President Obama Throws Israel Under The Bus

reply to post by Wide-Eyes


Ten Facts That Prove that Iran Wants The Bomb

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
Christianity spread through the world through colonization, which also involved conflict as well. Whats your point?

Muhammad was a violent warlord. He spread Islam by the sword. Islam expanded by the sword.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n

That does not address what I said earlier about the Wests history of imperialism and conquest of people the world over.

By all means have a conversation with yourself about the West's history of imperialism. This thread is about Obama throwing Israel under the bus in terms of their concerns over a Nuclear armed Iran.

reply to post by ollncasino


If we're going to go back through the history books and drag out every grievance then we could be here for a while. When we look at the time frame of what you've posted about the spread of "Islamic violence", how does that compare to the spread of American force throughout the history of the USA? How many countries has America invaded or otherwise been militarily involved in?

You can't claim the aggressions of a faith over thousands of years are abhorrent (even though much of that spread would have been willingly, much like Christianity) while ignoring the aggressions of a nation in a much shorter time - with bombs and bullets rather than religious doctrine.

I'm afraid your posts only make you look more and more like an anti-Islam propagandist. We're not talking about history, we're not even debating religion. We're talking about one nation (a hypocrite nation that also refuses to allow inspection of its nuclear arsenal and refuses to abide by international law) wanting to attack another nation (one that has repeatedly sat down with the international community and allowed weapons inspections numerous times) and demanding that its slave nation the USA do the dirty work for them.

I don't like Obama that much, I think he's perhaps the biggest disappointment I have ever seen when it comes to leadership. However, he is right on this. The USA should not be a puppet for Israel.

Maybe when Israel stops stealing land and resources, stops oppressing its neighbors, and allows the international community to investigate its nuclear arsenal my opinions might change just a little. But until then, every action, sentence and even face twitch by any member of the Israeli regime will be met with 100% suspicion.

Here are 3 theories concerning the Obama-Bibi hate fest

1)It's all a ploy to make Obama look like the bad guy, and Romney the good guy. Most likely scenario.

2) Obama is growing a conscience - not likely considering everything else he's done.

3) Considering Obama's mission in life seems to be destroying america, what better way then for the final death nail to piss off Israel, causing the globalist zionists to unleash their biblical hatred on america - makes for a good movie plotline, but not very likely.

4) okay one more, or obama just doesn't like netty.

Originally posted by detachedindividual

I'm afraid your posts only make you look more and more like an anti-Islam propagandist.

I was responding to a comment that Israel is trying to cause a division between the West and Islam.

I demonstrated that such a division already exists by way of the fact that Islamic aggression against the West has occurred off and on, mostly on, over the last 1,300 years.

But let's face it. There is no need to make up propaganda about Islam. It's own founder, religious books and history provides ample anti-Islamic 'propaganda' merely by shining light upon them.

I'm not comfortable with the thought of a bunch of Iranian fundamentalists having the Nuclear bomb. How about you?

Originally posted by ollncasino

Muhammad was a violent warlord. He spread Islam by the sword. Islam expanded by the sword.

The Christian Crusaders, what were they bringing to Foreign Countries?

Fruit Baskets?

reply to post by Tw0Sides

The Christian Crusaders, what were they bringing to Foreign Countries?

Fruit Baskets?

You're not familiar with the Crusades? I'm surprised. They were designed to stop the invasion of Islamic forces, and rescue the city of Jerusalem which had been captured.

Besides, fruit baskets hadn't been invented then.

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

The Christian Crusaders, what were they bringing to Foreign Countries?

Could you clarify the relevance of your comment to the issue of Obama throwing Israel under the bus in terms of their concerns about Iran having a nuclear bomb?

Originally posted by filosophia
4) okay one more, or obama just doesn't like netty.

Can I add One more?

5) Members of Israeli Intell, Members of US Intell and Members of British Intell have all stated that Iran is NOT building a Nuke.

Maybe Obama doesnt want another Oopsie, like Iraq.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by detachedindividual

I'm afraid your posts only make you look more and more like an anti-Islam propagandist.

I was responding to a comment that Israel is trying to cause a division between the West and Islam.

I demonstrated that such a division already exists by way of the fact that Islamic aggression against the West has occurred off and on, mostly on, over the last 1,300 years.

But let's face it. There is no need to make up propaganda about Islam. It's own founder, religious books and history provides ample anti-Islamic 'propaganda' merely by shining light upon them.

I'm not comfortable with the thought of a bunch of Iranian fundamentalists having the Nuclear bomb. How about you?

edit on 24-9-2012 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)

Oh I love religious hypocrisy! It's some of the best hypocrisy around, almost as juicy and delicious as political hypocrisy!

Christianity has been NO SAINT when it comes to preaching violence. It's amazing how so many people choose lines of text from one religious book to point out the violence, while ignoring the violence in other religious text. I'm not going to go into the whole issue of the Bible preaching slavery, stoning, conquest... because we've all been there already. It's just wonderful to see the easily-targeted hypocrisy is still alive and well!

No, I'm not happy about Iranian fundamentalists having a nuke either. But then I'm not happy with one of the most aggressive nations in the world having nukes. That could be Israel - a nation that has undoubtedly and irrefutably caused more harm and suffering to its neighbors than Iran, or it could be the USA, a nation that has invaded, attacked and slaughtered millions of people around the world... I wouldn't trust ANY of these nations with nuclear weapons.

But, the solution is not to back one violent and aggressive regime (one that refuses international law and refuses to allow the world to see its weapons) over another regime (one that actually has made more of an effort to be seen as responsible than the nation intending to attack it!)

What would I do? I would continue with diplomacy. I would tell Israel to take a long walk off a very short pier, or tell them that if they want to destabilize the region and start a war, they're in it on their own.

Either way, the US, UK and rest of the world should be telling Israel that they are hypocrites, they don't call the shots, they are not viewed as trustworthy by the populations of many nations, and we will not blindly obey their orders and do their dirty work for them.

Israel should be isolated on the international stage until they can play by the rules.

Originally posted by detachedindividual

Oh I love religious hypocrisy! It's some of the best hypocrisy around, almost as juicy and delicious as political hypocrisy!

Christianity has been NO SAINT when it comes to preaching violence. It's amazing how so many people choose lines of text from one religious book to point out the violence, while ignoring the violence in other religious text.

I'm not going to go into the whole issue of the Bible preaching slavery, stoning, conquest... because we've all been there already. It's just wonderful to see the easily-targeted hypocrisy is still alive and well!

I'm not a Christian.

Originally posted by detachedindividual

No, I'm not happy about Iranian fundamentalists having a nuke either.

I'm glad we agree on something.

reply to post by ollncasino

I'm not comfortable with the thought of a bunch of Iranian fundamentalists having the Nuclear bomb.

If that's your concern, relax...The threat of a nuclear iran has been used for more then three decades now.

Imminent Nuclear Threat

To have people pushing for war on both sides, should be much more of a concern for you.

Here's just one example. Fear of conflict is not the reason for 'western' foreign policies, rather it is part of an agenda to incite violence and aggression.

1980's: US-CIA backed National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL) made multiple attempts to assassinate Qaddafi and initiate armed rebellion throughout Libya.

1990's: Noman Benotman and the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) wage a campaign of terror against Qaddafi with Osama Bin Laden's assistance.

2003: Upon Qaddafi's abandonment of WMD programs, Libya's collaboration with MI6 & the CIA to identify and expose the LIFG networks begins, giving Western intelligence a windfall of information regarding the group.

2005: NFSL's Ibrahim Sahad founds the National Conference of Libyan Opposition (NCLO) in London England.

2011: Early February, the London based NCLO calls for a Libyan "Day of Rage," beginning the "February 17th revolution."

2011: Late February, NFSL/NCLO's Ibrahim Sahad is leading opposition rhetoric, literally in front of the White House in Washington D.C. Calls for no-fly zone in reaction to unsubstantiated accusations Qaddafi is strafing "unarmed protesters" with warplanes.

2011: Late February, Senators Lieberman and McCain and UK PM David Cameron call for providing air cover for Libyan rebels as well as providing them additional arms.

2011: Early March; it is revealed UK SAS special forces are already operating inside Libya

2011: Mid-March; UN adopts no-fly zone over Libya, including air strikes. Immediately, the mission is changed from "protecting civilians" to "ousting Qaddafi." Egypt violates the arms embargo of UN r.1973 with Washington's full knowledge by supplying Libyan rebels with weapons, while Al Qaeda's ties to the rebels are admitted by everyone including the rebels themselves.

source

The U.S. support of israel seems to be 'intact'.

It winds me up when I hear stuff like this. The christians went to america and handed out small pox infected blankets to the locals who they had rounded up and put in camps. Completely stole every thing in america and murdered every one there. They are still at it today. Roaming arround the world spreading democracy by using terrorists organisations, who they are at war with, wink wink. Yes the crusaders went to free jerusalem. haha What right did they have to do that? Oh yes the spirit in the sky crew again. Onwards christian soldiers lol fighting and killing for jesus the rabbi. Who if he existed would curse every one of you. Any way the only people he was against were? Yup those nice bankster types. Who fund wars and murder rape and pillage were ever they go.

I've been wondering if Israel is getting behind the Romney campaign, and Barry is retaliating with his "I'll see you when I see you" attitude. Perhaps they solicited more US support and didn't believe the pres when they were told that there wasn't anything left to give?

I'm really curious about this, because it could say much, much more about Obama than we've grown to understand...

reply to post by ollncasino


Interesting. If all those things are true then it does point to weapons research, shame the video was ruined at the end.



There is no example in history where a country HAS exceeded the threshold, excluding the USA of course. I'm not bashing America before anyone starts.

reply to post by ollncasino


This is comment I made a bit back on the matter:

I remember the first time Netanyahu came to the WH and was openly disrespected by Obama. If I remember correctly, he was also forced to leave through a side door (treated with utter contempt). I saw our government has turned its back on Israel back then. The words that have come from the WH was supportive since then but the actions have said otherwise (so I see deception there). I don't know how it is going to be pulled off and unfold but, I smell a double/double cross in here somewhere. I see Obama as an enemy to Israel from the get go and must wait until the proper time to do this double/double cross (I am guessing after he secures his seat in November, he isn't going anywhere..ever). I see this recent event as planned in preparation for a near future event. I am guessing the UN has something planned for November and Russia is involved. This may sound silly, so just disregard if you think so...It's just a guess I have, based on paying attention to the actions and giving less regard to what has been said to the public. But defiantly, I see a "set up" in the works. But hey...I don't follow all that is going on over there so I could be way off. *shrugs

Deceive and be deceived. I think there are a lot of people who trusted a lot of deception and promises. I am pretty sure soon these promises will be broken. It would make much more sense to people if they would just understand theses leaders are not working for us...they are U.N. people. The actions say the opposite of the words.... (for a couple decades now..catch up people).

Originally posted by Wide-Eyes

I hate this guy! I think I dislike him even more than Obama, he's just so creepy.

I don't really like him either but this is a good speech..

reply to post by Foppezao


But he's using puppy dog eyes and talking in a softly, softly voice. It's patronising. The guy is slime...

+10 on the redirection of the thread from being about I$rael to being about Islam.
You've earned your pay this week.

How 'bout a Fresca? Hmmm? Hmmmmmm?

reply to post by ollncasino

This thread is about Obama throwing Israel under the bus in terms of their concerns over a Nuclear armed Iran.

This thread WAS about a modern day political issue, involving Obama and Iran.... until you derailed your own thread by posting about the conquests of Mohammad and the expansion of Islam around the world. Like it has anything to do with your own OP.

BTW, the wests history of imperialism becomes relevant whenever someone from the west keeps bringing up Islams history of conquest, as if Islam was the only thing that was spread around the world.