..question about Libya, Gadaffi and Obama(s admin)

[neutral]

Re: ..question about Libya, Gadaffi and Obama(s admin)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RichD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Derek</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I don't see any statements claiming it's ONLY in the West. </div></div>

so the ones in the east have conflicting interests to the ones in the west? they don't communicate? don't share goals? </div></div>


that is If you assume that unelected leaders wish to further their interests outside the countries they control,...and it is a big assumption.

[RichD]

Re: ..question about Libya, Gadaffi and Obama(s admin)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Natral_browning</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RichD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Derek</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I don't see any statements claiming it's ONLY in the West. </div></div>

so the ones in the east have conflicting interests to the ones in the west? they don't communicate? don't share goals? </div></div>


that is If you assume that unelected leaders wish to further their interests outside the countries they control,...and it is a big assumption. </div></div>

so is only the ones in the west looking to do that?

[Derek]

Re: ..question about Libya, Gadaffi and Obama(s admin)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RichD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Natral_browning</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RichD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Derek</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I don't see any statements claiming it's ONLY in the West. </div></div>

so the ones in the east have conflicting interests to the ones in the west? they don't communicate? don't share goals? </div></div>


that is If you assume that unelected leaders wish to further their interests outside the countries they control,...and it is a big assumption. </div></div>

so is only the ones in the west looking to do that? </div></div>



Choh...

[RichD]

Re: ..question about Libya, Gadaffi and Obama(s admin)

i don't understan why the promoters of the OWG..nuh include the whole world in dem planning

[neutral]

Re: ..question about Libya, Gadaffi and Obama(s admin)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RichD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Natral_browning</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RichD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Derek</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I don't see any statements claiming it's ONLY in the West. </div></div>

so the ones in the east have conflicting interests to the ones in the west? they don't communicate? don't share goals? </div></div>


that is If you assume that unelected leaders wish to further their interests outside the countries they control,...and it is a big assumption. </div></div>

so is only the ones in the west looking to do that? </div></div>


But big man,how yu ask summuch question...?

[RichD]

Re: ..question about Libya, Gadaffi and Obama(s admin)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Natral_browning</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

But big man,how yu ask summuch question...? </div></div>

thirst for knowledge....

[Derek]

Re: ..question about Libya, Gadaffi and Obama(s admin)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Natral_browning</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
But big man,how yu ask summuch question...? </div></div>


To raaaa.....

[RichD]

Re: ..question about Libya, Gadaffi and Obama(s admin)

[Emperah]

Re: ..question about Libya, Gadaffi and Obama(s admin)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pleXxed</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i'm curious to know how many here feel about Obama's recent dealings with Gadaffi, and Libya overall..
no conspiracy business, just what you gut feeling is..
</div></div>
Others have said it already bout him being a politician etc.
But that gives him no excuse to let them make him out to be an invader and colonizer of Africa.
It really sucks that he let himself be used in this way, murdering black ppl in the continent of his father and other ancestors. He says NOTHING where black ppl are concerned and has completely turned his back on those that put him in office.
He as zero evidence of any of the claims he put on Quadffi and have the never fi sey it is in our interest and how de man is a state sponsor-er of terrorism.
Who sponsors terror more than the country he is <span style="text-decoration: line-through">head</span> puppet of?

[jah_yout]

Re: ..question about Libya, Gadaffi and Obama(s admin)

the chinese know their gov't is totalitarian...

inna the merry makka u s of a the people are not aware that their gov't has become totalitarian...

only tea baggers make that claim even though it's a smokescreen outraged at the wrong things

[Emperah]

Re: ..question about Libya, Gadaffi and Obama(s admin)

<span style="font-size: 17pt">CIA lawyer says Obama administration backed and continued virtually all Bush-era programs</span>


J. D. Heyes
Natural News
Wednesday, September 7, 2011

As he campaigned for the presidency in 2007 and 2008, then Sen. Barack Obama made clear there would be no torturing of terrorism suspects on his watch, as had been done by the agency with White House and Justice Department approval during the Bush administration in the years following the 9/11 attacks.

And as it turned out, one of the first things Obama did after becoming president was sign an executive order that included a ban on the tortureof terror suspects.

That was in 2009, shortly after becoming president. But with the campaign over, now came the bitter reality of actually having togovern. As president, one of the things Obama, the new commander-in-chief, was expected to do was to continue successful prosecution of the so-called Global War On Terror begun Sept. 12, 2001. To do that would require action, not campaign promises. And action meant sticking with what worked.

That’s why, despite public protestations and campaign-like slogans of “change,” Obama used a presidential sleight of hand to disapprove torturingon U.S. soilwhile granting the CIA authority to continue the practice in countries whose record on human rights abuses was already well-known.

This is why the president, bowing the realities of office rather than the seductive sound bites of a campaign, agreed to allow the continuance of most other Bush-era anti-terrorism CIA tactics that may be distasteful to the well-heeled elite but that are vital to protect the integrity and national security of the world’s most powerful democracy.

In a soon-to-be released PBSFrontlinedocumentary John Rizzo, a top CIA lawyer, says the incoming Obama administration may have tut-tutted the agency’s anti-terrorism tactics on the campaign trail but went on to “endorse” nearly all of them when the time came to take over the reins of power.

“I was part of the transition briefings of the incoming Obama team, and they signaled fairly early on that the incoming president believed in a vigorous, aggressive, continuing counterterrorism effort,” Rizzo says in the documentary.

“Although they never said it exactly, it was clear that the interrogation program was going away. We all knew that,” he continued. “But his people were signaling to us, I think partly to try to assure us that they weren’t going to come in and dismantle the place, that they were going to be just as tough, if not tougher, than the Bush people.

“With a notable exception of the enhanced interrogation program, the incoming Obama administration changed virtually nothing with respect to existing CIA programs and operations,” he said. “Things continued. Authorities were continued that were originally granted by President Bush beginning shortly after 9/11. Those were all picked up, reviewed and endorsed by the Obama administration.”

In truth, the covert warfare programs under the Obama administration have actually expanded since the Bush team left office. While Obama may not be casting as wide a net for terror suspects around the world, that has given way to more deadlier operations, as in, an increased use of CIA-owned drones to strike terror suspects in places like Pakistan. Consider it the modern-day equivalent of President Richard Nixon’s ordering of secret bombing campaigns in Cambodia during the Vietnam War.

The Obama administration should be commended for its efforts to protect the nation from the growing global terrorist threat. Having said that, it would be a refreshing change of pace for the current White House to not just admit the preceding administration’s hard-core strategy of doing what it took to prevent future 9/11&amp;#8242;s was effective, but also worthy of repetition.

yasuh

[Derek]

Re: ..question about Libya, Gadaffi and Obama(s admin)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Emperah_dehyah</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-size: 17pt">CIA lawyer says Obama administration backed and continued virtually all Bush-era programs</span>


J. D. Heyes
Natural News
Wednesday, September 7, 2011

As he campaigned for the presidency in 2007 and 2008, then Sen. Barack Obama made clear there would be no torturing of terrorism suspects on his watch, as had been done by the agency with White House and Justice Department approval during the Bush administration in the years following the 9/11 attacks.

And as it turned out, one of the first things Obama did after becoming president was sign an executive order that included a ban on the tortureof terror suspects.

That was in 2009, shortly after becoming president. But with the campaign over, now came the bitter reality of actually having togovern. As president, one of the things Obama, the new commander-in-chief, was expected to do was to continue successful prosecution of the so-called Global War On Terror begun Sept. 12, 2001. To do that would require action, not campaign promises. And action meant sticking with what worked.

That’s why, despite public protestations and campaign-like slogans of “change,” Obama used a presidential sleight of hand to disapprove torturingon U.S. soilwhile granting the CIA authority to continue the practice in countries whose record on human rights abuses was already well-known.

This is why the president, bowing the realities of office rather than the seductive sound bites of a campaign, agreed to allow the continuance of most other Bush-era anti-terrorism CIA tactics that may be distasteful to the well-heeled elite but that are vital to protect the integrity and national security of the world’s most powerful democracy.

In a soon-to-be released PBSFrontlinedocumentary John Rizzo, a top CIA lawyer, says the incoming Obama administration may have tut-tutted the agency’s anti-terrorism tactics on the campaign trail but went on to “endorse” nearly all of them when the time came to take over the reins of power.

“I was part of the transition briefings of the incoming Obama team, and they signaled fairly early on that the incoming president believed in a vigorous, aggressive, continuing counterterrorism effort,” Rizzo says in the documentary.

“Although they never said it exactly, it was clear that the interrogation program was going away. We all knew that,” he continued. “But his people were signaling to us, I think partly to try to assure us that they weren’t going to come in and dismantle the place, that they were going to be just as tough, if not tougher, than the Bush people.

“With a notable exception of the enhanced interrogation program, the incoming Obama administration changed virtually nothing with respect to existing CIA programs and operations,” he said. “Things continued. Authorities were continued that were originally granted by President Bush beginning shortly after 9/11. Those were all picked up, reviewed and endorsed by the Obama administration.”

In truth, the covert warfare programs under the Obama administration have actually expanded since the Bush team left office. While Obama may not be casting as wide a net for terror suspects around the world, that has given way to more deadlier operations, as in, an increased use of CIA-owned drones to strike terror suspects in places like Pakistan. Consider it the modern-day equivalent of President Richard Nixon’s ordering of secret bombing campaigns in Cambodia during the Vietnam War.

The Obama administration should be commended for its efforts to protect the nation from the growing global terrorist threat. Having said that, it would be a refreshing change of pace for the current White House to not just admit the preceding administration’s hard-core strategy of doing what it took to prevent future 9/11&amp;#8242;s was effective, but also worthy of repetition.

yasuh </div></div>



I've said it over and over again: Rep and Dem; Labour and Conservative and just two sides of the same coin, all controlled by the same unelected people.

[Emperah]

Re: ..question about Libya, Gadaffi and Obama(s admin)

mi si yuh, but dem nah hear an nuh waan hear dat.

[MsPeaches]

Re: ..question about Libya, Gadaffi and Obama(s admin)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Emperah_dehyah</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Others have said it already bout him being a politician etc.
But that gives him no excuse to let them make him out to be an invader and colonizer of Africa.
It really sucks that he let himself be used in this way, murdering black ppl in the continent of his father and other ancestors. He says NOTHING where black ppl are concerned and has completely turned his back on those that put him in office.
He as zero evidence of any of the claims he put on Quadffi and have the never fi sey it is in our interest and how de man is a state sponsor-er of terrorism.
Who sponsors terror more than the country he is head puppet of?</div></div>

[Derek]

Re: ..question about Libya, Gadaffi and Obama(s admin)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Emperah_dehyah</div><div class="ubbcode-body">mi si yuh, but dem nah hear an nuh waan hear dat. </div></div>

And every four-five years you have an election (comprising flag-waving sheep) who think they're living in a democratic country.



And by the way, how come these 'world leaders' never seem to disagree on anything? How come they all seem to be singing from the same song sheet?


It is so pathetic to watch. Grown-ups reading their script like good little children and when they are finished they can have a sweetie.

Obama, Cameron, Sarkozy, Merkel and their fellow ‘leaders’ (readers) are political prostitutes singing for their supper and the illusion of ‘power’. They have no ‘power’, except officially and in theory. They say what they are told to say and this is why they always say the same thing.

Ever noticed that? No matter if they are the ‘leader’ in America, Canada, Britain, Germany or France they always agree on the same statements and the same course of action. The media calls this ‘unity’. I call it: ‘Do what we tell you – or we'll get someone who will.’

There are essentially four kinds of ‘leader’: (1) Those who know what is happening and what they are working towards (the few); (2) Those egotistical types who are desperate for ‘power’ for power’s sake and will do and say anything to get it; (3) Those with big secrets to hide through which they can be blackmailed into doing what they are told to do; (4) And idiots who are easily manipulated by ‘advisors’ and public ‘servants’.

Some can be all four. Whichever category it is, singular or in combination, the ‘leaders’ are not chosen by ‘the people’, but by those who control the money and the media.