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.

 

Why has Obama remained silent regarding the recent Christmas terror attack?

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by GradyPhilpott
 


Oh sure. You bought in hook, line and sinker. Why did it have to be a controversial church? Why couldn't it be a regular church that teaches Christianity instead of Hate Whitey?




posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


heh. not a word from the POTUS while he is vacationing in Hawaii? Everything is going as planned. Muaaahaaaaahaaaaw! No words needed.



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Cabaret Voltaire
 


What did I buy?

Maybe it's past your bedtime.

I think I have a pretty good handle on the situation and I agree with your assessment.

Nevertheless, Obama belonged to a Christian church for twenty years and credits Jeremiah Wright for having led him to Christ, so my comment is relevant.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


when obama makes statements, you ridicule him for "being on tv too much"

when obama doesn't make statements, you ridicule him for not making statements


you really should figure out what it is you want out of life...unless its to make others laugh...in which case you have succeeded.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Snarf
 


Thanks for the laugh. Glad you and Obama take terror attacks so lightly. Time to man up and get tough against this BS. This is just the beginning and now is the time to squash it.

still mum
newsmax.com...



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


You're a hypocrite, and I like how other members are starting to call you on your blatent hypocrisy.

The following excerpt was taken from your link:

But White House spokesman Bill Burton said Obama would make a statement to reporters later on Monday. His remarks were expected to focus on the Detroit incident.

What more do you want the guy to do?


EDITED TO ADD: He just spoke about the incident, so stop your crying.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

[edit on 28-12-2009 by EMPIRE]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by EMPIRE
reply to post by jibeho
 


You're a hypocrite, and I like how other members are starting to call you on your blatent hypocrisy.

The following excerpt was taken from your link:

But White House spokesman Bill Burton said Obama would make a statement to reporters later on Monday. His remarks were expected to focus on the Detroit incident.

What more do you want the guy to do?


EDITED TO ADD: He just spoke about the incident, so stop your crying.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

[edit on 28-12-2009 by EMPIRE]


Finally, your hero speaks. Be glad he didn't take his cues from Napolitano (who needs to be fired).

It only took 3 days for Obama to address this issue publicly. You must be proud. Meanwhile, nervous air travelers had to endure long lines and uncertainty at our nations airports over one of the busiest travel weekends of the year.

My sister in law, who is already afraid to fly, canceled her flight home to Chicago and rented a car instead. She didn't want to go through it all. BTW she was living in Manhattan on 9/11. She has been afraid to fly ever since that fateful day.

You might want to study the definition of hypocrite before you start throwing it around. Personal attacks are the last resort of the weak and helpless.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 



Finally, your hero speaks.


I've already stated I'm not a fan of Obama.


Be glad he didn't take his cues from Napolitano (who needs to be fired).


Be glad that he didn't speak before knowing all the facts? Friend, isn't that what you've been crying for?


It only took 3 days for Obama to address this issue publicly.


And? Did he break any laws by waiting three days?


You must be proud.


No, I'm intelligent.


Meanwhile, nervous air travelers had to endure long lines and uncertainty at our nations airports over one of the busiest travel weekends of the year.


And? Somehow you think the president speaking on the situation is going to ease tension? LMAO!


My sister in law, who is already afraid to fly, canceled her flight home to Chicago and rented a car instead.


So what? My nephew is flying as we speak, and did he consider cancelling his flight? Hell no. Your sister in law already has a fear of flying, so there is NOTHING Obama could have done/said that would have eased her fears. Don't blame him because your sister in law is fearful.


She didn't want to go through it all. BTW she was living in Manhattan on 9/11. She has been afraid to fly ever since that fateful day.


So what? You want Obama to be her shrink now? So does he have to talk to everyone who was impacted by 9/11?


You might want to study the definition of hypocrite before you start throwing it around.


Friend, you are a hypocrite.


Personal attacks are the last resort of the weak and helpless.


Incorrect. Personal attacks are often the first tactics the weak and feeble minded employ. In addition, denial and the reliance of numerous fallacies are a close second. However, none of these are applicable to myself. You seem to lack the common sense required to comprehend the fact that I exposed your hypocrisy on page two of this thread. So it would be one thing if I called you a hypocrite and offered no support, but I clearly dismantled your premise, then called you a hypocrite, and used the replies of other members and your lack of response to support the claim.

EMPIRE



[edit on 29-12-2009 by EMPIRE]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by EMPIRE
 


Is this the hypocrisy that you are so proud of exposing?


This was an opportunity for Obama to act like a president and not the campaigner/salesman that he has been since day one.


Your response.


Yet you're suggesting he come off as a campaigner/salesman, ROFL!!!!!!!


You might need a lesson in reading comprehension. Keep trying.

edit to add:
Don't call me friend. That is also a tactic of the weak.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by jibeho]

[edit on 29-12-2009 by jibeho]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


That is part of the hypocrisy, but if you take the last excerpt in bold you'll pretty much have the sum of things. Friend, it is highly illogical to tell me I need to brush up on my reading comprehension skills. I have the cognitive skills required to comprehend the lunacy you're conveying and have come to the logical conclusion that your premise lacks cogency. You implied I like Obama when I clearly stated I didn't. That alone shows your true genius and selective reading prowess but you're a hypocrite so of course you'll behave in such fashion.


However, due to a mentally impotent member giving you a star for your latest post, I'm compelled to show why you don't make sense, and why you lack critical skills.

Now let us look at this gem of yours, priceless:


He could also reassure the nation and air travelers that all safety precautions were being used given the busy holiday travel season. We all know he employs good writers.


Friend, that is the campaigner/salesman madness you advocate on one hand, yet despise on the other.

In closing, Obama has given his feel good prep talk, a rather meaningless one I must add, but you should do us all a favor and stop whining.

Edit to add: Friend, the real tactic of the weak is behaving as a hypocrite and begging for someone you clearly don't like to address you and your ilk. Not only is it a tactic of the weak, it is inhumane, and does not contribute to the good of society.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by EMPIRE]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


Because, to put it simply, he likes to keep things nit tight. He isn't going to admit to anything especially with all the speculation going on and new information coming out here and there from the media.

-sonicboom



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 05:03 PM
link   
He's tired.

www.nytimes.com...

President Barack Obama made a not altogether surprising admission. He was tired.

[edit on 053131p://bTuesday2009 by Stormdancer777]



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by jibeho
My sister in law, who is already afraid to fly, canceled her flight home to Chicago and rented a car instead. She didn't want to go through it all. BTW she was living in Manhattan on 9/11. She has been afraid to fly ever since that fateful day.


Here's some fun math that may help your sister-in-law with her fears of terrorism aboard American aircraft:

Over the past decade, according to the Bureau of Transporation Statistics, there have been 99,320,309 commercial airline departures that either originated or landed within the United States. Counting the four planes on 9/11 (assuming it was a terrorist attack), Richard Reid in December 2001 and the recent flight 253 incident we get one terrorist incident per 16,553,385 departures.

There were a total of 674 passengers, not counting crew or the terrorists themselves, on the flights on which these incidents occurred. By contrast, there have been 7,015,630,000 passenger enplanements over the past decade. Therefore, the odds of being on a given departure which is the subject of a terrorist incident have been 1 in 10,408,947 over the past decade. By contrast, the odds of being struck by lightning in a given year are about 1 in 500,000. This means that you could board 20 flights per year and still be less likely to be the subject of an attempted terrorist attack than to be struck by lightning.

A credit all of these calculations to fivethirtyeight.com



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 06:15 AM
link   
reply to post by links234
 


Thanks for those stats. I will certainly share those with her. Despite her fears, she manages to fly when she has to for work and holidays. However, this little event just pushed her over the edge. She lives in Chicago now but grew up in suburban Detroit. I think this was a little to close to home once again for her.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


All of that golf and body surfing can certainly wear you out. Poor little fella.
Well, he finally spoke and managed to contradict Gibbs and Napolitano in the process.


Why wasn't Obama as fired up about terrorism as he was when he gave his comments/criticisms of the Cambridge Police incident.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by jibeho
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 

Well, he finally spoke and managed to contradict Gibbs and Napolitano in the process.


Why wasn't Obama as fired up about terrorism as he was when he gave his comments/criticisms of the Cambridge Police incident.


Well actually it's quite simple. The one in charge of the teleprompter didn't highlight the areas where he was suppose to show emotion.

I'll get flammed for this but here it goes. With President Bush, when he spoke he looked right at the camera at you. And when he spoke (though not a great speaker) you could tell he spoke with meaning. With obama The Destroyer all you get is an emotionless empty suit, there's nothing there. Unless your talking about national health care then he shows emotion, but when it comes to the security of this country you get nothing.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 09:14 AM
link   
I see a pattern forming here.




posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 09:41 AM
link   
Does he really need to comment? I mean seriously, we have half our military, the CIA, FBI, State and local law enforcement all over this terrorist stuff. Any comment made by the Prez would probably do more to incite the "terrorists" than it would to reassure the American people. I say let the law do their job and the Prez do his. I'm sure he will get around to addressing this when the time is appropriate.

Personally, I find his lack of making a statement refreshing. After 8 years from Bush...coming out daily (seemingly) to reassure us that terrorism will not be tolerated...yeah W. we heard you the first time. He made his entire presidency about this single focus. There are other important things you know....domestic issues.

Obama for not commenting. That's exactly what these "terrorists" want...attention. AND what better attention than being address on the world stage by the leader of the free world.

Just my 2-cents

EDIT: spelling

[edit on 30-12-2009 by Aggie Man]



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


You present an interesting perspective. Thanks for your input. To speak or not to speak. I relate dealing with terrorists to dealing with bullies on the school playground. Coughing up your milk money everyday will not make them stop bullying. Sometimes, you have to talk tough and back up the talk with swift action. Our enemies will hate us no matter what Obama says or does. They hate our culture and our religious diversity. So, I think it is better to show strength in the face of these threats.

I understand that Obama had a different idea about dealing with our enemies when he entered the White House. He apologized to the world for our past actions. However, reality bites and right now it is biting Obama hard. He has spent far too much time on Obamacare, bailouts and cap and trade and has neglected our nation's security in the process. His biggest mistake was appointing Napolitano to her position. I will never understand that move.

Obama has painted himself into the proverbial corner up until this point. He has been rather soft in his statements and his actions for the better part of his first year. Our enemies don't respect that. Obama is viewed by them to be weak. Even Chavez went from being a big fan of Obama to launching barbs about his apparent weakness as of late.

The POTUS can't please everyone. For once, he needs to do what is truly best for the nation instead of what HE thinks is best.

[edit on 30-12-2009 by jibeho]



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


Flying is the safest form of travel. It is silly to cancel a flight over one incident.

congratulations, you let the media terrorize you.

do you know twice as many people died in car accident as a result of refusing to fly after 9/11 then that died on 9/11?

YOu have a bigger chance of being killed by a vending machine falling on you then dying of a terrorist attack.

Here are your odds, a terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11 could occur once a week, yet your chances in a lifetime of dying in one are 1:145,000.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join