as it is only for paranoid people wearing tin foil hats.
Without going off topic, or further non sense.
I will however admit. I am clearly ignorant
Taking sides. Seems to be your MO.
I can't and won't try to make you see things in any other light than you see it. Clearly you are set in your ways. And welcome to spew what ever ignorance you please here. It is your right.
But clearly, it is a conspiracy. NOT a conspiracy theory.
It’s not just the hundreds of thousands of members in the alternative media community that are pointing out the dangers to liberty posed by government’s anti-terror legislation. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), like his father Dr. Ron Paul (R-TX), puts the platitudes and pointless bickering aside to tackle the real issues – the underlying fundamental issues that threaten our very way of life. In this speech calling for the removal of the detainee provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act, Senator Paul highlights, in surprising detail, activities that are now considered by Homeland security and law enforcement to be suspicious and potentially terroristic in nature:
Yes. Please continue.
originally posted by: zysin5
a reply to: smithjustinb
Let me make the word "conspiracy" clear for you.
unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.
Source
I like how you say it was merely an accident. In your own words, you said it was part of common sense policy.
Which means at some point. It was a plan formulated in secret by those in charge.
Its NOT a conspiracy theory.
It is a conspiracy. IN your own words. You said Destabilization. That was an unlawful act. At some point planned in secret in our past. It is a CRIME to ARM such terrorist. Or are you going to defend the terrorists? I didn't think so.
Look up the definition for yourself. You seem to toss around the word conspiracy as it is only for paranoid people wearing tin foil hats.
Without going off topic, or further non sense. I will leave you to your thoughts.
I will however admit. I am clearly ignorant of the truth to what is really going on. As are you, as are so many who "think" they know what is going on.
Taking sides. Seems to be your MO.
I can't and won't try to make you see things in any other light than you see it. Clearly you are set in your ways. And welcome to spew what ever ignorance you please here. It is your right.
But clearly, it is a conspiracy. NOT a conspiracy theory.