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.

 

Obama's First Missile Strike

page: 8
14
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 06:39 AM
link   
This is the greatest thread ever. Proof that world peace DID NOT happen the instant the obamassiah was sworn in. Proof there is a war going on.

God Bless the pilot that pulled that trigger.




posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 07:58 AM
link   
Funny thing...

If it was Bush who authorized the missile strike everyone here would be all up-in-arms to bash him. If Obama does it, his most ardent supports here will go so far as to deny it ever happened.

Can anyone say "double standard?"

Edit: I'm not an Obama fan but if he is successful in this new theater of war I will stand up and applaud.

[edit on 24-1-2009 by spaznational]



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


So we have people living in caves who are somehow going to just wonder into the US with all the new security levels and they are somehow going to attack again.
With all the intelligence that comes out, surely they know who to look out for, or is the Intelligence flawed as it has shown time and time again.

"Look, there is a wedding party Quick fire a missile they are throwing rice which may hit us. "



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by spaznational
Funny thing...

If it was Bush who authorized the missile strike everyone here would be all up-in-arms to bash him. If Obama does it, his most ardent supports here will go so far as to deny it ever happened.

Can anyone say "double standard?"


Exactly, one of there most ardent supporters refuses to even look at this post.

And to all the roasted chestnuts on here saying "OoOoh Noes, teh boogyman is in Pakistan, we needs to blow it up! Yay Messiah!", the boogyman has been dead since 03' and there has not been a "terrorist attack" since 9/11 on American soil, there will be soon though, it will be Pakistan blowing us up with a nuke because of our bs, the fact that our government created this war on idiology so it can get away with anything it wants.

Seriously, this country is going to hell, every president no matter what there skin color is, no matter how pleasant they sound and no matter what separatist side they take, they will always lead this world down a highway to hell.

I amazes me that there are people here who hated on Bush for his pointless war, but are now bloodthirsty for war now that Obama is in office, seriously dudes.

OBAMA IS GOING TO WAR ILLEGALLY!!!

He's no different than Bush.

-Lahara



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by spaznational
 


Yep.

As I said before in one of these threads on this subject, many of Obama's supporters cannot allow themselves to even consider the possibility that he ordered these strikes, because to do so would be to acknowledge that he's not the mythical peacemaker they've made him out to be.

Never mind that he's just doing exactly what he said he would.

Not only that, but if its true, it potentially, if ever so slightly, validates Bush's actions in the region, a thought that is completely unacceptable to them. And no doubt, not a single one of them would need a shred of 'proof' of this event if Bush were still in office.

So in the end, all they can do is stick their . in the sand, ignore this and hope everyone else forgets about it, too. Myself, I have no issue with what Obama has done. On the other hand, I think its high comedy watching some of his supporters bend over backward to try to deny, deny, deny that he ordered this airstrike and thereby avoid the various implications of this action.

[edit on 24-1-2009 by vor78]



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 08:32 AM
link   
For all you people who voted Obama, you've been conned, well and truly. There is no "change" or "hope". He's only going to escalate on what's has already been started.

Don't feel too down though folks. You didn't have a choice. McCain and Obama are reading from the same script. When are you people going to realise that policy is not dictated by the Sock-Puppets-POTUS.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by paul76
 



Sad thing is I bet a large majority of people that voted for Obama, don't know or care about this air strike.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 09:02 AM
link   
Not for nothing, everyone, but Obama is a brother from the south side of chicago. He has no problem taking people out when necessary. None. Or did you all think he was just gonna have drum circles in the oval, and sing koombayah every day?


Good Job, Mr. President



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by MischeviousElf
 
If you think that the US military, and by extension- President Obama, are launching missile strikes in sovereign Pakistani territory without the consent of the Pakistani government, then you're crazy.

These attacks are taking place at the behest of Pakistan. While they clearly do not, and cannot, approve every attack individually, they have given the US the green light to launch missile strikes against al Qaida and Taliban targets in the tribal areas.

However, to keep face with their population and to hold onto power, the government of Pakistan has to act as though they disapprove of the attacks, in public. This way, they can continue their alliance with the US and all of the benefits that it entails, while at the same time not giving their population a reason to take to the streets and revolt.

It's a pretty simple premise, and I was under the impression that just about everyone had it figured out by now. I mean, do you really believe that we are launching these attacks even though Pakistan doesn't want us to? I doubt it.

And what is the deal with you putting the word "terrorists" in quotes, as though they aren't really terrorists or something? I can't wait to hear your theory on this one. I'm sure it will have something to do with us bombing innocent people who have nothing to do with terrorism, or perhaps you'll talk about bin Laden being a CIA asset and how we are the real terrorists. Typical of the kinds of things I read on this site.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Obama did it because he had to project power, Pakistan deserves it, hes going after terrorists....... etc

This is what drives me crazy about the Obama nuts.

If it happened last week it would be codemened as the worst thing a human being has ever done in the history of the earth.

People just can't be onjective anymore.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 09:37 AM
link   
This was in his campaign. Obama said this is exactly what he would do.

People are surprised why? Does anyone seriously believe that the Pakistan government will HELP remove the terrorists in their mountains? Hell, he probably has terrorist leaders over for dinner!

This is not a surprise, this is campaign promises being carried out.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by vor78
reply to post by silo13
 


I suppose its possible, but read Pfeil's post. Obama has made it very clear that he's willing to strike at targets within Pakistan. At this point, he is the President of the United States, the Commander-in-Chief.

Consider the alternative of what you're saying for a moment. If Obama did not authorize this, then we have someone in the military chain of command conducting a military strike on a sovereign nation without Presidential approval.

That's about as scary as it gets, if you think about it. Granted, I don't believe for a second that this went down without Obama's approval.

We don't really know at this point whether Obama explicitly authorized the specific attack or whether the attack was conducted under standing orders that President Bush had authorized that President Obama (either knowingly or unknowingly) did not countermand.

If I were the commander in the field, in the absence of a countermand order, based upon Obama's campaign statement about invading Pakistan to get Osama bin Laden, I would assume President Obama had no intention to countermand a President Bush authorization to go after Al Qaeda targets in Pakistan.

Anyone who proclaims Jihad, participates in Jihad, against the United States is a fair target.

Interestingly, Rush Limbaugh's sarcastic .line for this was "President Obama orders the execution of Muslims without trial."



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by CharlesMartel
 


Don't get me wrong, I may be a major skeptic of Obama, but I have no problems with what Obama has done in this particular instance. I simply don't believe that this occured without his explicit order. We're not at war with Pakistan and if that standing order exists, I think it is extremely irresponsible as it delegates to a field commander the capability to initiate an act of war against a neutral nation. This isn't Iraq or Afghanistan we're talking about. I think this is a situation that the president, whether that be Obama or Bush before him, would want to have full control over in order to prevent a mistake.

In the end, though, it really makes no difference. In both cases, the president has ordered the strike. Its just that in one of those possible scenarios, he did it indirectly.


[edit on 24-1-2009 by vor78]



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by spaznational
Funny thing...

If it was Bush who authorized the missile strike everyone here would be all up-in-arms to bash him. If Obama does it, his most ardent supports here will go so far as to deny it ever happened.

Can anyone say "double standard?"

Edit: I'm not an Obama fan but if he is successful in this new theater of war I will stand up and applaud.

[edit on 24-1-2009 by spaznational]


It's been my opinion that the previous POTUS didn't do enough and attacked the wrong targets! Pakistan? Maybe, I am not privy to the information Obama is.

Saudi Arabia? There's certainly a lot of angry lower class citizens in that country that might be tired of the ruling class that is in bed with US and international interests.

I "Hope" Obama is really is trying to end TWOT by actually eliminating the "terrorists".



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by munkey66
....
Can you name me a country that the US hasn't been involved with that hasn't ended in a war?



Ok, I've got one for you.
Why is it that ALL the conflicts in the world today involve the so called "Religion Of Peace"?

And some of these conflicts are not against the infidel either.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Alxandro
 


Yeah that's the funny thing, so far as i can tell, they should be at total peace with their own fellows.

I think it's just a culture that even to this day other cultures really can't understand. I sure don't. Hell but it's generally a lot easier for everyone to just lob some LGB's or hijack some planes then try to understand another's culture.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Rasputin13
 


I agree to a point in what you say.

However i do think the political landscape has changed much in Pakistan since Musharef went and that now the protestations mentioned by the Pakistan Government have more support at the top of power.

The reason I started the threads on this situation is, as many posters have pointed out correctly, to bring to light the nature of Politics in the USA and generally the world.

I have often been very strong in my condemnation of the Bush Regime, and I see that internal beliefs and morals should not be changed just because we have a feeling of more "Rapport" with the new incumbant. I am traditionally more on the Democratic side of Politics than any Republican or Right Wing politics, but in the modern arena I think its just a Fallacy, same people at heart but different faces.

New promises but more of the same.

A great hoax has befallen the world IMHO with the Obama spin, and this action by him has just concreted my fears and proven that the Hill will carry on as usual, with its Globalist agenda, creating problems and then using the resultant situation to further the agenda.

It was seen with Sadam and his support against the Iranians, and the Iranian Shar before that, with the Islamic Terrorist support against the russians in Afghanistan, and then the invasion after leaving the country in the stone age , breaking all promises of support and help after the Russians left.

get the reaction then use it to further the Agenda.

I really am worried though for any American drive into Pakistan proper and feel this highlights the nature of the unwritten direction this Obama Administration is going.

The double standards being displayed by some members is very obvious here, and further reinforces the lie that has been sold.

If Obama does it or Bush and you think it is wrong, it is wrong full stop.

Hypocrisy seems rife.

I am glad to have opened this Dichotomy up for all to see so plainly.

Kind Regards,

Elf.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Guys, may I just point out one little aspect most of you are forgetting: It is (quite well) known that all these "freedom hating" terrorist organizations are really just fronts from different intelligence agencies (MI6, CIA, Etc...) and should be treated as such.

Please keep that in mind when you hear about actions taken against terrorist organizations. They will never pose a threat unless the agencies want them to. The war on terror is just a way to wage war on the people as many of you know.

Just wanted to throw that out there...



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 11:10 AM
link   
lol

if this were 3 weeks ago

they would all be saying

Bush is bombing Pakistan what a dumby

lol

what a funny world...



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   
I for one am happy that Obama shows that he will do something rather than sitting back.

There is still a country going into a depression...what is it called...USE? United Stats of the Elite? How about they USE their brain and help the USA?




top topics



 
14
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join