Obama - College Spring Break in Pakistan

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by southern_Guardian
I neither deny other college students visiting the middle east on college break

Pakistan is not in the 'middle east'. And in 1981 it was a radical Islamic state under Marshal Law.


And?

And spending a college break at 20 years old in a muslim country under marshal law is NOT vast foreign experience that surpasses McCains.


see the many middle eastern tourist sites.

Again - Pakistan is NOT the Middle East AND Marshall Lawed Pakistan in 1981 wasn't a tourist center.


your clear agenda to push the "HIS A MUSLIM!!!!" theory

You are projecting. I didn't say that anywhere.

FACT - In 1981 he was NOT a baptised Christian.
FACT - He was baptised a Christian in the early 1990s.
FACT - He is a follower of the racist and non-Christian 'black liberation theology'

So your statement is a lie.


You seem to have this theory that the islamic faith is a "race", well your incorrect.

WRONG. You are projecting again.

NO WHERE did I say that the Islamic faith is a 'race'. In fact, I usually end up correcting people on these boards who claim that it is. When people are anti-Islamic, others call them 'racist' .. this is an error and I have corrected it many times.


So let me sum that up for you Flyers fan:

Let ME sum up your post Southern_Guardian


1 - You are dead wrong - Pakistan is NOT in the Middle East.
2 - You are dead wrong - 1981 Marshal Law Pakistan was not a tourist site.
3 - You are dead wrong - I did not claim Obama is a muslim.
4 - You are dead wrong - I did not claim Islam is a race.
5 - You are dead wrong - I am not voting for McCain and am not a neocon.

BTW .. your preaching and lies about me were pretty pathetic.



ON TOPIC - what did a non-christian, 20 year old man do for fun in Marshal Law Pakistan in 1981 for three weeks?

[edit on 7/14/2008 by FlyersFan]




posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Cyfre
So we're going to dislike the guy now because he chose to learn more about the world over spring break than go to the beach?


Is that why he went? To learn more about the world? Are you sure?
That's what he says, of course. But he's a politician. Do you believe poltiicians?

And no - I'm not going to dislike the guy now because he went to Pakistan in 1981.

Here are just ten of the MANY reasons I dislike the guy -

1- He has NO experience. Being a 'community organizer' doesn't equate to experience enough to be POTUS. Playing in Marhsal Law Pakistan for three weeks in 1981 does NOT equate to foreign policy experience. NO EXPERIENCE.

2 - He wants to totally disarm this country. He said it.

3 – His economics plans and tax raises will destroy this country ala Jimmy Carter.

4 – Windfalls profit taxes for oil companies. He wants it .. just like Jimmy Carter did. We all know what happened with that!!

5 – He’s anti-life. (pro abortion including partial birth and he refused to sign the born alive protection act for children who survived abortion)

6 – He’s a racist pig. So is his wife. 20 years of black liberation theology and blaming whitey for everything makes him no different then David Duke. NO UNITY.

7 – He lied about his relationship with racist Rev. Wright. He lied about his relationship with terrorist Bill Ayers. He lied about his relationship with criminal Tony Rezko. He lied about his voting record and claims “I pushed the wrong button”. (considering the POTUS has his finger on the little red nuke button .. I’d hate to have an idiot in there pushing wrong buttons’) Freak’n lame! He lies and completely misleads on everything – just like every other politician. NO CHANGE. NO HOPE.

8 – He lied about his corporate bagmen and contributions.

9 – Voting ‘present’ 130 times is not ‘change you can count on’. It’s skating on the tough issues.

10. – Flip flop flip flop flip flop.

Not to mention that he can’t string 3 words together unless it’s written in a pretty speech. Reminds me of Bush43. So does Obama’s narcissistic messianic rhetoric. Only Obama’s is worse.

That’s just ten. I could go on all day. But that would be off topic.



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 06:05 AM
link   
Heh!!!

I guess spring break daytona wasnt good enough...

Had to get to Spring break Arab style...


what would that be like??? Spring breeak arab style?? Does that even work??? I think those are kinda stange to go together...



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 06:17 AM
link   
Better than where McCain would have had his:

"Ditty Mao!!!"

I guess Bush Jr. spent his with his head in a toilet bowl.

Besides, Pakistan is supposed to be an ally of the US. Also, Obama even suggested making an incursion INTO Pakistan and bombing Taliban targets.

So... Where's the argument...



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by mattguy404
Pakistan is supposed to be an ally of the US.

In 1981 it was a muslim country under marshal law. I'm searching the State Dept. travel warnings to see if they go back that far. I don't know if there was a travel warning at the time for Americans not to be going there. (probably was)

And as far as being an 'ally' now ... they refuse to let us go after UBL who is hiding in their mountains.



So... Where's the argument...

He's claiming this as part of his 'vast foreign experience' that surpasses John McCains. It's pretty damn laughable.



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 10:22 AM
link   
can someone please post the link to the ABC news report. Thank you.



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 10:24 AM
link   
At that time, Pakistan was still inviting the Soviets in to help them against the rebels, iirc.

To me there are only a handful of reasons BHO went to "Pockistan", as he pronounces it. And none of the reasons are good.



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Pakistan is supposed to be an ally of the US.

In 1981 it was a muslim country under marshal law. I'm searching the State Dept. travel warnings to see if they go back that far. I don't know if there was a travel warning at the time for Americans not to be going there.


At the time, Pakistan was ally of the United States:


The chilling relations between the US and Pakistan took another a U-turn when the Soviet Army entered neighboring Afghanistan in December 1979 to support the local communist government. "Just four days after the Soviet invasion, On December 29, 1979, Jimmy Carter approved a broader covert action program that instructed the CIA to provide military weapons and ammunition …for the Afghan anticommunist fighters, who soon became widely knows as “mujahideen”…At Pakistan’s insistence, the CIA funneled all aid through the Pakistani intelligence service ISI, which in turn handed over supplies to Afghans." SOURCE



The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979 highlighted the common interest of Pakistan and the United States in peace and stability in South Asia. In 1981, the United States and Pakistan agreed on a $3.2 billion military and economic assistance program aimed at helping Pakistan deal with the heightened threat to security in the region and its economic development needs. SOURCE


Even if there was a travel-warning, so what? What point do you hope to prove? Just because he went there doesn't mean anything like "he's a secret Muslim!" or anything equally idiotic, any more than my travels to the UK in the 1990s prove I am a secret Anglican. A travel warning does not prevent a US from going to the country in question. Plenty of Americans traveled to Pakistan at that time, perhaps most famously Charlie Wilson.

The story also says he went to Southern India during the trip; that must prove he is a secret Hindu!

[edit on 14-7-2008 by SaviorComplex]



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
At that time, Pakistan was still inviting the Soviets in to help them against the rebels, iirc.


That is quite a twisting of history your engaging in. After Pakistan began supporting the resistence in Afghanistan, the Soviet Union began sponsoring terrorism in Pakistan.


Originally posted by jsobecky
To me there are only a handful of reasons BHO went to "Pockistan", as he pronounces it. And none of the reasons are good.


Visiting a friend's family isn't a good reason? Or do you imagine, illogically and without any sort of proof whatsoever other than your dislike of him and your hopes that he is a secret Muslim planning on taking over the United States, that it could have only been for nefarious reasons?



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Even if there was a travel-warning, so what?

Travel warnings are there for a reason. When an unstable country is under marshal law and our government says 'don't go' and yet a 20 year old American male decides to go to the area anyways .. it's not to bright IMHO.


What point do you hope to prove?

I'm asking questions. I'm also posting my opinion. Read the thread.

My opinion is this - Obama is claiming that this 3 week college age stint is part of his 'vast foreign experience' that is superior to John McCains.

That's freak'n laughable.



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 11:29 AM
link   
To me this just confirms the fact that he is indeed of Muslim faith. For the sake of the country I pray he does not get elected. He will destroy this nation and make it a third world country just like Africa. We will all be begging money from Sally Struthers before too long. Remember for only pennies a day you could save a starving child.



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 11:44 AM
link   
lol, can't possibly vote for this man now... somehow this makes him more conservative and boring than the whitest of people...

This guy will ruin our lives



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Guys, you really need to let up on this muslim stuff. Its not helping our cause.

The fact is, if hes a Manchurian candidate, than so be it. He wont get far in to his Islamic policy, before the country rises up against him.

Its pure FANTASY. Obama is not a Muslim and even if he is, so what?


[edit on 14-7-2008 by Dronetek]



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dronetek
Guys, you really need to let up on this muslim stuff.

I posted this story because the MSM was covering it. (it seems to have now dropped off their radar). Obama is claiming his 3 week college break is part of his 'vast foreign experience' and that he has more then McCain. My point is .. that's a biiiiiiiiiiiiiig stretch and very unrealistic.



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Dronetek
Guys, you really need to let up on this muslim stuff.

I posted this story because the MSM was covering it. (it seems to have now dropped off their radar). Obama is claiming his 3 week college break is part of his 'vast foreign experience' and that he has more then McCain. My point is .. that's a biiiiiiiiiiiiiig stretch and very unrealistic.



Hey, I'm with you on that. As far as the Muslim stuff goes though, we should really lay off unless we get something pretty solid on him.



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
According to ABC news, Obama spent a three week college spring break in PAKISTAN.
Karachi to be exact. The Obama camp doesn’t deny this and says that he went there with a college friend (or to visit with a college friend?).


I bet he was over there to train with George W. Bush's investment cousin, Osama Bin Laden to fight the Russians.

Hopefully, if that was the case, it will quell his detractors complaints about military service.

DocMoreau



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by SaviorComplex
 



Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by jsobecky
At that time, Pakistan was still inviting the Soviets in to help them against the rebels, iirc.


That is quite a twisting of history your engaging in. After Pakistan began supporting the resistence in Afghanistan, the Soviet Union began sponsoring terrorism in Pakistan.


I'm going to research that. As I said, "iirc". "If I recall correctly".




Originally posted by jsobecky
To me there are only a handful of reasons BHO went to "Pockistan", as he pronounces it. And none of the reasons are good.


Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Visiting a friend's family isn't a good reason? Or do you imagine, illogically and without any sort of proof whatsoever other than your dislike of him and your hopes that he is a secret Muslim planning on taking over the United States, that it could have only been for nefarious reasons?


You're making quite a few unfounded assumptions there about my feelings on Obama. I really thought better of you. However, I'm gonna let it pass, for now.



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 12:50 PM
link   
other people love casablanca more than me so I shouldn't quote it (and they know it better than me too)
but isn't obabamabogart in this bit, with the desert/disaster tourism

What brings you to Karachi?

I came here for the waters


But we are in the middle of the desert


I was misinformed



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Pakistan is not in the 'middle east'. And in 1981 it was a radical Islamic state under Marshal Law.


By definition of "the war on terrorism" and by most westerners these days its considered part of the middle east. Sure its part of the indian sub-continent geographically and it does hold history with india however it looks to its influences westward and its people share blood and culture with middle easterners. One could say Sudan is not an arab country but african, yet under other situations its verymuch arab.



And spending a college break at 20 years old in a muslim country under marshal law is NOT vast foreign experience that surpasses McCains.


So the question here is "why Obama went there under marshal law".... this is the point where you and your buddies start getting all excited and start making generalisations. "Oh he must me some terrorist if he went there at that time". I agree with you on one thing though Fan, its not vast foreign experience but then again pakistan isnt the only country obama has been to. But we both know that this thread has nothing to do with that now do we.



Again - Pakistan is NOT the Middle East AND Marshall Lawed Pakistan in 1981 wasn't a tourist center.


Read above, under certain definitions it is, socially, politically and culturally it can be considered middle eastern.



FACT - In 1981 he was NOT a baptised Christian.

So whats the big deal, this automatically makes him something else?


FACT - He was baptised a Christian in the early 1990s.

Yes thankyou for telling us that, he lied about being baptised around 10years later
oh stop the presses!


FACT - He is a follower of the racist and non-Christian 'black liberation theology'

No his not and you dont have the evidence to back that up. All you have flyersfan is Mr wrights speech there and Farakhan who randomly endorsed him without Obama having any say in it. Trinity church is not a racist church and some of the whites in attendence there including some of their white speakers should be proof enough. This "his a racist" tactic is to keep the GOP's own race issue away from the media, its classic I tell ya.


So your statement is a lie.

No its not, although I must say its a lie to call yourself a ron paul supporter yet not follow what he believes in. Hey if thats the case im a ron paul support aswell! I dont support either! I just like bringing McCain down 90% of the time!



WRONG. You are projecting again.


No im not wrong, your many replys to these right wing propaganda threads flooding this forum should be proof enough as to where you really stand.


NO WHERE did I say that the Islamic faith is a 'race'.

Now lets see here, you think his a muslim, you have implied such numerous times and yet as I said before, the man says his not one and he certainly isnt a practicing one. Despite these facts you and your buddies still seem to push this kind of accusation forward, so one could be forgiven for thinking your idea of islam is one of no choice just like the race your born in is not your choice, thats where im getting at that and thats what you fellas are certainly trying to say.


1 - You are dead wrong - Pakistan is NOT in the Middle East.
2 - You are dead wrong - 1981 Marshal Law Pakistan was not a tourist site.


Under certain circumstances and socially it is considered part of the middle east. Geographically its not, true, but in this day and age under the definition of terrorism it is considered part of the middle east thats why I put it under that. Also most pakistanis consider themselves "aryans" or indo-iranians which is an ethnic group that mainly originated from Iran, that certainly is a strong cultural tie. So for this period of time, socially, politically, culturally, yes I would say its part of the middle east



3 - You are dead wrong - I did not claim Obama is a muslim.

www.abovetopsecret.com...'
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yes my friend, im sure you dont believe in such garbage!


4 - You are dead wrong - I did not claim Islam is a race.

Theres a difference between saying something and implying something.


5 - You are dead wrong - I am not voting for McCain and am not a neocon.


You dont have to vote for the man to support him. You can say your not a neo-con yet help push the neo-con agend and propaganda, you can argue 90% against Obama, say you support RP but secretly support McCain. I can say I support Ron Paul yet secretly want Obama to win.


ON TOPIC - what did a non-christian, 20 year old man do for fun in Marshal Law Pakistan in 1981 for three weeks?


Yes flyersfan, for you and the other righties this should only mean one thing right
Keep up em propaganda folks, its been doing this country a great deed.

[edit on 14-7-2008 by southern_Guardian]



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 08:00 AM
link   
In the 1950s, in the wake of Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” plan, Pakistan obtained a 125 megawatt heavy-water reactor from Canada. After India’s first atomic test in May 1974, Pakistan immediately sought to catch up by attempting to purchase a reprocessing plant from France. After France declined due to U.S. resistance, Pakistan began to assemble a uranium enrichment plant via materials from the black market and technology smuggled through A.Q. Khan. In 1976 and 1977, two amendments to the Foreign Assistance Act were passed, prohibiting American aid to countries pursuing either reprocessing or enrichment capabilities for nuclear weapons programs.

These two, the Symington and Glenn Amendments, were passed in response to Pakistan’s efforts to achieve nuclear weapons capability; but to little avail. Washington’s cool relations with Islamabad soon improved. During the Reagan administration, the US turned a blind eye to Pakistan’s nuclear weapon’s program. In return for Pakistan’s cooperation and assistance in the mujahideen’s war against Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the Reagan administration awarded Pakistan with the third largest economic and military aid package after Israel and Egypt. Despite the Pressler Amendment, which made US aid contingent upon the Reagan administration’s annual confirmation that Pakistan was not pursuing nuclear weapons capability, Reagan’s “laissez-faire” approach to Pakistan’s nuclear program seriously aided the proliferation issues that we face today.

Not only did Pakistan continue to develop its own nuclear weapons program, but A.Q. Khan was instrumental in proliferating nuclear technology to other countries as well. Further, Pakistan’s progress toward nuclear capability led to India’s return to its own pursuit of nuclear weapons, an endeavor it had given up after its initial test in 1974. In 1998, both countries had tested nuclear weapons. A uranium-based nuclear device in Pakistan; and a plutonium-based device in India
Over the years of America's on again off again support of Pakistan, Musharraf continues to be skeptical of his American allies. In 2002 he is reported to have told a British official that his “great concern is that one day the United States is going to desert me. They always desert their friends.” Musharraf was referring to Viet Nam, Lebanon, Somalia ... etc., etc., etc.,

Taking the war to Pakistan is perhaps the most foolish thing America can do. Obama is not the first to suggest it, and we already have sufficient evidence of the potentially negative repercussions of such an action. On January 13, 2006, the United States launched a missile strike on the village of Damadola, Pakistan. Rather than kill the targeted Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s deputy leader, the strike instead slaughtered 17 locals. This only served to further weaken the Musharraf government and further destabilize the entire area. In a nuclear state like Pakistan, this was not only unfortunate, it was outright stupid. Pakistan has 160 million Arabs (better than half of the population of the entire Arab world). Pakistan also has the support of China and a nuclear arsenal.

I predict that America’s military action in the Middle East will enter the canons of history alongside Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the Holocaust, in kind if not in degree. The Bush administration’s war on terror marks the age in which America has again crossed a line that many argue should never be crossed. Call it preemption, preventive war, the war on terror, or whatever you like; there is a sense that we have again unleashed a force that, like a boom-a-rang, at some point has to come back to us. The Bush administration argues that American military intervention in the Middle East is purely in self-defense. Others argue that it is pure aggression. The consensus is equally as torn over its impact on international terrorism. Is America truly deterring future terrorists with its actions? Or is it, in fact, aiding the recruitment of more terrorists?

The last thing the United States should do at this point and time is to violate yet another state’s sovereignty.






top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join