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 chapterhouse
The real kicker out of all this as it happens is that Rumfeld doent have immunity anymore and Bush jr facing arrest in Canada also.
If the world has a event that requires bunkers they better have there own. They wont get into a US bunker. =D
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by UniverSoul
I read once that Sagittarians have a way of making merry and throwing you up high in the air in all the fun, but they forget to catch you afterwards. You remind me of that. What happens when no one is using money and no one buys stuff anymore? Do we all just live off farms again and work the land to the bone like the pioneers? Do we build cabins in Montana? Bathe in Yellowstone river till it looks like the Ganges at the Millenium festival(I actually was there for that and I think I saw Sharon Stone with her bodyguards)? Do we build fires to keep warm like our ancestors did in the caves?
Also, what gives you the right to take food from shops? That sounds like pure anarchy and looting. Katrina style. It also reminds me of a book I just read, Pulitzer price winner called The Road and was made into a movie. But really it was the end of civilization.edit on 21-9-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by tienn93
stop arguing about violent or non violent, how about we try a big peaceful protest first ( i mean a big big one ) if that dont work. we will use option 2 which is fight . suggestion ?
Originally posted by SalientSkivvy
Originally posted by omarm1984
Originally posted by ARealandTrueAmerican
Originally posted by UniverSoul
reply to post by Swills
violence is the answer when it comes to ridding the world of the tyrany that controls it, becaus we all know tptb wont actually listen to peacefull protests. nothing good will come from it apart from raising awarness
we must fight
or we are going to loose our freedoms very soon
edit on 20-9-2011 by UniverSoul because: (no reason given)
Not too familiar with world history?
Violent revolutions only end up being as bad as those they overthrew.
what about the French and the American revolution?
Haha apparently those revolutions didn't accomplish anything..
Are you English or Canadian? In the US we spell defense with an "s".
Originally posted by UniverSoul
Originally posted by undo
^ look at that. he's telling us how to more effectively kill one another.
un-freakin-believable.
haha your an ideeeota mate
im saying that we only use violence if it is used on us. thats defence
if you can think of a better way to change the world please tell me
Originally posted by undo
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by UniverSoul
I read once that Sagittarians have a way of making merry and throwing you up high in the air in all the fun, but they forget to catch you afterwards. You remind me of that. What happens when no one is using money and no one buys stuff anymore? Do we all just live off farms again and work the land to the bone like the pioneers? Do we build cabins in Montana? Bathe in Yellowstone river till it looks like the Ganges at the Millenium festival(I actually was there for that and I think I saw Sharon Stone with her bodyguards)? Do we build fires to keep warm like our ancestors did in the caves?
Also, what gives you the right to take food from shops? That sounds like pure anarchy and looting. Katrina style. It also reminds me of a book I just read, Pulitzer price winner called The Road and was made into a movie. But really it was the end of civilization.edit on 21-9-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)
yeah he's talking about genocide, covertly cloaked in the guise of helping the people. "here ya go mates! kill each other! revolt. please!" white supremacists see this as their opportunity to shine, so do black supremacists. truth is, deck's already stacked against whitey, stacked up nice and high by the kind of propaganda that killed 40 million in russia and 6 million in germany and god knows how many in order to make china red. i think they ate their victims along the way so they wouldn't have to feed their armies, real food.
Originally posted by Swingline50022
Are you English or Canadian? In the US we spell defense with an "s".
Originally posted by UniverSoul
Originally posted by undo
^ look at that. he's telling us how to more effectively kill one another.
un-freakin-believable.
haha your an ideeeota mate
im saying that we only use violence if it is used on us. thats defence
if you can think of a better way to change the world please tell me
Originally posted by undo
Originally posted by tienn93
stop arguing about violent or non violent, how about we try a big peaceful protest first ( i mean a big big one ) if that dont work. we will use option 2 which is fight . suggestion ?
NO! a big peaceful army, waiting to go balllistic? are you that anxious to kill people?
what the hell is wrong with people?
Originally posted by UniverSoul
Originally posted by undo
Originally posted by tienn93
stop arguing about violent or non violent, how about we try a big peaceful protest first ( i mean a big big one ) if that dont work. we will use option 2 which is fight . suggestion ?
NO! a big peaceful army, waiting to go balllistic? are you that anxious to kill people?
what the hell is wrong with people?
everything your saying against us, is not what were saying its actually what the government your supporting is doing
Originally posted by Swingline50022
I agree with UniverSoul insofar as his assertion that violence should only be used if it's necessary for self defense. Whoever starts the violence first, protester or policeman, will also be the first to lose public support.
Losing public support is the LAST thing the protesters should want. Start a riot, and completely lose public credibility.
If there is going to be violence, let the police be the ones to start it. Then the blame will be on THEIR hands.
I'm also advocating non-violence. The protesters have stated their intention of staging a non-violent demonstration, and I completely support them in that. There has been no violence so far, and it's best to keep it that way if possible. In this demonstration the police have acted like cops but they've done nothing so extreme as to justify any kind of violence or self-defense.
Originally posted by undo
Originally posted by Swingline50022
I agree with UniverSoul insofar as his assertion that violence should only be used if it's necessary for self defense. Whoever starts the violence first, protester or policeman, will also be the first to lose public support.
Losing public support is the LAST thing the protesters should want. Start a riot, and completely lose public credibility.
If there is going to be violence, let the police be the ones to start it. Then the blame will be on THEIR hands.
AND just how do we know that it was really a police officer or that he wasn't in on it the whole time? then we can blame the "establishment" (which in this case are the american people because that's what these guys are calling for? they want us to kill each other. think think think, good grief, think
Originally posted by TechniXcality
This argument is fruitless. Either you agree with way things are and your helping the wheels spin. Or you dont, and if you dont do something.
nuff said.