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.

 

Smoking-gun document said to prove Obama-Muslim Brotherhood ties

page: 5
26
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2015 @ 08:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Xcathdra



I would point out that the White House was asked about PSD-11 and refused to comment on it


And for a good reason.

It would be politically unwise to admit that the US government conducted a study and assessment program on all of the Islamic political groups in a region and used that to form it's plans going forward in the area.


What on Earth would even remotely be unwise about admitting you did your research?!




posted on Jun, 9 2015 @ 09:10 AM
link   
We ought to have a whole warehouse full of 'smoking guns' by now, huh? Too bad no one believes them, except FOX'NEWS", Brietbart, Drudge, etc, etc, etc. No problems with credibility there.



posted on Jun, 9 2015 @ 11:44 AM
link   
- Not valid because of the source and the article's lack of any links to outside sources on the actual text of the PSD.

- No I would not. If Reagan could trade arms for hostages and arm the Mujahadeen (Taliban, Al Qaeda) and, Bush W could lie bold face to the American people and get us in to a war on false pretenses promote torture, etc...and not face any type of impeachment then hell no. What would make this any different or worse?

- Not at all reliable. Just another uber partisan Obama bashing, liberal hating, regressive website that is only there to make money from the hyper paranoid, hard right, Islamophobic, homophobic, xenophobic public.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and there is none here. I saw someone post that it is classified. Soooo if it's classified then how do we know what's in it?

C'mon we gotta get out of this practice of posting BS like this. If there are facts to back this up POST them. Not just some article from a clearly partisan source.

a reply to: Xcathdra



posted on Jun, 9 2015 @ 06:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: moresco
- Not valid because of the source and the article's lack of any links to outside sources on the actual text of the PSD.

- No I would not. If Reagan could trade arms for hostages and arm the Mujahadeen (Taliban, Al Qaeda) and, Bush W could lie bold face to the American people and get us in to a war on false pretenses promote torture, etc...and not face any type of impeachment then hell no. What would make this any different or worse?

- Not at all reliable. Just another uber partisan Obama bashing, liberal hating, regressive website that is only there to make money from the hyper paranoid, hard right, Islamophobic, homophobic, xenophobic public.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and there is none here. I saw someone post that it is classified. Soooo if it's classified then how do we know what's in it?

C'mon we gotta get out of this practice of posting BS like this. If there are facts to back this up POST them. Not just some article from a clearly partisan source.

a reply to: Xcathdra


Well...you know what they say. Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they are not coming after me.



posted on Jun, 9 2015 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

thats the same thing hezzbullah did.



posted on Jun, 9 2015 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Love that quote but I'll feel paranoid about this when I have a proven reason to be. Until then it's just decisive rhetoric that clouds the issues and distracts us from other important things that we need to address




a reply to: WeAreAWAKE




posted on Jun, 9 2015 @ 08:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: cenpuppie
a reply to: introvert

thats the same thing hezzbullah did.


Correct. They did the same as the MB. They learned to play the game. In fact, they were removed from the US terror organization list just this year because of that.

Great example and thanks for bringing it up.



posted on Jun, 9 2015 @ 10:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Not sure why I didn't see this thread earlier. But everything I read in the text quoted in the OP is a mixture of hearsay & assumptions.


...but critics tell WND...



...A source familiar with the document told the Washington Times...



...the presidential directive reportedly shows ...

All of these are mere hearsay. Why not just leak the document if it's supposedly as bad as they claim it is? That way we can see for ourselves. Otherwise, I'm calling BS & fearmongering.

So for your questions in the OP:


What do we think ATS? * - Valid diplomatic overture or confirmation of all the stories saying Obama was supporting the Muslim Brotherhood?

No. It's just hearsay from people who are admitted critics of the administration.



Second question - Would you consider this an impeachable offense?

No. Hearsay & conjecture aren't impeachable offenses. And even if the claims were true, it still wouldn't be impeachable. Especially since the US is openly supporting "moderate" rebel groups in Syria (including the group that ate a victims's heart on video), and openly supported the same terrorists in Mali when they were fighting against Qaddafi in Libya.



Third question - How reliable do you think WND is when reporting?

Not reliable unless they actually show the document so we can see it for ourselves.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 02:54 AM
link   
How reliable is WND? To put it mildly, they give the National Enquirer a run for their money.

I saw earlier in the thread that Glenn Beck picked up the story. Beck hits on interesting points at times and sometimes even uncovers things others have missed but at the same time he loves to post things that are completely baseless. Beck is somewhere around a Alex Jones level of credibility. So to put it another way, this story is about as reliable as Alex Jones quoting something out of the Enquirer.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Wnd saids all I need to know. No point in reading the article. You have more credibility in an election speech than from that site


edit on 10-6-2015 by Cypress because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 10:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

I think this is very sound. I had been under the impression that his support of them was common knowledge, but I guess documentation wold be good.

As for impeachable, oh, yes; we can add that to the list.


WND? Depends. If they have a book to sell, expect them to lean in the direction the author is promoting. Overall, not bad, though, based on some years of reading their stuff and comparing it. Anything speculative is maybe, maybe not. Facts, they do alright on. No such site is perfect, of course.



posted on Jun, 11 2015 @ 01:33 AM
link   
I have seen no evidence of support for jihad or terror from the Muslim Brotherhood. They took a razor-thin margin of victory in Egypt and used it to turn a secular state into an Islamist state. They got booted out and banned.
a reply to: Xcathdra



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join