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 michaelbrux
reply to post by dontreally
my theory is that every nation state exists to some degree within every other nation state.
so Syria, while it is an actual place that can be shown to exist on a map, as a concept, Syria, and every other nation, also exists in an abstract way within the United States.
perhaps Assad's Syria has determined that the only way it can survive what has befallen it is to conduct convert operations within the United States, in much the same way Gaddafi did when trying to save himself last year and also Saddam Hussein and bin Laden before that.
that gun control in the US was the reason for this makes no sense. Even if they could achieve such a goal as gun control in this land, it would still require a Constitutional amendment, which is certainly not forthcoming.
Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by michaelbrux
so what you are saying is that the US government would do something like this but the Syrian or Iranian government would not.
I have two issues with your logic. First, In AMERICA, it's more probable that an American intelligence agency is at work. In Iran - themselves a major sponsor of international terrorism (the recent Hezbollah hit on Israel tourists in Bulgaria, is an example of M/E intelligence agencies in other countries) it would e an Iranian agency (usually against political opponents) and likewise in Syria. So that's an axiom I think you should take more seriously; intelligence agencies generally (of course, not always) operate within their own countries.
Secondly, wheres the incentive? Why would Syria do this? Compared to the American incentive - to force controversial legislation against ownership of guns - any explanation you can muster in favor of Syrian involvement fails miserably.
and the reason for this is because the US government doesn't want the 270,000,000 privately owned firearms held by Americans to grow any larger. seems like too little too late if you ask me.
Rome wasn't built in a day. In order to CHANGE the political climate and thus the culture, you need to enact legislation. If legislation were passed denying Americans the right to own certain firearms, like AK's, M16's, Assault rifles, that right there would be a major blow on the ability of Americans to oppose the government - since that after all is the logic behind the 2nd amendment.
but, i suspect Syria used Holmes to launch a failed attack upon the United States for reason's known only to Assad and that sounds unreasonable?
Given the other possibilities 1) he was just sick, and acted alone with no government involvement or 2) he was used by an American intelligence agency .. yes, it is EXTREMELY unreasonable to tendentiously press this point.
It's nothing personal. I just don't think you have any reasonable argument in favor when there are two other - far more probable - explanations available.
Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by michaelbrux
so what you are saying is that the US government would do something like this but the Syrian or Iranian government would not.
I have two issues with your logic. First, In AMERICA, it's more probable that an American intelligence agency is at work. In Iran - themselves a major sponsor of international terrorism (the recent Hezbollah hit on Israel tourists in Bulgaria, is an example of M/E intelligence agencies in other countries) it would e an Iranian agency (usually against political opponents) and likewise in Syria. So that's an axiom I think you should take more seriously; intelligence agencies generally (of course, not always) operate within their own countries.
Secondly, wheres the incentive? Why would Syria do this? Compared to the American incentive - to force controversial legislation against ownership of guns - any explanation you can muster in favor of Syrian involvement fails miserably.
and the reason for this is because the US government doesn't want the 270,000,000 privately owned firearms held by Americans to grow any larger. seems like too little too late if you ask me.
Rome wasn't built in a day. In order to CHANGE the political climate and thus the culture, you need to enact legislation. If legislation were passed denying Americans the right to own certain firearms, like AK's, M16's, Assault rifles, that right there would be a major blow on the ability of Americans to oppose the government - since that after all is the logic behind the 2nd amendment.
but, i suspect Syria used Holmes to launch a failed attack upon the United States for reason's known only to Assad and that sounds unreasonable?
Given the other possibilities 1) he was just sick, and acted alone with no government involvement or 2) he was used by an American intelligence agency .. yes, it is EXTREMELY unreasonable to tendentiously press this point.
It's nothing personal. I just don't think you have any reasonable argument in favor when there are two other - far more probable - explanations available.
I have issues with the gun control argument. Domestic weapons are akin to knives and spears vs military might. If they need us to not have weapons, it's for a different reason other than some false idea that those weapons could impede what ever it is they would wish to achieve
I still disagree. I don't see it as plausible that the American people need weapons to stand against their government.
The American government is in control of Americans; and the Holmes attack was directed against both the people and their government.
the attack is obviously in service to foreign interests, not American.
no offense, but you seem to be lacking a great deal of understanding with regards to the American system.
or if he belongs to a newer faction that wasn't expected to gain prominence.
These timeline thing I mention isn't really as complex as it sounds, basically just think of a plan to go on vacation to Hawaii this winter, that's your timeline that you chose, but then something changes it. The multiverse is built to store all the possible futures, so there is going to be another timeline where you did make your trip. It doesn't sound that important, but it is what allows us to have free will, the fact that we don't have to be stuck in a deterministic world. Okay, well it does get kind of complicated, actually. Sorry about that.
Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by Bilk22
I have issues with the gun control argument. Domestic weapons are akin to knives and spears vs military might. If they need us to not have weapons, it's for a different reason other than some false idea that those weapons could impede what ever it is they would wish to achieve
Sniper rifles, m16s, assault rifles are NOT in no way shape or form "akin to knives and spears". If that is how you are going to argue, theres no point in talking with you.
"By contrast, when convicted would-be subway bomber Najibullah Zazi emailed a contact in Pakistan who was under U.S. surveillance for ties to terrorism, an FBI agent near Zazi knew within hours. That agent’s home? Aurora, Colorado."
Geneva, 18 September 2008. After a spectacular start on 10 September, the LHC enjoyed a mixed first week of commissioning with beam. To get beams around the ring in both directions on the first day exceeded all expectations, and the success continued through the night, with several hundred orbits being achieved.