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.

 

Taliban suggest "Nobel violence prize" for Obama

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Taliban suggest "Nobel violence prize" for Obama



SOURCE


KABUL (Reuters) - Afghanistan's Taliban mocked the award of a Nobel Peace Prize to U.S. President Barack Obama on Friday, saying he should get a Nobel prize for violence instead.



Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said it was absurd to give a peace award to a man who had sent 21,000 extra troops to Afghanistan to escalate a war.



"The Nobel prize for peace? Obama should have won the 'Nobel Prize for escalating violence and killing civilians'," he told Reuters by telephone from an undisclosed location. "When Obama replaced President Bush, the Afghan people thought that he would not follow in Bush's footsteps. Unfortunately, Obama actually even went one step further."


To be honest, I can't say I disagree. He doesn't deserve this award, and he has made things worse, and if you want to tell me he hasn't, at least look at the things he promised to do, and look at what he's actually done, and tell me he is doing a good job.




posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 10:41 PM
link   
I don't understand why he won either and I am an Obama supporter. He hasn't really done anything that is nobel prize worthy in the last year. I mean Bill Clinton was the reason North Korea released the reporters. Obama promised to close Gitmo and end 2 wars. Last i heard they need to keep Gitmo open because they dont know where to put the detainees (back where they came from comes to mind), we are sending more troops to one war and for the other there is no end in sight. I think he 'won' the award because he isn't Bush the Nobel commitee is saying "American, we like Obama better than Bush. If you put people like him in office we will applaud you and you decisions, keep it up".

Ugh, just thinking about it is making me wanna go for the green party...Jello Biafra in 2012


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by YEAHHA
 


Well I'm glad an Obama supporter was the first person to respond to this thread. It just goes to show that this stuff just ain't right, period. You're right YEAHHA, he did get the award for not being Bush, but hell, I'm not bush, so where is my nobel peace prize?!



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 10:52 PM
link   
forget the taliban.

When it comes down to it, america has done too much for the world in the past to be so easily forgotten.

Notice how no country will ever start a war against the states.

Been awhile since i heard it so....

Canada Loves the USA('s people)



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 11:02 PM
link   
Holy crap, this is starting to get scary.
Not because of the Taliban, but because I don't think Obama will have the cajones to respond to a Taliban attack.
Chavez doesn't think he deserves the Prize, tha Taliban don't think he deserves the prize, I'm sure the rest of the world doesn't think he deserves it either.

The world prefers a US pushover President they can laugh at, than one they fear and hate.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alxandro
Holy crap, this is starting to get scary.
Not because of the Taliban, but because I don't think Obama will have the cajones to respond to a Taliban attack.


You're right... If he does anything (especially anytime soon) in regards to war or any attacks, everyone (well it seems they already do) will hate him for being a backstabbing a-hole.


Originally posted by Alxandro
The world prefers a US pushover President they can laugh at, than one they fear and hate.


Very true. I think we all would agree on that.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 01:41 AM
link   
This kind of reminds me of an incident in the MTV music awards were... they literally made up some honorary award (meaning: of no real importance, but really just for good faith) that was given to Michael Jackson. Many of the participants and hosts knew it was just an honorary award, of no real value (not that the MTV awards themselves would hold any better value) and yet, when Jackson stepped up to receive this "award" he took it incredibly serious, in the meanwhile, the hosts behind him were laughing because he was taking it so seriously.

I find a lot of similarities to that event. Perhaps they felt sorry for Obama because he couldn't convince them to have the olympics in chicago. So they gave him a "medal for participation". I find it funny that even he admits he doesn't deserve it, but isn't humble enough, or doesn't have the cojones to give it back. In essence, continuing to follow and have a weak stance and let himself continue to be mocked (as well as the U.S.)



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by highlyoriginal

To be honest, I can't say I disagree. He doesn't deserve this award, and he has made things worse, and if you want to tell me he hasn't, at least look at the things he promised to do, and look at what he's actually done, and tell me he is doing a good job.


You cannot change many years of corruption in just 6 months.
I am just sick of the disrespect when this man, Pres. Obama, has courageouly taken on a job many others would have already resigned from. He needs support in order to accomplish things and make these changes and I think he deserves better from people in this country.

Where were you when Bush was running things?



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 01:52 AM
link   
I think this is a good reason why a current President or Prime Minister shouldn't be allowed to be nominated.
There is a conflict of interest to begin with. And it has the potential to influence and manipulate any future decisions of the Nobel Peace Prize winner regarding their countries security for starters.

It's a bad idea and a potential minefield.





[edit on 14-10-2009 by Flighty]



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 01:56 AM
link   


Where were you when Bush was running things?



Many here were ALSO protesting against Bush's policies. What's your point? That ONLY democrats were protesting? Please don't delude yourself!

I am sick and tired of democrats using this as an excuse to continue attacking people who disagree with Obama. YES, we get it! Bush was bad! We know, because we were there too and many here were protesting too!

See, unlike the partisan shills who hang on to dear life to Democrat or Republican talking points. Some here on ATS can think BEYOND the silly democrat/republican line, and instead, judge politicians by their character, their merits and policies! and Obama is framing himself to be just as bad, if not worse than Bush.


Many here who hate Obama, hate Bush as well. But of course, don't let that stop you from continuing your hate filled and divisive speeches. We wouldn't want to have an actual debate here now would we? (unless of course, we have to agree with what Obama has to say of course
)


[edit on 14-10-2009 by Hitemhard]



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 03:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by AletheaWhere were you when Bush was running things?


I think Hitemhard pretty much summed it all up for you.

But however I'll explain in my own words...

Yes, Bush completely sucked, and yes Obama has overcome a lot to get to where he is now, but simply because he is half black, and that he opposed a lot of the things Bush was known for, does not make him special in any way, shape, or form. I may not be half black, but I am opposed to a lot of things Bush has to say, and if I made some claims about bringing troops home, and fixing the health care system, you'd expect me to do those things right? Or at least show more interest in those areas than the previous president had, correct? Well that is Obama for you, he may have some courage, and he may be a perfectly nice person, but in light of all the things he has NOT done I think he pretty much conned everyone who voted for him.

But what the hell, when it came down to it we were choosing from two candidates that were both unworthy of being the president, so we had to choose the best out of the worst... Which leaves us to where we are today, nowhere near where we should be as an economy or a country all together.

And does anyone else find it funny Obama's initials are BO?

[edit on 14-10-2009 by highlyoriginal]



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Top 3 Reasons Obama Shouldn’t Have Won The Nobel Peace Prize



SOURCE


1) He hasn’t accomplished anything yet. It’s certainly true that President Obama has raised the international profile of the United States, and that’s wonderful and important. But he’s done that primarily by a) not being George W. Bush and b) by giving a few key speeches. Should the Nobel Prize Committee really be in the business of rewarding people for existing and talking? That seems like an awfully low standard. He’s working toward spreading peace in the world, to be sure, but this isn’t third grade – the President of the United States should not get a gold star and an A+ just for trying. What happened to rewarding people for the actual fruits of their labor?



2) This moment could have been saved for later. It’s entirely possible – even likely – that later in his life, President Obama will have substantial and tangible results to show for his presidency. Past winners such as Martin Luther King, Jr., Al Gore, and Mother Theresa have been awarded the prize after dedicating their entire careers to their respective causes: racial justice, combating climate change, and fighting world hunger. Rewarding a lifetime of toil is a much more worthy motivation for awarding a Nobel Peace Prize than simply wishing to acknowledge someone’s effort before they’ve had a chance to make a real impact. Was it really so urgent that Obama receive this award now, nine months into his presidency? This prize would have been a great deal more meaningful if he had won it after decades of hard work.



3) Idleness should not be encouraged. It would be very unfortunate indeed if President Obama took this award as a sign that he’s doing a great job and should plow ahead in the same manner. Thus far, a whole lot as been said – about health care, closing Guantanamo, sorting out Afghanistan, equal rights for gay Americans, etc. – and very little has gotten done. And before anyone trots out the old “He’s only been president 3 months/6 months/9 months, give the man a chance!” rallying cry, let me remind you: 9 months is close to a quarter of a presidential term, and he is by no means guaranteed a second one. What’s more, he can only count on strong Democratic majorities in Congress for another year; there’s no telling what will happen in 2010’s midterm elections. The man doesn’t have the luxury of time, so he needs to get serious about his agenda and hop to it. Giving Obama an award right now doesn’t push him any closer to doing so.


Click on the source for the rest of the article.

Oh and just this as well (for now):

Why Obama shouldn't have received the Peace Prize -- yet



SOURCE


Oct. 10, 2009 | President Obama's only real diplomatic accomplishment so far has been to change the direction and tone of American foreign policy from unilateral bullying to multilateral listening and cooperating. That's important, to be sure, but not nearly enough. The Prize is really more of a Booby Prize for Obama's predecessor. Had the world not suffered eight years of George W. Bush, Obama would not be receiving the Prize. He's prizeworthy and praiseworthy only by comparison.



Giving the Peace Prize to the President before any of these goals has been attained only underscores the paradox of Obama at this early stage of his presidency. He has demonstrated mastery in both delivering powerful rhetoric and providing the nation and the world with fresh and important ways of understanding current challenges. But he has not yet delivered. To the contrary, he often seems to hold back from the fight -- temporizing, delaying, or compromising so much that the rhetoric and insight he offers seem strangely disconnected from what he actually does.


That should do for now. Maybe I'll add some more later after I get some sleep, until then opinions are highly welcome. I wouldn't mind this turning into a good discussion on what Obama has in store for us... We will have too see.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flighty
I think this is a good reason why a current President or Prime Minister shouldn't be allowed to be nominated.


I agree.
Probably not the best analogy but kinda like the same reason Presidents appear on currency only after they've passed away.
I'm not saying the Nobel award should be given posthumously but at least wait until they've accomplished something, like a term or something.

...btw, I don't think Obama should have his own plate either, especially while there are many people all over the world that are hungry.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 08:11 AM
link   
Maybe the TPTB are planing to have him "offed" and blame it on Iran... seems really fishy to give him that award this early . I can just see the headlines now, Pres of US and recent nobel prize winner killed in a planed attack by Iran....



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 08:22 AM
link   
Curious about Nobel Prize winners I found this site which provides a link to each laureate's page.



The Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded 90 times to 120 Nobel Laureates between 1901 and 2009 – 97 times to individuals and 23 times to organizations. Since International Committee of the Red Cross was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1917, 1944 and 1963, and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1954 and 1981, that means 97 individuals and 20 organizations have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Click on each name to see the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate's page.


The Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples"

As far as nomination goes:


Nomination for the Nobel Prizes
Each year the respective Nobel Committees send individual invitations to thousands of members of academies, university professors, scientists from numerous countries, previous Nobel Laureates, members of parliamentary assemblies and others, asking them to submit candidates for the Nobel Prizes for the coming year. These nominators are chosen in such a way that as many countries and universities as possible are represented over time.


2009 nomination facts


205 names were submitted for the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, 33 of which are organizations. The Nobel Committees in Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature and the Prize Committee for Economics each usually receives 250-300 names every year, but this is the highest number of nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize ever. The last record was in 2005 when the Committee received 199 nominations. The names of the nominees cannot be revealed until 50 years later.


I wonder what the reason for imposing the 50 year gag order for nominees is?



The "missing Nobel Laureate"
Mahatma Gandhi was never awarded the Nobel Prize. The strongest symbol of non-violence in the 20th century never received the Nobel Peace Prize despite several nominations (12 nominations between 1937 and 1948.) Find out why. »


The more I research this prize the weirder it seems.

Obama but not Ghandi? Ghandi was nominated 12 times and still wasn't chosen to receive this coveted prize? Hmmmmmmmmm.

The Nobel Prize



Every year since 1901 the Nobel Prize has been awarded for achievements in physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature and for peace. The Nobel Prize is an international award administered by the Nobel Foundation in Stockholm, Sweden. In 1968, Sveriges Riksbank established The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, founder of the Nobel Prize. Each prize consists of a medal, personal diploma, and a cash award.


How on earth Obama could have been nominated by February 1, 2009 and subsequently receive the prize does not compute.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by Hazelnut]



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 08:27 AM
link   
Bush and Obama deserve a many peace prizes for a victory over the Taliban.

We are talking about the Taliban who blew up ancient Buddha-statues.

We are talking about the Taliban that is directly responsible for millions of heroin-deaths.

We are talking about the Taliban that hates western civilization and everything it stands for (womens rights, anyone?)



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 08:32 AM
link   
Blame poor Afghanistan, or maybe N. Korea? Can't forget about ol' Jong or he'll throw a temper tantrum and go "Look at me, look at me damnit!"

Didn't a whole bunch of people predict this when Iraq first got invaded? It was to be them, then Afghanistan, then Iran and N. Korea...kinda scary. Maybe they needed new butts to rape? :-p



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by lucid eyes
 


You know it's easy to choose to say the things that someone may have done right, over saying the things someone has done wrong. If for one minute you're going to tell me Bush deserved a peace prize (and you say many) you really must just follow the MSM and be very close minded.

No one is saying that womens rights should not be spared, there is no one we can elect that is going to take them away. It's just not going to happen. So using that as ammunition against what others have to saying opposing Bush/Obama means nothing.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 11:33 AM
link   
I was sent this as a JOKE....
BREAKING NEWS: This just in!!! Obama wins the Heisman Trophy after watching a college football game!!!

fake news article the whole nine yards.... but the last line was.. but he won the peace prize for two weeks of no work.... ha hah a

[edit on 16-10-2009 by Anti-Evil]



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join