-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Drugging The Troops
- Thread starter poncho
- Start date
I actually started wondering about this several years ago when a family member came home a completely different person. It took a couple years of erratic behavior before he returned to something resembling his former personality. Since then, we've witnessed strange, but similar symptoms in other family and friends who toured overseas. Something is very, very wrong here, and it cannot be denied as just a conspiracy theory. There's just too much evidence that something more is happening besides "battle fatigue" or PTSD.
Our troops and their families need our prayers now more than ever.
Our troops and their families need our prayers now more than ever.
Sapper Woody
Well-Known Member
I clicked the Google link. I can't attest to the validity of the third story down about stimulants, but the first two links are absolute garbage with no truth. No one sends someone on a mission on percacet. That's retarded.
Careful using that word, some folks around here have nothing better to do than to harass you about its use.
The first link is from infowars (Alex Jones) so I automatically read other links as well. Jones tends towards sensationalism to the nth degree. That doesn't mean a problem doesn't exist, though.
I'd like to see a study on the effects of all the nasal sprays and vaccinations our troops are required to take. What are they putting in their bodies and what results happen over time. What are they being exposed to that might cause problems later, etc. Remember Agent Orange. . .
poncho
Well-Known Member
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNqIrDKnNE8
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/21/w...m-cultivation-rose-in-2012-un-says.html?_r=1&
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/04/21/us/afghanistan-soldier-drug-overdoses/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
http://www.michaelshouse.com/featured-articles/drug-use-military/
http://www.michaelshouse.com/featured-articles/drug-use-military/
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/09/troops-popping-anxiety-depression-meds-like-never-before/
http://www.toxicpsychiatry.com/storage/Military%20why%20are%20we%20dr...
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/11/ap-military-suicides-out-of-con...
http://www.mensjournal.com/magazine/in-this-issue-the-militarys-billi...
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2013/03/ap-report-says-suicide-danger-t...
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/02/17148761-why-modern-soldie...
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57563857/u.s-military-suicides-ex...
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2004/01/29/Army-wo...
http://www.stripes.com/blogs/stripes-central/stripes-central-1.8040/s...
http://www.prweb.com/releases/psychiatricdrugssuicide/10/prweb1000132...
http://gunowners.org/ne0713.htm
That's odd Sapper. You said there is not a word of truth in the first link yet I found all these links from some pretty reputable sources in that first link. So for your statement to be true all these sources would have to be lying. Is that about right?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/21/w...m-cultivation-rose-in-2012-un-says.html?_r=1&
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/04/21/us/afghanistan-soldier-drug-overdoses/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
http://www.michaelshouse.com/featured-articles/drug-use-military/
http://www.michaelshouse.com/featured-articles/drug-use-military/
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/09/troops-popping-anxiety-depression-meds-like-never-before/
http://www.toxicpsychiatry.com/storage/Military%20why%20are%20we%20dr...
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/11/ap-military-suicides-out-of-con...
http://www.mensjournal.com/magazine/in-this-issue-the-militarys-billi...
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2013/03/ap-report-says-suicide-danger-t...
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/02/17148761-why-modern-soldie...
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57563857/u.s-military-suicides-ex...
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2004/01/29/Army-wo...
http://www.stripes.com/blogs/stripes-central/stripes-central-1.8040/s...
http://www.prweb.com/releases/psychiatricdrugssuicide/10/prweb1000132...
http://gunowners.org/ne0713.htm
That's odd Sapper. You said there is not a word of truth in the first link yet I found all these links from some pretty reputable sources in that first link. So for your statement to be true all these sources would have to be lying. Is that about right?
Last edited by a moderator:
Sapper Woody
Well-Known Member
OK, I am in the middle of a field problem on my phone, and didn't have time to elaborate. I figured that instead of nit-picking my grammar, my point would get across.
I've been in for almost 6 years. Well past 25% of the way to retirement. I've been deployed for 24 months in the past 5 years. Point is, I know a thing or two about how the army operates.
No one is going to send a soldier out on a mission while under the influence of a drug. And no one is forcing soldiers to take drugs against their will. To believe or say such is just rubbish.
Now, is medication use on the rise? Yes. But are soldiers being forced to take meds? No.
I've been in for almost 6 years. Well past 25% of the way to retirement. I've been deployed for 24 months in the past 5 years. Point is, I know a thing or two about how the army operates.
No one is going to send a soldier out on a mission while under the influence of a drug. And no one is forcing soldiers to take drugs against their will. To believe or say such is just rubbish.
Now, is medication use on the rise? Yes. But are soldiers being forced to take meds? No.
Sapper Woody
Well-Known Member
I am going to refrain from discussing this issue further until I am in a place where I can plan out my words more carefully, instead of rushing to post, so that my point can't be lost via the sharpshooting of my words.
Why would someone google that in the first place?
poncho
Well-Known Member
Curiosity and to find information. Isn't that why everyone uses search engines?
I was thinking the same thing.
poncho
Well-Known Member
Of course you were. Corporate programing is very effective.
Just keep waving the flag and paying your taxes . . . Washington's Al Qaeda warriors need heavier weaponry and an expensive new NATO no fly zone to defeat Al Assad. Hey all that takes money. Your money.
You do support the troops right?
Last edited by a moderator:
Corporate programming??? That’s absurd. It must have been all the drugs they secretly slipped me.
And of course I support the troops, I am one - not an actual troop, that's more than one - but you get the drift.
Because it’s free – what a deal (provided you have internet access). Never mind if it has value equal to this thread – it’s fun and it’s also the best way to learn about aliens and where exactly Elvis went after his staged death in 1977.
poncho
Well-Known Member
Yeah corporate programing. What ya get from watching a life time of corporate programing . . . on tv.
Slipping to you secretly? Why when they can slip them to with your permission? We're being openly poisoned with food additives and chemicals dumped into our water supply everyday. And we all know about it and more than a few of us just accept it as normal. I don't.
You do understand that Al Qaeda is being funded and trained by Washington right? That would make them in a certain sense "our troops" as well wouldn't it?
I think we’re talking about different things – I was under the assumption that this was about drugging the troops (I just assumed you were saying – as per the links – that you were discussing American troops and not Al Qaeda).
But to answer your question – no, being funded and trained by the US would not make them “our troops” as they would not fall under “our” authority or jurisdiction. Likewise, when the US funds other nations, assists in rebuilding, training, etc., that nation maintains its sovereign status and is not considered to be a territory of the US. It may be an interesting discussion – perhaps you should start a thread on that subject.
But to answer your question – no, being funded and trained by the US would not make them “our troops” as they would not fall under “our” authority or jurisdiction. Likewise, when the US funds other nations, assists in rebuilding, training, etc., that nation maintains its sovereign status and is not considered to be a territory of the US. It may be an interesting discussion – perhaps you should start a thread on that subject.
poncho
Well-Known Member
Yeah right.
The Orders are exercised pursuant to the Iraqi interim constitution, the Transitional Administration Law (TAL). The Annex to the TAL states that the Orders can only be overturned with the approval of the president, the two vice presidents and a majority of the ministers.
But the Annex also denies the interim government from taking "any actions affecting Iraq 's destiny" beyond the election of an Iraqi government. The identical sentence appears in UN Security Council Resolution 1546, which outlines Iraq's transition to "sovereignty." Thus, while Allawi may succeed in overturning a few less far-reaching Orders if for no other reason than to demonstrate his independence from the Americans, it is beyond his authority to change any fundamental laws.
CONTINUE . . .
Here's the definition of sovereign. so you can compare it to the situation in Iraq.
One that exercises supreme, permanent authority, especially in a nation or other governmental unit, as:
Hmm. Looks like Iraq is now a vassal state controlled by foreign banking and corporate interests. AKA, the New World Order.
That's not sovereignty. That's slavery. But you can go right on claiming Iraq is a sovereign nation if it makes you feel better.
America is now a vassal state controlled by foreign banking and corporate interests. Why should Iraq or Libya be any different?
What was the first thing our Al Qaeda allies in Libya did even before taking the capital city? They set up a foreign controlled central bank! Google it.
The Orders are exercised pursuant to the Iraqi interim constitution, the Transitional Administration Law (TAL). The Annex to the TAL states that the Orders can only be overturned with the approval of the president, the two vice presidents and a majority of the ministers.
But the Annex also denies the interim government from taking "any actions affecting Iraq 's destiny" beyond the election of an Iraqi government. The identical sentence appears in UN Security Council Resolution 1546, which outlines Iraq's transition to "sovereignty." Thus, while Allawi may succeed in overturning a few less far-reaching Orders if for no other reason than to demonstrate his independence from the Americans, it is beyond his authority to change any fundamental laws.
CONTINUE . . .
Here's the definition of sovereign. so you can compare it to the situation in Iraq.
One that exercises supreme, permanent authority, especially in a nation or other governmental unit, as:
Hmm. Looks like Iraq is now a vassal state controlled by foreign banking and corporate interests. AKA, the New World Order.
That's not sovereignty. That's slavery. But you can go right on claiming Iraq is a sovereign nation if it makes you feel better.
America is now a vassal state controlled by foreign banking and corporate interests. Why should Iraq or Libya be any different?
What was the first thing our Al Qaeda allies in Libya did even before taking the capital city? They set up a foreign controlled central bank! Google it.
Last edited by a moderator:
I really don't care (not being rude - I'm just not one with whom you should discuss politics because I lost the interest years ago - I was just looking at the argument). As you point out with your definitions, you wouldn't consider the US sovereign. So the answer still remains "no," you have not justified that the troops trained and funded by the US (external to our forces) are "our" troops - but instead have supported exactly the opposite.