Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696

    High Treason in the White House: Obama Gave Away More Than Just Terrorists

    High Treason in the White House: Obama Gave Away More Than Just Terrorists

    in News, Videos / by Brandon Walker / on June 10, 2014 at 12:28 pm /

    If you think that the releasing 5 dangerous terrorists indicates high treason in the White House, you haven’t seen nothing yet. As it turns out, it isn’t just terrorists and human assets that he gave them.
    “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” ~Article III, US Constitution
    You might have seen Judge Napolitano making a strong argument that the President of the United States committed high treason and violated the law by giving assets to the enemy in the way of human assets. Turns out that isn’t all that he gave the Taliban and Al Queda.
    According to the New York Daily Post:
    Military records and sources reveal that on July 25, 2012, Taliban fighters in Kunar province successfully targeted a US Army CH-47 helicopter with a new generation Stinger missile.
    They thought they had a surefire kill. But instead of bursting into flames, the Chinook just disappeared into the darkness as the American pilot recovered control of the aircraft and brought it to the ground in a hard landing.
    The assault team jumped out the open doors and ran clear in case it exploded. Less than 30 seconds later, the Taliban gunner and his comrade erupted into flames as an American gunship overhead locked onto their position and opened fire.
    The next day, an explosive ordnance disposal team arrived to pick through the wreckage and found unexploded pieces of a missile casing that could only belong to a Stinger missile. ~New York Post
    Well, investigations do take time. The only thing they had to go on was one fragment of the missile with the serial number. Combing through the archives, they finally tracked down who gave them the missile. It isn’t pretty. It seems that the missile was given to the Taliban to be used on us by none other than the US State Department!
    My sources in the US Special Operations community believe the Stinger fired against the Chinook was part of the same lot the CIA turned over to the *Qataris in early 2011, weapons Hillary Rodham Clinton’s State Department intended for anti-Khadafy forces in Libya. ~New York Post
    While we would love to pin high treason all on Hillary, it seems we need to spread the love. She is no longer the Secretary of State, since John Kerry took over that role.
    They believe the Qataris delivered between 50 and 60 of those same Stingers to the Taliban in early 2012, and an additional 200 SA-24 Igla-S surface-to-air missiles. ~New York Post
    And why should the Taliban have all the fun? It seems they are spreading the love to Al Queda… you know… the terrorist organization we have been fighting since the Twin Towers?




    And here’s some more love from PressTV:
    On Monday, Israel’s Debkafile website reported that two Syrian militant groups have been supplied with advanced US weapons, including armor-piercing, optically-guided BGM-71 TOW missiles, thanks to the Pentagon.
    Images of militants equipped with the advanced arms have begun to circulate online in recent days.
    Syrian troops have been confiscating foreign weapons from the militants on a regular basis.
    According to the Debkafile’s report, the US Joint Chiefs of Staff recently told Israeli officials that Saudi Arabia’s fighter jets would provide air cover as American forces move the weapons into southern Syria.
    Last month, the US media reported that President Barack Obama and Saudi King Abdullah appeared to narrow their disagreement on assisting Syrian militants.
    However, US official have acknowledged that the Obama administration policies in Syria have been a failure as the Syrian army continues its mop-up operations, tightening the noose around the militants in several areas across the country.
    Foreign-sponsored Takfiri groups have been behind many of deadly bomb attacks targeting both civilians and government institutions across the Arab country over the past three years. ~Press TV
    Here’s another video clip to make you sick:


    If anyone paid attention to the President’s West Point speech, Obama wants to send our special forces to train the Syrian Rebels. Did anyone not pay attention that the Syrian Moderate Rebels are primarily made up of ISIS and Al Queda? Has anyone not paid attention to the definition of terrorist organizations from the UN and the US Congress? The Taliban, ISIS, and Al Queda are all three on the Interpol terrorist watch list and are not legitimate governments. They kill Christians, Jews, Americans, reporters, other Muslims, and promote terror.

    Article III is very clear on treason; if you give weapons, aide, and comfort to our enemies and help them war against the US, you have committed high treason. My question is: Since there is evidence he usurped the position (Commander in Chief in title only), and there is ample evidence of treason, why hasn’t the Military and the Pentagon moved in to stop the madness?

    http://madworldnews.com/high-treason...st-terrorists/
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  2. #2
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Iraq Would Not Have An Al-Qaeda Problem If the State Allowed Citizens to be Armed

    The state cannot protect individuals from al-Qaeda or any other violent threat

    by Kurt Nimmo | Infowars.com | June 11, 2014


    Jihadist thugs wouldn’t be walking the streets of Mosul if Iraqis were allowed to arm and protect themselves. Photo: Wikimedia Commons

    Nuri al-Maliki, the Bush neocon choice to run post-invasion Iraq, is offering citizens weapons to fight al-Qaeda affiliate the Islamic State in Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS).
    The terrorist group has taken control of Mosul and is moving on other areas of the northern Iraq province of Nineveh, including Hawijah, Zab, Riyadh, Abbasi, Rashad and Yankaja.
    Army officers told Reuters their troops are demoralized and no match for ISIS jihadists.
    Appearing on national television, al-Malaki said the government has “created a special crisis cell to follow up on the process of volunteering and equipping and arming.”
    The Prime Minister’s cabinet “praises the willingness of the citizens and the sons of the tribes to volunteer and carry weapons… to defend the homeland and defeat terrorism,” he said.
    Malaki’s address reveals how the modern state operates when faced with a serious challenge. Under normal conditions a government will strive to make certain individuals are disarmed and unable to defend themselves.
    Armed citizens, particularly in a political and social hellhole like Iraq (courtesy of the United States), are considered a threat to the state, especially if they are politically organized. The state will do whatever it can by any means necessary to ensure its monopoly of violence.
    But if the state faces the prospect of losing its power and monopoly of violence, as the government in Baghdad now does, it will allow citizens-subjects to take up arms temporarily. It will also directly appeal to their sense of nationalism or, in the case of the average Iraqi, his tribalism. It will then demand sacrifice for the preservation of the state.
    The question is, if the citizens of northern Iraq successfully drive out al-Qaeda will they be told to turn over their weapons to the state and, if demanded to do so, will they comply?
    The average Iraqi may rightfully conclude if he had firearms in the first place, it would have been far more difficult, even impossible, for al-Qaeda to have taken over Mosul and other cities.
    There is a lesson for liberals in the West. It is really quite simple: The state cannot and will not protect you. The police have admitted as much. Be it threats posed by al-Qaeda or a predatory criminal element, individuals are responsible for their own defense. The state will only protect its own interests.

    http://www.infowars.com/iraq-would-n...s-to-be-armed/
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  3. #3
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    this is the direct consequence of the United States disarming the citizens and simultaneously arming the F' out of al-Qaeda

    the Slaughter of the populace (courtesy of the United States)
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

Similar Threads

  1. White House Counterterror Chief: “Confrontational” Children Could be Terrorists
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-22-2014, 04:48 AM
  2. The White House’s Visas-for-Terrorists Program
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-23-2013, 06:33 AM
  3. Obama’s Egyptian Buddies Prove He’s Guilty of High Treason!
    By kathyet2 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-15-2013, 12:20 PM
  4. Military Must Fire on American Civilians OBAMA High Treason!
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-05-2013, 04:37 PM
  5. Obama's High Treason!
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-15-2012, 04:13 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •