Barack Obama
- Thread starter domi
- Start date
Yes, especially that media is always underlining that some people are threatening him.Danny said:
But my sentiment is that they need him to make some superficial changes. These superficial changes will not change the outcome of deep economic collapse and wars, but in the mind of people it will be suggested that "change" induced those catastrophes. They will say : look where these liberal-romantic politics conducted us, now we need real politics (through police-state, urgent state etc) to overcome the crisis, and those liberals, blacks, women, and other minorities would say nothing because they conducted us through this liberal president to this dire situation. Just a sentiment though :)
PepperFritz
The Cosmic Force
spyraal said:
Perhaps Obama is being blackmailed into AIPAC/ Zionist support and is merely paying lip service to their cause. I have been pondering these possibilities:
1. After reading Laura's take on possible behind the scenes happenings of 911. it is possible AIPAC has threatened to reveal the US government's involvement in 911. After all, if Israel loses US support, it will probably cease to exist. Therefore the Zionists have nothing to lose by dragging the US down with it by exposing government involvement in 911 and creating the chaos that would result for the politicians involved in the coverup. Obama has to be involved in the coverup, from his days in the Senate and now his executive position. No politician would want to be exposed for complicity in this horror.
2. If Obama is not a natural born citizen, this could be held over his head as a threat to oust him. The Zionists have enough people in the right positions to use this legality to have him removed when they choose to do it if he does not tow the line. Which would be worse for Obama, being shot or kicked out of office in disgrace as a liar and a fraud?
3. I have not seen Larry Sinclair discussed in this forum. He claims to have evidence of and/or taken part in homosexual acts with Obama. I am not going to take a position on Larry Sinclair here. But considering that blackmail is a normal way of life for black ops organizations such as the CIA and Mossad, if Larry Sinclair has proof of Obama partaking in homosexual activity, the Mossad probably has a complete dossier on it. This could further be used to blackmail Obama into Zionist compliance.
4. Israel has numerous nuclear weapons, and one of their former leaders has stated that if Israel goes down, they will drag as many down with them as they can. I cannot put my hand on this quote right now, but I remember reading something along those lines. Israel could be telling Obama behind the scenes that if Israel loses US support, which would be a death blow to Israel. then they will let the nukes fly. They will go everywhere, including toward the US. Now they may or may not get to the US, but the threat is real.
bltay said:
Just for the record, the comment you are referring to was not made by an Israeli politician, nor Olmert as has been often claimed, it was in fact a proposed speech for Olmert drafted by Israeli political pundit Ben Capit
It can be found here:
http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/457/743.html
bedower
Jedi Master
As soon as I read that Obama had ordered airstrikes on Pakistani villages, where there is absolutely no possibility that women and children will not be killed, any lingering doubts I had about OBOMBa disappeared. That, and his determination to deliver another 'surge' in Afghanistan. He is no different from Bush in his idiocy and ignorance.
However, I concede that he is a marginally better president than Joe Biden would be.
But for how long?
However, I concede that he is a marginally better president than Joe Biden would be.
But for how long?
Perceval said:
Thanks for that link Perceval. You may be right, as I cannot say I absolutely remember the source of my memory. Very strange coincidence though, I just saw this posted on the Rense website:
_http://www.rense.com/general34/esde.htm
It appears to be a reprint of an article from 2003.
OK, since I am not supposed to post links to the Rense website, it led me to this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/sep/21/israelandthepalestinians.bookextracts
And while searching for the original interview, I found this:
http://www.de.indymedia.o rg/2003/01/39170.shtml
The pertinent paragraphs translate to this:
Creveld: That depends on who does it and how quickly it happens. We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force.
Interviewer: Wouldn't Israel then become a rogue state?
Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother." I consider it all hopeless at this point. We shall have to try to prevent things from coming to that, if at all possible. Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen, before Israel goes under.
Interviewer: This isn't your own position, is it?
Creveld: Of course not. You asked me what might happen and I've laid it out. The only question is whether it is already too late for the other solution, which I support, and whether Israeli public opinion can still be convinced. I think it's too late. With each passing day the expulsion of the Palestinians grows more probable. The alternative would be the total annihilation and disintegration of Israel. What do you expect from us?
This interview was conducted by Ferry Biedermann in Jerusalem.
mkrnhr said:
Very well said. I also thought that this marketing procedure could not have come at a more opportune time. If the 4dsts PTB can move through time and see what needs to be altered to further their long range goals, they packaged Bush at the appropriate time and manipulated the stage accordingly. The next act in this great drama would be to foresee the dissatisfaction with Bush and have a controlled puppet in place. This puppet would be ready with the message of "change"; the message that is needed at that time for the PTB to put their puppet in place. For it seems that Obama came from nowhere but was ready when the 'call' came. The marketing which you refer to could have been preplanned and fell into place at the proper time.
Remember the C's said Bush did not know why he was doing many of the things he did. I would not expect it to be so different for his puppet successor, and his fruits say he is continuing to go along with the program. Or so it seems to me.
At this point, I'm with mkrnhr -- changes are superficial, will satisfy the under-informed, and will keep the hopeful guessing. No talk about restoring freedoms, booting Homeland Security or the Fed, or giving up all those executive powers. Rhetoric sways an awful lot of people. But he says stuff all presidents say, including outright BS like, "America has held true to its founding principles" (unless of course that means it was created by the rich for the rich to enrich the rich, who are the global power brokers). The faithful conveniently forget (or don't know) that he is also protecting a lot of lies by talking tough on terrorism and all that baloney. Various neocons (Doug Feith, for one) are smugly claiming now that Obama is privy to the primo intelligence reserved for those at the top, his eyes are opened and will do pretty much what Bush did. Sounded like a veiled, "he will toe the line."
I also lean in bedower's direction. The election campaign promise to end the Iraq "war" was a bait and switch to Afghanistan and Pakistan, and who knows what else. At least, that's how I see it so far.
Saw "terrorism expert" Peter Bergen on CNN today and he made some twisted sense (if you can call it that in and among the deceitful netherworld of the whole conversation about "terrorism") when asked why the alleged Al Qaeda was allegedly making unflattering remarks towards Obama. Bergen said it's because we are not going to see any significant departure from the Bush foreign policy and they know it, which pretty much negates the campaign promises of significant "change" in foreign policy.
I also lean in bedower's direction. The election campaign promise to end the Iraq "war" was a bait and switch to Afghanistan and Pakistan, and who knows what else. At least, that's how I see it so far.
Saw "terrorism expert" Peter Bergen on CNN today and he made some twisted sense (if you can call it that in and among the deceitful netherworld of the whole conversation about "terrorism") when asked why the alleged Al Qaeda was allegedly making unflattering remarks towards Obama. Bergen said it's because we are not going to see any significant departure from the Bush foreign policy and they know it, which pretty much negates the campaign promises of significant "change" in foreign policy.
PepperFritz
The Cosmic Force
If Obama is supposed to be a bringer of "change", then why am I experiencing deja vu?
Obama, ignoring US intelligence report, says Iran seeking nuclear bomb
Obama, ignoring US intelligence report, says Iran seeking nuclear bomb
pete02
The Living Force
I'm not quite sure if this is where I would post a question like this so if it needs to be moved, please feel free. Anyway I have a short theory about Obama and he seems to be a good man. If this is so, I can't understand why the 'powers that be' would not only back him in the election but also help him (or should I say let him) win. I've had this notion for quite some time that maybe he is part of they're plan. If they let him do his thing for a little while and when the time is right, they have him assassinated, this would cause not only the black community but also a large portion of America to go into a rage. This would also give them the perfect opportunity to lock us down under marshall law.
I know anything is possible but this theory keeps bouncing around in my head. So do you think this is a probability or more than likely not? Just curious.
I know anything is possible but this theory keeps bouncing around in my head. So do you think this is a probability or more than likely not? Just curious.
PepperFritz
The Cosmic Force
Hi Pete:
This and other similar theories have been discussed at length in the Barak Obama thread.
So I'm moving your post there, where others may respond to it.
This and other similar theories have been discussed at length in the Barak Obama thread.
So I'm moving your post there, where others may respond to it.
pete02 said:
I share the opinion of the sott editors as explained in the latest Connecting the Dots:
Maybe he is basically a 'normal' guy and not a psychopath like his predecessor. In that sense, maybe he still has a certain sense of decency. But if Obama thinks he can do real good in spite of the structure of power, he is fooling himself. If he is aware of what he is contributing to, then he is not a good guy. Or he is extremely smart and is fooling the system in order to eventually do some good; but that seems so unlikely to me that I think we can rule that out.