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 asks Saudis to airlift weapons into Benghazi

page: 2
14
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 11:30 PM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I watched four of these videos yesterday, and they seem right on the money.




posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I watched four of these videos yesterday, and they seem right on the money.


I just noticed your signature; so I guess you and I share the same feelings in this regard. What happened to that poor girl made this crusty old Jarhead's eyes leak. She was so brave.


I get slammed all of the time for being "anti-Muslim," but that observation couldn't be farther from the truth. I'm "Anti-Scumbag" - it's that simple. I don't care if you're a Jew, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist. You could dance naked around a bonfire and bark at the moon for all I care; but it you're a scumbag, I'm calling you out. (Not YOU, you.
)

Jews, Christians and Muslims all purport to worship the same God - the God of Abraham. Muslims and Christians are actually closer theologically than Christians and Jews because Muslims believe that Christ was indeed the Jewish Messiah, just as Christians do. So I don't slam Muslims because of how they worship: I slam SCUMBAG Muslims who blow shi* up, targeting innocent men, women, and children in order to please God. I reserve special disgust for those Muslims who choose mosques of different sects as their target.

IMO, anyone who would target a house of worship - MURDERING people of faith in the act of prayer - should burn for eternity.

OK, /rant, back on topic...

The Iranian people are the most PRO-Western populace of any in the Midde-east. Despite 30 some odd years of regular Friday afternoon rallies orchestrated and televised by the government, filled with chants of "Death to America," the PEOPLE of Iran are relatively modern in their attitudes, well educated, and LOVE the United States. For Obama to abandon them when they need our help the most is an unconscionable act of betrayal. FFS, that LOSER won't even offer a word of encouragement.

I wonder how he'll fare if a "Day of Rage" ever comes to America. If gas does go much higher due to his intentional, green/progressive agenda, he may very well find out.
edit on 3/6/2011 by OldCorp because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by OldCorp
 


I get slammed too,

If I didn't love the people of the middle east, why would I care about Neda, and those like her?



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldCorp

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
www.abovetopsecret.com...




I get slammed all of the time for being "anti-Muslim," but that observation couldn't be farther from the truth. I'm "Anti-Scumbag" - it's that simple. I don't care if you're a Jew, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist. You could dance naked around a bonfire and bark at the moon for all I care; but it you're a scumbag, I'm calling you out. (Not YOU, you.
)

Jews, Christians and Muslims all purport to worship the same God - the God of Abraham. Muslims and Christians are actually closer theologically than Christians and Jews because Muslims believe that Christ was indeed the Jewish Messiah, just as Christians do. So I don't slam Muslims because of how they worship: I slam SCUMBAG Muslims who blow shi* up, targeting innocent men, women, and children in order to please God. I reserve special disgust for those Muslims who choose mosques of different sects as their target.

IMO, anyone who would target a house of worship - MURDERING people of faith in the act of prayer - should burn for eternity.



Mate you have my respect, i wish more on ats thought more like you on the subject of muslims, i 100% agree with you.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 01:32 AM
link   
Does anyone find it intersting that, in calling upon the UN to prosecute Gaddaffi, his immediate family and members of his government in the ICC for attacks against unarmed civilians, the US added an exemption for the mercenaries being drafted in?
That certainly does seem a little strange, unless it's to protect the actual sources sending in those mercs and financing them. After all, the one committing the deed is the one who should be prosecuted, as well as the person financing it. Seems they are out to protect..... who exactly?

I also find it a bit hard to stomach having the US condemn anyone and call for ICC prosecutions, when they neither support the ICC and give US citizens an automatic exemption from it.

Of course, the hypocrisy is either lost on them or they have things they'd rather not have come out in an open court.

As for the Saudis, they are the biggest hypocrites of all. In their own country they ruthlessly adhere to, and enforce upon the people, Sharia law, and woe betide anyone who steps out of line, never mind openly opposing them. Funny too the amount of them that jump in their private jets to the western nations all the time to go drinking and screwing and probably taking drugs too to round things off, yet will happily have people jailed, or worse, for doing the same in their own country. Another prime example of "religion" being used for control.
Yet, they are cosied up to by our own leaders who will stand in front of the cameras day in and day out condemning other brutal regimes and calling for democracy. It's not a left / right thing as far as leadership goes, they ALL do it. It's simply business, which as we all know trumps ethics and morals, which politicians seem to lack completely.
Much as some people, and some of the media, would like to try the scaremongering and portray these uprisings as the nasty ol Muslim Brotherhood trying to take over, the reality is that these are popular uprisings by the people of all faiths, and religion plays no part. Of course, that doesn't sit well with some, and it probably frightens them a bit to see the ordinary people overthrowing their leaders after decades of theft and oppression. Why? Well it might catch on! This might just start to catch on in the west too, if some of the people could actually be bothered!



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maccaron.Shakaron
Mate you have my respect, i wish more on ats thought more like you on the subject of muslims, i 100% agree with you.


Meh, when it comes down to the nitty gritty, we're all human beings. Nobody is going to share all of the beliefs of their neighbor; we have to learn to live together without killing each other. And nobody deserves to die because of the way they choose to worship, or not worship, God. The Lord is perfectly capable of managing His own affairs without the help of humans taking matters into their own hands. Thanks, but it's just common sense really.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 02:50 AM
link   
Everything I have been reading points to the UK as a future supplier of arms and suggesting the the No Fly Zone. Then the guardian UK states it's the U.S. Well, I for one think the UK want the U.S. to do there bidding, because all that is written is coming from the UK-Media. It stands to reason , since they get most of their oil from Libya.

Today SAS special forces were capatured by the rebels. The Rebels dont want anyone coming to the rescue. They want their country established by them and them only. otherwise no outsiders allowed.

SAS-backed Libyan diplomatic mission ends in humiliation

The British keep telling the rebels it's for a humanitarian emergency in every other article I read, I say oil. Influencing events in a foreign nation is considered aggression. Put it this way the rebels do not trust the U.K. or the U.S. for obvious reasons - Muammar al-Gaddafi has been there leader for 40 years. They want true reform from within.

As the battle raged, fighters chanted: ‘Where is Obama! We want a no-fly zone!’, referring to the tactic being considered by the U.S. administration among other options for Libya.



edit on 7-3-2011 by SJE98 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-3-2011 by SJE98 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by SJE98
 





As the battle raged, fighters chanted: ‘Where is Obama! We want a no-fly zone!’, referring to the tactic being considered by the U.S. administration among other options for Libya.


a few days ago they were asking for Bush

Libyan Rebels: 'Bring Bush!', Beg for a No Fly Zone
www.associatedcontent.com...



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldCorp
It seems like Obama is going out of his way to provide assistance to whichever Muslims will cause the US the most trouble.


And from what I can tell from your posts, you'd gripe no matter what he does.


He kicked Mubarak to the curb after 30 years of peaceful relations with Israel in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood (The philosophical parent of al-Qaeda and Hezbollah.)


First off, Israel can bite my foot. While I wish the people living there well, I don't really give a flying rat's flaming ass what they want from US policy; I feel the same about Malawi, Madagascar, East Timor, India, and Iceland, too. Nice people, but they don't get to dictate my country's policies.

Second, just lumping the names of organizations you dislike into one group and claiming htey're related doesn't actually make it so; it just reveals you to be terribly ignorant. Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood have no common origins; in fact Hamas was initially funded by Israel, because it was a rival to the Brotherhood-backed PLO. Al-Qaeda, on the other hand, has nothing to do with either, and is - was, rather - a clandestine and loosely-organized group of CIA-trained leaders and hteir handful of followers who were headed by a Saudi Wahhabist.


The Muslim Brotherhood has made no secret that it plans to install a sharia-based government if it gets the opportunity. They have already told the Israelis that they will not repair the oil pipeline from Egypt to Israel (destroyed by elements of Hamas,) and that they want to nullify the peace treaty with the Israelis.


If they get the opportunity. At least, that's what they say - Arab politicians aren't any better at keeping campaign promises than American ones, I'll bet (Hamas flaked out pretty damn fast after it got elected, for example, and is now back to being Israel's puppy). Of course to get the opportunity, they'd have to be elected - the Egyptians aren't about to let some theocratic schmuck seize power. The Brotherhood has been trying to get the upper hand for eighty-four years. I think they can safely be classed as underachievers.


In Libya, Gadaffi, while a nutcase, hasn't been rattling his saber since President Reagan ordered an F-111 to bomb his tent (unfortunately killing Gadaffi's young daughter.) After that, he stuck his head in the sand and played nice except for PA 103; but I think overall he has been properly motivated to abandon his former douchebaggery. So great, send weapons to the rebels and HOPE that Islamists don't hijack the revolution.


I'm certain the average Libyan out there getting his ass beat so his kids can eat would thoughtfully consider your position and offer some feedback, and we'd have a nice little discussion, before we would take a break so you could go have your steak dinner and he can get some more teeth knocked out.

What you or I want really is irrelevant; the people of Libya want Qadafi the hell out of power. While I don't think the US should get involved, I must say it's rather soothing that for once, we're actually taking a side with the people over their oppressors. Of course we're only doing so because the oppressor's a traditional American boogeyman who's in no position to do anything about it, so we're basically just kicking him while he's down...


Then there is Iran. Two years ago, Obama turned a deaf ear to the pleas of protesters who were begging for support - and they were protesting a regime that, in THEIR eyes, has been our bitter enemy since 1979. So fine. Poor Neda died for nothing.

Now he's doing it again. Iranian protests are met with crushing resistance every bit as brutal as Libya's, but Dear Leader says it's none of our business. The one revolution we SHOULD be supporting, and President Numbnuts won't give it half-a-thought.


Because it's relevant to US interests to keep its other boogeymen in place, just to keep little people like you trembling in fear of the Next Big Scary Guy who's going to come over with his beard, his camel, and his scimitar and make you say "Allah u akbar!"

No, that's not a joke. Ahmedinejad and the Islamic Republic's theocratic regime are good propaganda material for the US, and you are a fine example of the primary consumer of that product. So long as you're scared, the military-industrial complex can keep sucking your tax dollars. Thanks for your contribution, have fun with your Stress level: Orange.

If the people of Iran manage to toss those losers out on their ass, you can bet the US will come sniffing around to offer some lukewarm support for the people; it's what we're doing in Libya, and what we did in Egypt and Tunisia, and what we'll do everywhere else once our pet dictators are no more; pretend we were with the people all along, ha ha ha, don't pay attention to our funding your oppressors, guys, ha ha ha. Hillary Clinton, who's Hillary Clinton, ha ha ha!


He's bound and determined to have every government in the Muslim world led by adherents that hate our guts and want to see us converted or destroyed.


Except none of these revolutions are getting that result, no matter how hard you clench your skinny little cheeks and wish for it to be so. I know that, like most Americans, you're shocked by the concept, but they really, truly, honestly, do not give a good god damn about you. They've got more important stuff to worry about, if you haven't been noticing.

However I can't help but notice that you're quite similar to what you're professing to be against here. Aren't you trying to impose dictatorial controls and violence against people's wishes in a desperate attempt to covert them to what you think is best for them - which curiously enough, is exactly what is actually better for you than them?


Tell me this Scumbag-in-Chief doesn't have an agenda that is contrary to the best interests of the US, and I have a bridge to sell you (It's surrounded by swamp land, doesn't go anywhere, and it's made out of cotton candy.)

edit on 3/6/2011 by OldCorp because: Spellin an punkshoeation


I don't think the "Scumbag-in-Chief" has a single clue what the hell he is doing, one way or another. he reminds me of the Governor that Mel Brooks played in "Blazing Saddles"
edit on 7/3/2011 by TheWalkingFox because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 10:51 AM
link   
This thread is a must read: Virtually unknown in the West: Libya's water resources. The real reason for toppling Quadaffi?

Note also, from August 23, 2010:

Libya's Qaddafi taps 'fossil water' to irrigate desert farms


While many countries in the Middle East and North Africa bicker over water rights, Libya has tapped into an aquifer of 'fossil water' to change its topography – turning sand into soil. The 26-year, $20 billion project is nearly finished.

…The Great Man-Made River, which is leader Muammar Qaddafi's ambitious answer to the country’s water problems, irrigates Libya’s large desert farms. The 2,333-mile network of pipes ferry water from four major underground aquifers in southern Libya to the northern population centers. Wells punctuate the water’s path, allowing farmers to utilize the water network in their fields.

“Water is more precious for us than oil. ... Water here in Libya, it’s life.”



Important background information, no?



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
The dichotomy is that while the Saudi's are putting their boots on the throats of protesters in THEIR country, Obama is asking for help in supplying arms to the protesters in Libia.
I don't understand.

Really.

I just don't get it. I mean, sure. . . allies and all, oil and supply, OPEC, and all that.

But has morality left the building?

On the other hand, as stated in the Egypt protest threads, who's to say that the protesters will bring about "positive" change?

I guess I'd have to plead ignorant and read more, but this is confusing the heck out of me.


Yes its confusing but just because its confusing to you doesnt mean you should revert to stereotypical views of the middle east as this radical islamists who just want to have their hands cut and stoned and strap a bomb to themselves. Is Egypt's changes going to be positive? YES and you know why? because its f****** Egypt! nuff said. Oh and obama was sadly not meant to lead the world, he lacks the strength that has been attributed commonly to previous american presidents, you know someone who makes tough decisions but with moral principles. If you ask me, obama should ask the egyptians to send those weapons if not more, because the situation in libya even though was an effect to what happened in egypt it in return affected egyptians directly and will continue to do so.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by DuneKnight
 

Who's reverting to stereotypical views? I'm so glad YOUR crystal ball shows nothing but peace and prosperity, mine doesn't.
As for Obama getting involved, if he'd state that he doesn't want to get involved, he should have shut his yap before Egypt imploded.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by OldCorp
 


"Great minds apparently think alike" i lol'd also political opinion goes on politics this forum is about the MIDDLE EAST herp derp



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


thank you sofi for saving me the trouble


oldcorp:



The Iranian people are the most PRO-Western populace of any in the Midde-east. Despite 30 some odd years of regular Friday afternoon rallies orchestrated and televised by the government, filled with chants of "Death to America," the PEOPLE of Iran are relatively modern in their attitudes, well educated, and LOVE the United States. For Obama to abandon them when they need our help the most is an unconscionable act of betrayal. FFS, that LOSER won't even offer a word of encouragement.


i once read an article years ago about a typical iranian couple and their friends, out on the street the ladies wore proper islamic robes and such, but once inside all that came off and the ladies are all wearing jeans and western clothes 100% in agreement iranians are pro western they just don't want western politics messing with their lives.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by DuneKnight
 

Who's reverting to stereotypical views? I'm so glad YOUR crystal ball shows nothing but peace and prosperity, mine doesn't.
As for Obama getting involved, if he'd state that he doesn't want to get involved, he should have shut his yap before Egypt imploded.



That i agree with, why did he go to cairo anyway talking nonesense. Wasnt even received well in egypt, they knew he was bluffing, who was he fooling? America only cares for america, which is why Egyptians unfortunately i guess perceive american gov as one that didnt mind to be partially responsible for egyptians lack of freedom unril egyptians themselves protested at tahrir. Whoever becomes president in egypt, they wont put american interests ahead of egypt's thats for sure. So of course obama or who else wont like the new middle east. but not because of islamism: twitter.com...
edit on 7-3-2011 by DuneKnight because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   
You all can bang and rail on your pots about Obama all you want but he has been making his best decisions these days.

Tunisia hands off
Egypt hands off
Libya so far hands off
Iran hands off.

US has done enough and is paying the prices. We dont need to be involved in any other countries affairs anymore. So yes America should only be about America right now. We've neglected our infrastructure long enough. Can't outsource those jobs. Meanwhile we are in debt, meanwhile we are in Afghanistan, meanwhile still in Iraq, and meanwhile you guys are still banging war drums in other people's countries

Yes we should be cutting away from oil, and going green. We will have no need to rely on it anymore. We are addicts and breaking a habit always hurts but is necessary. Gas prices will rise if a mosquito farts on a pipeline. He was all for offshore drilling until BP happened.

Hate all you want but there is only one Republican I'd vote for against him and that would be Ron Paul, and he doesnt seem to have the support base necessary. I want a President who has the sack to take out the Federal Reserve, but we all know how thats prolly going to end.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrStyx
You all can bang and rail on your pots about Obama all you want but he has been making his best decisions these days.

Tunisia hands off
Egypt hands off
Libya so far hands off
Iran hands off.

US has done enough and is paying the prices. We dont need to be involved in any other countries affairs anymore. So yes America should only be about America right now. We've neglected our infrastructure long enough. Can't outsource those jobs. Meanwhile we are in debt, meanwhile we are in Afghanistan, meanwhile still in Iraq, and meanwhile you guys are still banging war drums in other people's countries

Yes we should be cutting away from oil, and going green. We will have no need to rely on it anymore. We are addicts and breaking a habit always hurts but is necessary. Gas prices will rise if a mosquito farts on a pipeline. He was all for offshore drilling until BP happened.

Hate all you want but there is only one Republican I'd vote for against him and that would be Ron Paul, and he doesnt seem to have the support base necessary. I want a President who has the sack to take out the Federal Reserve, but we all know how thats prolly going to end.


Militarily no but can the US butt off from all the backroom deals that perpetuated the existence of these oppressive regimes? no



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Saudi Arabia's getting more money from China now than America.

Why would they want to use the Saud military to help America's foreign policy/global transformation?

If Saudi Arabia wanted to remain sovereign they'd be financing China's carrier battle groups being built and China's Space capability.

If the Saud's agree and follow Obama....down the road they know their country would be on the chopping block.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


wow ! Bush ? then Obama. First I read' they don't want help, Then they want the No fly Zone. Then they don't want the no fly zone. and no troops. Sound to like they need a Rebel Leader. not to mention the media is really messing with these statements or the state department is. I Imagine seeing some state department official or CNN telling the "rebels No, No.....not Bush, Obama. ok, lets do a retake on this again. everyone now 1-2-3....

Thanks for that information kind of strange there asking for Bush; reminds me of the Twilight zone.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by DuneKnight

Militarily no but can the US butt off from all the backroom deals that perpetuated the existence of these oppressive regimes? no


Neither can any other country in the world. Everyone has back room deals.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1   >>

log in

join