Awkward: Pres. Obama Has Bombed Seven Countries Since Accepting Nobel Peace Prize

a reply to: MarlinGrace

Really goes all the way back to the Roosevelt administration when he allied the US with the House of Saud.

Since then every Potus has played their parts..

But Bush 'started' it!!!!

Ibn Saud had conquered most of the Arabian peninsula and consolidated it into one kingdom with the help of the fanatically religious Wahhabi Bedouins, who believed, among other things, that dying in battle was a ticket to paradise, that all images, from pictures to statues, had to be destroyed, that drinking and smoking and singing and dancing were sins punishable by whipping, and so forth.

articles.baltimoresun.com...

Ever since that day the House of Saud has been stabbing us in the back.

Ibn Saud goes back even further....

Abdulaziz, usually known outside of the Arab world as Ibn Saud[1] (15 January 1876[2] – 9 November 1953) (Arabic: عبد العزيز آل سعود‎ ‘Abd al-‘Azīz Āl Sa‘ūd) was the first monarch of Saudi Arabia, the third Saudi State.[3]

He reconquered his family's ancestral home city of Riyadh in 1902, touching off three decades of conquests that left him the ruler of nearly all of central Arabia. .......

During World War I, the British government established diplomatic relations with Ibn Saud.

Ibn Saud

a reply to: neo96

Read your link Neo. It wasn't FDR or Ibn Saud that stabbed anyone in the back, it was Truman with the support for the creation of Israel.

a reply to: sheepslayer247

I suggest someone READ this:

Ibn Saud had conquered most of the Arabian peninsula and consolidated it into one kingdom with the help of the fanatically religious Wahhabi Bedouins, who believed, among other things, that dying in battle was a ticket to paradise, that all images, from pictures to statues, had to be destroyed, that drinking and smoking and singing and dancing were sins punishable by whipping, and so forth.

Then follow it up with this:

A WikiLeaks released memo from the United States Secretary of State sent in 2009 asserted that the primary source of funding of Sunni terrorist groups worldwide was Saudi Arabia.[70]

en.wikipedia.org...

Then follow it up here:

The Islamic State (IS; Arabic: الدولة الإسلامية‎ ad-Dawlah l-ʾIslāmiyyah), previously calling itself the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL /ˈaɪsəl/) or the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS /ˈaɪsɪs/; Arabic: الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام‎), and also known by the Arabic acronym Daʿesh (داعش),[a] is an unrecognized state and a Sunni jihadist group active in Iraq and Syria in the Middle East. In its self-proclaimed status as a caliphate, it claims religious authority over all Muslims across the world[86] and aims to bring most of the Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its political control[87] beginning with territory in the Levant region which includes Jordan, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Cyprus and part of southern Turkey.[88

en.wikipedia.org...

Now I wonder where Wahhabism comes from:

Wahhabism (Arabic: وهابية‎, Wahhābiyyah) or Wahhabi mission[1] (Arabic: ألدعوة ألوهابية‎, al-Da'wa al-Wahhābiyyah ) is a religious movement or sect or form[2] of Sunni Islam[3][4][5] variously described as "orthodox", "ultraconservative",[6] "austere",[2] "fundamentalist",[7] "puritanical"[8] (or "puritan"),[9] an Islamic "reform movement" to restore "pure monotheistic worship",[10] or an "extremist pseudo-Sunni movement".[11] Adherents often object to the term Wahhabi or Wahhabism as derogatory, and prefer to be called Salafi or muwahhid.[12

en.wikipedia.org...

Sounds ALOT like the first quoted material n'est pas?

a reply to: sheepslayer247

If we are to look at this honestly, it goes back to the CIA involvement in the Iran coup of 1953. Our government has been sticking their noses where it doesn't belong for many years and it spans many administrations and many political ideologies.

It's so true that as much as things change, they stay the same.

Remember this timeless piece? Just change the names and places, or not........

a reply to: windword

If we are to look at this honestly, it goes back to the CIA involvement in the Iran coup of 1953. Our government has been sticking their noses where it doesn't belong for many years and it spans many administrations and many political ideologies

At best that is is a half truth. AT worst a straight out LIE.

The UK dragged US in to that cluster eff See here:

The 1953 Iranian coup d'état, known in Iran as the 28 Mordad coup, was the overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran Mohammad Mosaddegh on 19 August 1953, orchestrated by the United Kingdom (under the name 'Operation Boot') and the United States (under the name TPAJAX Projec

en.wikipedia.org...

The next part is the juicy part:

Mossadegh had sought to audit the books of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), a British corporation (now BP) and to change the terms of the company's access to Iranian oil reserves

The UK got the oil.

The US gets the blame.

a reply to: neo96

Ok, this is turning in to nothing more than a xenophobic rant. Good luck with that.

Still does nothing to show that your initial point wasn't completely wrong.

Honestly Neo, this is pointless. The social engineering has worked and there is nothing I can do to save you.

a reply to: neo96

like I said, change the names and places, or not........

The more things change, the more the stay the same. It the same old story and the same old outrage.

a reply to: sheepslayer247

Ok, this is turning in to nothing more than a xenophobic rant. Good luck with that.

How the hell is that ?

Radical Islamic fascists are not born. They are made, and most are made, and funded by Saudi Arabia.

Still does nothing to show that your initial point wasn't completely wrong.

Which point was that ?

The fact that the current potus has done nothing for peace?

Or.

The FACT that GW didn't start the 'war on terror' ?

Honestly Neo, this is pointless. The social engineering has worked and there is nothing I can do to save you.

Been reading Hamas's playbook ?

Social welfare Hamas has a welfare wing providing social services to Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, including running relief programs and funding schools, orphanages, mosques, healthcare clinics, soup kitchens, and sports leagues.[65] In particular, Hamas funded health services where people could receive free or inexpensive medical treatment. Hamas greatly contributed to the health sector, and facilitated hospital and physician services in the Palestinian territory. On the other hand, Hamas's use of hospitals is sometimes criticised as purportedly serving the promotion of violence against Israel.[66] Charities affiliated with Hamas are known to financially support families of those who have been killed or imprisoned while carrying out militant actions or supporting such actions. Families typically receive a one time grant of $500 to $5,000, and those whose homes have been destroyed by the Israel Defense Forces have their rent paid for temporary housing. Families of militants not affiliated with Hamas sometimes receive less.[67] Hamas has funded education and built Islamic charities, libraries, mosques and education centers for women. They also built nurseries, kindergartens and supervised religious schools that provide free meals to children. When children attend their schools and mosques, parents are required to sign oaths of allegiance. Refugees, as well as those left without homes, are able to claim financial and technical assistance from Hamas.[68] The work of Hamas in these fields supplements that provided by the United Nations Relief Works Agency (UNRWA). Despite building materials needing to be smuggled into the territory, luxury beach resorts and tourist facilities operated by the interior ministry have been constructed by Hamas government–linked charities, including gardens, playgrounds, football fields, a zoo and restaurants aimed to provide employment and low cost entertainment for citizens. Some Palestinians have complained about the admission fee, criticizing Hamas for charging them to use "government-owned" property.[69]

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: MarlinGrace

Really goes all the way back to the Roosevelt administration when he allied the US with the House of Saud.

Since then every Potus has played their parts..

But Bush 'started' it!!!!

Ibn Saud had conquered most of the Arabian peninsula and consolidated it into one kingdom with the help of the fanatically religious Wahhabi Bedouins, who believed, among other things, that dying in battle was a ticket to paradise, that all images, from pictures to statues, had to be destroyed, that drinking and smoking and singing and dancing were sins punishable by whipping, and so forth.

articles.baltimoresun.com...

Ever since that day the House of Saud has been stabbing us in the back.

Your history is much better than mine, I only do well with what happened during my time and what I have seen. Sometimes I wonder if every administration is squirting a gas on the fire and things get worse for the next guy.

a reply to: luciddream

Both Iraq and Afghanistan are in the list. For the record.

You want to know what's even more awkward? The fact that we've all let him do it.

Obarry only has power because we gave him power, and he only gets to keep and abuse that power because we keep letting him.

Like a smart man once said, "If you're sitting around waiting for something to change... how's anything going to change if everyone's just sitting around?"

originally posted by: boogeywoogey
a reply to: neo96

So we should allow 'ISIS' - 'ISIL'.

?

They have an unsustainable ideology that will burn out if not provoked. They require the constant interference of non muslims in their way of life in order to create a bad guy. By not bombing them, and infact by going out of our way to avoid them we take away the justification for their extremism. Furthermore worth noting, had we simply stayed out of both Iraq and Syria in the first place they never would have formed.

So yes, we should allow ISIS because fighting them is what causes them to exist in the first place. By minding our own business they go away.

originally posted by: MarlinGrace
a reply to: neo96

Certainly he now qualifies for the title "War Monger", "Cowboy", "Torturer", "War Criminal", all the same names bandied about when Bush was president. Bush didn't even have a kill list, he didn't kill any US citizens without a trial violating the 4th amendment rights of a US citizen.

If anyone thinks there isn't a progressive, liberal, socialist, communist agenda (Pick a Label) ask yourself where are the war protesters? No one stands in front of the WH with their signs calling for an end to the fighting. What we have now is 4000 people protesting wall street involvement in climate change. Where is the call to try Obama for war crimes? He personally sentenced a US citizen to death without a trial. Torture and rendition continued under his administration.

Where are the cries from the left? Where is that old and retired WH reporter calling Bush the worst president ever? Why isn't Biden involved as an evil doer for his sons back door deals?

Partisan politics sadly. Obama has essentially been terms 3 and 4 of Bush. I find it interesting, and a bit sad at how the different sides flip flopped on their opinions of these policies simply due to the party the person is affiliated with. If there was any honesty among Obama's base the renewal of the Patriot Act (to say nothing of everything else) would have gotten him thrown out of office.

It is a bizarre world we are living in right now.Some how Yasser Arafat won a nobel peace prize.Never peace in Palestine and Israel.Obama wins the nobel peace prize just for agreeing climate change is needed.
Cannot make this stuff up.

* Awkward: Pres. Obama Has Bombed Seven Countries Since Accepting Nobel Peace Prize *

Well here's another take on it that might be plausible.... By giving him a Nobel Prize, did those bestowing it think perhaps it might force him into 'hands tied' behavior in a way limiting his ability to address war issues the US might encounter? After all, we were barely recovering from Bush and Cheney's schemes. Or perhaps to ultimately weaken the US via Obama.

Too late to edit so I'm just going to say this in regards to my previous post. I'm more willing to give Bush a pass because the guy was a moron. He was a C student from a university that's known for having very high graduation rates (hint: they don't fail you for screwing up) and he in all probability gave Cheney most of the decisions during his presidency. Cheney is an evil SOB and Bush was a moron who didn't understand what he was doing.

Then we have Obama. He is an academic and has always portrayed himself as the smartest guy in the room. Furthermore his area of study is constitutional law. Obama more so than most of the Supreme Court, the Congress, or previous Presidents is fully aware of what was done and allowed it to continue.

That fact alone makes his entire presidency a total farce. If Obama was half the man those who voted for him believed him to be, in response to getting the Nobel Peace Prize he would have turned it down saying something along the lines of "judge me after my term based on what I have done, don't reward me based on what I said I'm going to do".