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 weak 'war' on terrorism

page: 8
16
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   
First of all I would like to say as an outsider looking in, your current system of politics has divided the American population into two distinct lines based on party support. When I read the comments to this thread it's obvious that many of the posters cannot see the woods through the trees as such that all of this is part of the larger game. These two insignificant actors (Romney/Obama) are as interchangeable as parts in a gearbox. The script being designed and written to divide opinions and divert attention from the real problems with the world. I often look at a Chinese proverb that is hung by my desk and find it calms me in times of need.It reads ...
" If there is light in the soul,
There will be beauty in the person.
If there is beauty in the person,
There will be harmony in the house.
If there is harmony in the house,
There will be order in the nation.
If there is order in the nation,
There will be peace in the world. "
It applies to people of all races,religions and political affiliations equally. Most of all these problems come from the fabric of our own being. The light is not very bright in many these days.




posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueBlood

Originally posted by sonnny1
Muslim Nations DO coddle Extremists.

Created by the CIA.



Where have YOU been hiding, the last 15 years?


Hiding? I'm not the one ignoring posts that question hatred.



Many of them encourage it. I gave you proof, if you dont want to look at it for what it is, Thats your problem.


It's my problem that I don't hate and blame an entire people because of their religion?



Yawn.

Jews Zionism, America.


Yes we know Jews can do no wrong. They are our savior and God's chosen people. Zionism is a myth.



I see where this is going. Typical.

Judging by your responses in this thread, I would call your immature strawman typical.





You cant be. As long as you play the part of demonizing one group, and turning your back on another.

Sorry.



Who am I turning my back on by defending an entire religion which I have no affiliation with? Please explain that to me.






I have been sincere in what I said. No one said the Jews and America, haven't played a part. This is about Obama, and hisforeign policies, and lack of. If you want, you can make a thread of the last 100 years, America has directly or indirectly caused problems in the Middle East. Go for it. I wont stop you.

Second, if you have a sincere solution, I would like to hear it. Not the typical its Americas fault/ Jewish Fault. There are hundreds of threads that define that purpose. Do a search.

Hatred? If you cant see that some Muslim countries subscribe to it, and let their people preach it, daily, with disastrous effects, then I don't know what to say. Hatred is one story. Taking it to violent means, is another. You know that, but fail to put it into its proper perspective.Is that on purpose?




Peace.



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by pierregustavetoutant
 





Bush's bellicose stance may have created more irritation and destabilization in the long run


So if you were POTUS, what would you have done in Bush's stead in response to 9-11? I'm just wondering because a lot of people criticize him but I would like to know if people would have sat around and twiddled their thumbs. Would you give more money to the arab world as Obama is doing?


I'd ask you to read my full post, actually.
I think Obama's stance is worse than Bush's as my post strongly indicates.
But to answer your question: "If I was POTUS" I would have invaded Afghanistan and focused on disrupting and destroying Al Queda and the Taliban. I would not have expended American blood and treasure on creating more instability in the ME by taking Saddam out of power. The number one thing the Iraq war did was vastly improve Iran's influence in the region, while playing a big part in furthering the bankruptcy of the U.S.
That said, at least Bush had a pair, even if misguided and irrational. Obama is giving these people a handwritten invitation to attack.



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1

I have been sincere in what I said. No one said the Jews and America, haven't played a part. This is about Obama, and hisforeign policies, and lack of. If you want, you can make a thread of the last 100 years, America has directly or indirectly caused problems in the Middle East. Go for it. I wont stop you.



You brought up your opinion by laughing at me for saying that there are other people to blame than the entire Muslim population, and now you want me to go create a thread about it rather than discuss it here?



Second, if you have a sincere solution, I would like to hear it. Not the typical its Americas fault/ Jewish Fault. There are hundreds of threads that define that purpose. Do a search.


Yes I have a solution. Leave. We have double digit unemployment and no industry left in this country. NATION BUILD AMERICA INSTEAD OF THE MIDDLE EAST! Stop waging war. These people have been at war with each other for hundreds of years. It's not going to stop. You can't control it. IT IS NOT OUR BUSINESS OR OUR JOB TO PLAY WORLD POLICE! We did not create Israel. Let the Brits run over there and be Israel's lapdog. They put them there.



Hatred? If you cant see that some Muslim countries subscribe to it, and let their people preach it, daily, with disastrous effects, then I don't know what to say. Hatred is one story. Taking it to violent means, is another. You know that, but fail to put it into its proper perspective.Is that on purpose?


Let's talk about taking it to violent means by invading Iraq for no reason. 3000 people died on 9 11, over 6000 US soldiers have died since. To avenge 3000 people, we turned around and sacrafised 6000 more. The math doesn't add up. WE ARE BEING KILLED! Do you understand that? While you run around in la la land with your hatred for brown people, Americans are being sacrafised in the name of this meaningless war while our entire industry is being shipped over seas. THESE ARE THE REAL PROBLEMS! We have Americans sleeping on the street while we send FOREIGN AID over to Israel and God knows whoever else.

The solution is to JUST LEAVE!
edit on 17-9-2012 by TrueBlood because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by thepresident

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by pierregustavetoutant
 





Bush's bellicose stance may have created more irritation and destabilization in the long run


So if you were POTUS, what would you have done in Bush's stead in response to 9-11? I'm just wondering because a lot of people criticize him but I would like to know if people would have sat around and twiddled their thumbs. Would you give more money to the arab world as Obama is doing?


I would not have invaded Iraq with half a million soldiers - a country that did not attack us on 9/11...

Ronald Reagan gave tons of money to the Arab world, why is it ok that Ronnie did it, but not
ok when Obama does it?


I agree with the first statement, but completely disagree with the second. In general, Reagan was maintaining stability, even if it meant bankrolling tyrants. One could argue his pulling out of Beirut after the attacks on the marine barracks might fall into the same category as Clinton's pullout of Somalia after the Mogadishu debacle or if Obama's current stance.
Reagan, however, was more measured. Despite not pursuing it, he did enough and maintained a strong enough stance in the long run that a sustained campaign against US interests was unlikely.
I don't care for the Reagan Administration, but it was stellar compared to current President Nincompoop (Obama)
edit on 17-9-2012 by pierregustavetoutant because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-9-2012 by pierregustavetoutant because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by pierregustavetoutant

Originally posted by thepresident

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by pierregustavetoutant
 





Bush's bellicose stance may have created more irritation and destabilization in the long run


So if you were POTUS, what would you have done in Bush's stead in response to 9-11? I'm just wondering because a lot of people criticize him but I would like to know if people would have sat around and twiddled their thumbs. Would you give more money to the arab world as Obama is doing?


I would not have invaded Iraq with half a million soldiers - a country that did not attack us on 9/11...

Ronald Reagan gave tons of money to the Arab world, why is it ok that Ronnie did it, but not
ok when Obama does it?


I agree with the first statement, but completely disagree with the second. In general, Reagan was maintaining stability, even if it meant bankrolling tyrants. One could argue his pulling out of Beirut after the attacks on the marine barracks might fall into the same category as Clinton's pullout of Somalia after the Mogadishu debacle or if Obama's current stance.
Reagan, however, was more measured. Despite not pursuing it, he did enough and maintained a strong enough stance in the long run that a sustained campaign against US interests was unlikely.
I don't care for the Reagan Administration, but it was stellar compared to current President Nincompoop (Obama)
edit on 17-9-2012 by pierregustavetoutant because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-9-2012 by pierregustavetoutant because: (no reason given)


Well I hate to lay it on you, but Reagan's administration armed and trained the very people
we are purportedly fighting" in Afghanistan, not to mention relations and support for that guy
we ousted in Iraq. Reagan was fortunate in that the media did not have it out for him in the
same ways Bush and Obama have experienced. Not to mention Ronnie's policies that funded
wholesale slaughter in central America.

They gave Ronnie a pass, just like you have.



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by thepresident

Originally posted by pierregustavetoutant

Originally posted by thepresident

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by pierregustavetoutant
 





Bush's bellicose stance may have created more irritation and destabilization in the long run


So if you were POTUS, what would you have done in Bush's stead in response to 9-11? I'm just wondering because a lot of people criticize him but I would like to know if people would have sat around and twiddled their thumbs. Would you give more money to the arab world as Obama is doing?


I would not have invaded Iraq with half a million soldiers - a country that did not attack us on 9/11...

Ronald Reagan gave tons of money to the Arab world, why is it ok that Ronnie did it, but not
ok when Obama does it?


I agree with the first statement, but completely disagree with the second. In general, Reagan was maintaining stability, even if it meant bankrolling tyrants. One could argue his pulling out of Beirut after the attacks on the marine barracks might fall into the same category as Clinton's pullout of Somalia after the Mogadishu debacle or if Obama's current stance.
Reagan, however, was more measured. Despite not pursuing it, he did enough and maintained a strong enough stance in the long run that a sustained campaign against US interests was unlikely.
I don't care for the Reagan Administration, but it was stellar compared to current President Nincompoop (Obama)
edit on 17-9-2012 by pierregustavetoutant because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-9-2012 by pierregustavetoutant because: (no reason given)


Well I hate to lay it on you, but Reagan's administration armed and trained the very people
we are purportedly fighting" in Afghanistan, not to mention relations and support for that guy
we ousted in Iraq. Reagan was fortunate in that the media did not have it out for him in the
same ways Bush and Obama have experienced. Not to mention Ronnie's policies that funded
wholesale slaughter in central America.

They gave Ronnie a pass, just like you have.

Reagan's support for the Mujahadeen was in direct opposition to the USSR's occupation of Afghanistan. Yes, we armed them and a small fraction turned into the Taliban. We should have been on top of that and eliminated them as soon as the Soviets pulled out. Shortsightedness on Bush I's part. Not sure how old you are but the Soviet threat far exceeded the Islamist one at the time. What Reagan did was the right thing to do.
We did the right thing by creating, arming, crippling, and containing Saddam in Iraq. It kept the balance of power in the Middle East in our favor. The mistake was certainly not Reagan's nor Bush I. It was Bush II and his handlers. I'd take a look at media in the 80s. It was Reagan bashing at all times.
Central America was another victim of the Cold War. Not sure what it has to do with the current argument, though.
Mine is that Reagan's policies in the Middle East and Central Asia were extremely effective while Obama's are extreme failures.
edit on 17-9-2012 by pierregustavetoutant because: sp



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   


Created by the CIA.


How about created by Islam itself,the Russian invasion of Afghanistan,Eastern intelligence agencies such as the KGB who turned in to the FSB, Then funded and trained by those Arab countries themselves,such as Iran, and Vevek,Pakistan and its ISI, Saudi Arabia.

Anyone who puts sole blame on the US is full of crap people know better.



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by thepresident
 


My question was what WOULD people have done? If you wouldn't have invaded Iraq what would you have done with regard to the 9-11 Trace Center disaster? What would you have done to show Islamic hijackers and terrorists you would not allow planes to fly into buildings at home?

Also if you would not invade Iraq, do you support Obama bombing Libya, and if so why?
edit on 17-9-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   
yeah

Obama should bring OBL back to life, lie about WMDs in some country not affiliated with 9/11 and then invade that nation for a period of at least 8 years while not paying for it.

That would be so awesome


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by pierregustavetoutant
 


Thanks for your response, actually I did reread your post after I posted, but I left my post as is in case anyone wanted to take a shot at what else we could do in such circumstances other than bow to foreign leaders and apologize for a fim that hardly anyone in the states has ever seen. Seems some people did answer me....



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by spinalremain
yeah

Obama should bring OBL back to life, lie about WMDs in some country not affiliated with 9/11 and then invade that nation for a period of at least 8 years while not paying for it.

That would be so awesome


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



I guess bragging about getting Bin Laden did not win him the Islamic popularity contest after all.



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


Really?



Osama bin Laden is dead. Sh*T, every one of those guys are dead...except for the little guy with the glasses that played bin Laden's lap-puppy in the video series they busted GW's balls with for a decade.

You must think that most people on this board are either idiots or RNC kool-aid junkies. Intelligent, aware people know exactly what happened here, and they see "October Surprise" politics being ginned up by the GOP to make Obama look "weak".

Truth is, it's weird threads like this that give the Independents the heads up that this "Arab uprising" is just more Nixonian rat-f*cking political trash tactics. You people are way too obvious.



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Guess these poeople lied about WMDs to:



Guess lies only matter if there is an R by their name.



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by thepresident
 





Not to mention Ronnie's policies that funded


What policies? You mean the response to Marxist Nicaraguan Sandinistas?



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   
Yep to add:

Libya had nothing to do with 9-11 or Uganda,Yemen,Somalia, Pakistan

Some people need to get new talking points that aren't full of crap.
edit on 17-9-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
Guess these poeople lied about WMDs to:



Guess lies only matter if there is an R by their name.


I have to get back to my other forum work, but before I go, I just have to make the point that the Senate was given doctored intel, and everyone knows this. There was a lot of pressure on Obama to indict specific Bush/Cheney admin players for lying to Congress and doctoring intelligence, but he wouldn't (for obvious reasons) so you guys should be grateful for Obama's letting those idiots off the hook after what they did. That said, there are at least a half-dozen nations with outstanding warrants out for Bush and Cheney because of the smoke and mirrors job their team did on the "advise and consent" Senate when they were making the case for that invasion. The facts are well established that the Senate was hoodwinked, and yea, that's always been illegal for the Executive Branch to hoodwink the Legislative Branch in order to get a war approved.

Just try to stay with facts if you can.



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Those were the facts their own words now if someone is saying those congressman were "duped" that dog doesn't hunt.

Just like ATS they are responsible for their own actions.



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   
So when Obama uses drones to airstrike terrorists, he's grossly abusing his power.....
but when he doesn't stop riots, he's being weak on terrorism?



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
Guess these poeople lied about WMDs to:



Guess lies only matter if there is an R by their name.

False left-right paradigm.
Neo you fall for it more than anyone, not sure why you're judging others for falling for it as well.
edit on 17-9-2012 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
16
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join