Don't Listen To Obama. The War On Terror Is Far From Over
Options
Idiopathic Joker
Members, Moderators Posts: 45,691 Regulator
Don't listen to Obama and ignore Al Queda. They are far from done. Remember the Bengazi attacks last year? spontaneous my ass. Either Obama thinks we are all ? idiots, or he is a member of Al Queda. What's gonna happen when Obama leaves this country open to another 9/11 attack or worse? I truly believe we are ? with Obama in office and his soft on terrorism act.
Comments
-
Thanks for the update Glenn Beck
-
-
Makaveli Joker wrote: »Don't listen to Obama and ignore Al Queda. They are far from done. Remember the Bengazi attacks last year? spontaneous my ass. Either Obama thinks we are all ? idiots, or he is a member of Al Queda. What's gonna happen when Obama leaves this country open to another 9/11 attack or worse? I truly believe we are ? with Obama in office and his soft on terrorism act.
Drones is all I gotta say , you keep talking ? Obama might one fly by ya crib dig -
He never said the war on terror is over you idiot
-
playmaker88 wrote: »He never said the war on terror is over you idiot
He is implying it. The Bengazi attacks were Al Queda, not random. He is being a ? when it comes to terrorism. -
MC The Rapper wrote: »Makaveli Joker wrote: »Don't listen to Obama and ignore Al Queda. They are far from done. Remember the Bengazi attacks last year? spontaneous my ass. Either Obama thinks we are all ? idiots, or he is a member of Al Queda. What's gonna happen when Obama leaves this country open to another 9/11 attack or worse? I truly believe we are ? with Obama in office and his soft on terrorism act.
Drones is all I gotta say , you keep talking ? Obama might one fly by ya crib dig
So Bush gets chewed out for water boarding terrorists, but its okay for drones to ? americans, ok. -
You had me at "Dont listen to Obama"
-
you sir, are a racist.
-
If your scared...terrorists have won. Terrorists been winning a lot lately in this country.
-
Makaveli Joker wrote: »MC The Rapper wrote: »Makaveli Joker wrote: »Don't listen to Obama and ignore Al Queda. They are far from done. Remember the Bengazi attacks last year? spontaneous my ass. Either Obama thinks we are all ? idiots, or he is a member of Al Queda. What's gonna happen when Obama leaves this country open to another 9/11 attack or worse? I truly believe we are ? with Obama in office and his soft on terrorism act.
Drones is all I gotta say , you keep talking ? Obama might one fly by ya crib dig
So Bush gets chewed out for water boarding terrorists, but its okay for drones to ? americans, ok.
Those ? that got taken out weren't American. They denounced their citizenship live on TV and planned against fellow Americans. How you on here calling out Obama when he stay taking out top targets with drone strikes? Bush couldn't even lay hands on anybody that actually expressly stated that they were terrorist as opposed to killing people cuz they disrespected his daddy. -
I'm no fan of Obama but the LAST thing I'd say is that he's being soft on terrorism......Obama has a pretty high body count by now, children included. It takes a lot of ? to blow people up all the time knowing kids will probably be blown up too. And many little kids are dead cuz of Obama. Soft is a strong word.
-
the question probably has a little to do with "where is this drone use going from here?" if Obama thinks the drone policy he uses can't be trusted in the hands of a president who's not him, there's something wrong with the policy.FuriousOne wrote: »How you on here calling out Obama when he stay taking out top targets with drone strikes? -
the question probably has a little to do with "where is this drone use going from here?" if Obama thinks the drone policy he uses can't be trusted in the hands of a president who's not him, there's something wrong with the policy.FuriousOne wrote: »How you on here calling out Obama when he stay taking out top targets with drone strikes?
What makes you think Obama wouldn't trust the use of drones with another president? Didn't he support President Bush's use of drones? -
http://www.policymic.com/articles/24164/a-list-of-children-killed-by-drone-strikes-in-pakistan-and-yemen
A List Of Children Killed By Drone Strikes In Pakistan and Yemen
A recent Marine Times article ran the alarming headline “Some Afghan kids aren’t bystanders” on December 3, reporting on the death of three children in Afghanistan. They were apparently targeted by a U.S. military drone because they appeared to be digging a hole in a road.
Army Lt. Col. Marion Carrington, quoted in the article, said that “It kind of opens our aperture” that children are being used in the conflict. “In addition to looking for military-age males, it’s looking for children with potential hostile intent.”
Proponents of the drone war, including President Barack Obama, claim that drone strikes are precise and only target terrorists. A study, however, from Columbia Law School’s Human Rights Institute finds that the number of Pakistani civilians killed in drone strikes “significantly and consistently underestimated" and that as many as 98% of those killed by drone strikes are civilians.
While it is ultimately impossible to get exact numbers, this means that for every "terrorist" killed by a drone strike, anywhere between 10 and 50 civilians are killed.
Obama has authorized 193 drone strikes in Pakistan – four times the amount authorized by George W. Bush. According to Global Research, over the past 4 years Obama has authorized attacks in Pakistan which have killed more than 800 innocent civilians and just 22 Al-Qaeda officers.
---Obama is more bloodthirsty a warlord than any gang banger or Mafia hitman. He's not soft by any means. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »http://www.policymic.com/articles/24164/a-list-of-children-killed-by-drone-strikes-in-pakistan-and-yemen
A List Of Children Killed By Drone Strikes In Pakistan and Yemen
A recent Marine Times article ran the alarming headline “Some Afghan kids aren’t bystanders” on December 3, reporting on the death of three children in Afghanistan. They were apparently targeted by a U.S. military drone because they appeared to be digging a hole in a road.
Army Lt. Col. Marion Carrington, quoted in the article, said that “It kind of opens our aperture” that children are being used in the conflict. “In addition to looking for military-age males, it’s looking for children with potential hostile intent.”
Proponents of the drone war, including President Barack Obama, claim that drone strikes are precise and only target terrorists. A study, however, from Columbia Law School’s Human Rights Institute finds that the number of Pakistani civilians killed in drone strikes “significantly and consistently underestimated" and that as many as 98% of those killed by drone strikes are civilians.
While it is ultimately impossible to get exact numbers, this means that for every "terrorist" killed by a drone strike, anywhere between 10 and 50 civilians are killed.
Obama has authorized 193 drone strikes in Pakistan – four times the amount authorized by George W. Bush. According to Global Research, over the past 4 years Obama has authorized attacks in Pakistan which have killed more than 800 innocent civilians and just 22 Al-Qaeda officers.
---Obama is more bloodthirsty a warlord than any gang banger or Mafia hitman. He's not soft by any means.
Bush's body count is much higher, but he gets chewed out for being too aggressive. You tell me the hypocrisy with the American people between the two presidents. -
Makaveli Joker wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »http://www.policymic.com/articles/24164/a-list-of-children-killed-by-drone-strikes-in-pakistan-and-yemen
A List Of Children Killed By Drone Strikes In Pakistan and Yemen
A recent Marine Times article ran the alarming headline “Some Afghan kids aren’t bystanders” on December 3, reporting on the death of three children in Afghanistan. They were apparently targeted by a U.S. military drone because they appeared to be digging a hole in a road.
Army Lt. Col. Marion Carrington, quoted in the article, said that “It kind of opens our aperture” that children are being used in the conflict. “In addition to looking for military-age males, it’s looking for children with potential hostile intent.”
Proponents of the drone war, including President Barack Obama, claim that drone strikes are precise and only target terrorists. A study, however, from Columbia Law School’s Human Rights Institute finds that the number of Pakistani civilians killed in drone strikes “significantly and consistently underestimated" and that as many as 98% of those killed by drone strikes are civilians.
While it is ultimately impossible to get exact numbers, this means that for every "terrorist" killed by a drone strike, anywhere between 10 and 50 civilians are killed.
Obama has authorized 193 drone strikes in Pakistan – four times the amount authorized by George W. Bush. According to Global Research, over the past 4 years Obama has authorized attacks in Pakistan which have killed more than 800 innocent civilians and just 22 Al-Qaeda officers.
---Obama is more bloodthirsty a warlord than any gang banger or Mafia hitman. He's not soft by any means.
Bush's body count is much higher, but he gets chewed out for being too aggressive. You tell me the hypocrisy with the American people between the two presidents.
How is it Hypocrisy when Bush's body count is random as ? . There weren't any strategic targets like the ? list which is actually put together with various intelligence agencies taking part with valid high ranking terrorist targets getting taking out, it was ? the entire country and sort it out later. The only high ranking targets bush took out was a regime that had nothing to do with 9/11.
Let's be honest here folks, kids may have died with drone attacks, but with the larger missile strikes, entire villages died. If terrorist stop planning and commuting to their attacks on children on English buses, Spanish trains, and in Muslim markets, maybe they wouldn't have to worry about drone strikes. At this point, they have no moral ground to stand on at which they had valid concerns about western powers previously. -
The Patriot Act is terrorism instituted against all US citizens.
-
The user and all related content has been deleted.
-
After reading this, you will finally know why All Hip Hop.com is " dangerous ". America is fighting ? in the War On Terror. First point: When majority of this country say they are Christian and servants of ? , then the Old Testament spells out exactly what is going on in the world. Book of Leviticus, Chapter 26, verses 14-16 are consequenses disobeying sacred Scriptures. Second and final point: After reading those parts in Leviticus, it will lead you to the actual consequenses---one of which is in title of this topic. What does the U.S. label those opponents in this global war ?
-
Makaveli Joker wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »http://www.policymic.com/articles/24164/a-list-of-children-killed-by-drone-strikes-in-pakistan-and-yemen
A List Of Children Killed By Drone Strikes In Pakistan and Yemen
A recent Marine Times article ran the alarming headline “Some Afghan kids aren’t bystanders” on December 3, reporting on the death of three children in Afghanistan. They were apparently targeted by a U.S. military drone because they appeared to be digging a hole in a road.
Army Lt. Col. Marion Carrington, quoted in the article, said that “It kind of opens our aperture” that children are being used in the conflict. “In addition to looking for military-age males, it’s looking for children with potential hostile intent.”
Proponents of the drone war, including President Barack Obama, claim that drone strikes are precise and only target terrorists. A study, however, from Columbia Law School’s Human Rights Institute finds that the number of Pakistani civilians killed in drone strikes “significantly and consistently underestimated" and that as many as 98% of those killed by drone strikes are civilians.
While it is ultimately impossible to get exact numbers, this means that for every "terrorist" killed by a drone strike, anywhere between 10 and 50 civilians are killed.
Obama has authorized 193 drone strikes in Pakistan – four times the amount authorized by George W. Bush. According to Global Research, over the past 4 years Obama has authorized attacks in Pakistan which have killed more than 800 innocent civilians and just 22 Al-Qaeda officers.
---Obama is more bloodthirsty a warlord than any gang banger or Mafia hitman. He's not soft by any means.
Bush's body count is much higher, but he gets chewed out for being too aggressive. You tell me the hypocrisy with the American people between the two presidents.
In this regard I agree, Obama supporters who hate Bush for his war loving ways give Obama praise or a pass for his bloodthirsty ways himself. I've said it once and I'll say it again, there is ZERO difference between Obama supporters and Bush supporters. Both love bloodshed and both don't have a single clue to stop the (righteous) anger many feel towards the United States. When I hear an Obama fan diss Bush, I laugh and say you're just the same as Bush. Maybe not AS bloodthirsty as Bush, but Barack "baby killer" Obama is not much better.
Peace called, it wants its Nobel Prize back. -
quoting myself from another thread:kingblaze84 wrote: »What makes you think Obama wouldn't trust the use of drones with another president? Didn't he support President Bush's use of drones?
"i'll go you one better: remember in the run-up to the 2012 election how the Obama administration essentially said (i'm going to paraphrase rather than hunt for a link right now) that they'd need to put policies in place to regulate the drone usage should Romney win the election? which carries the implication that his administration DIDN'T need them?
Election Spurred a Move to Codify U.S. Drone Policy
if Bush had done something like this in, say, 2004, people on this forum would have lost their ? minds."The attempt to write a formal rule book for targeted killing began last summer after news reports on the drone program, started under President George W. Bush and expanded by Mr. Obama, revealed some details of the president’s role in the shifting procedures for compiling “? lists” and approving strikes. Though national security officials insist that the process is meticulous and lawful, the president and top aides believe it should be institutionalized, a course of action that seemed particularly urgent when it appeared that Mitt Romney might win the presidency.
“There was concern that the levers might no longer be in our hands,” said one official, speaking on condition of anonymity. With a continuing debate about the proper limits of drone strikes, Mr. Obama did not want to leave an “amorphous” program to his successor, the official said. The effort, which would have been rushed to completion by January had Mr. Romney won, will now be finished at a more leisurely pace, the official said.
whatever you think of Romney, why does Obama NOT need the same level of regulation as to what he does with the drones?
look, the "war on terror" was prosecuted in some ? -up ways under Bush, but we're really going to claim no one was trying to find and take out high-ranking targets with drones under Bush?FuriousOne wrote: »How is it Hypocrisy when Bush's body count is random as ? . There weren't any strategic targets like the ? list which is actually put together with various intelligence agencies taking part with valid high ranking terrorist targets getting taking out, it was ? the entire country and sort it out later. The only high ranking targets bush took out was a regime that had nothing to do with 9/11.
DHS is ? up (possibly beyond recovery), but this ammo thing never makes me flip out. it's supposed to be 1.6 billion rounds over how many years, and hollowpoint ammo might not be "for use in war" ammo, but it's definitely "for use by law enforcement" ammo. and frankly, the way people freak out about hollowpoint ammo, i don't think they really know what it is.Black_Samson wrote: »1.6 Billion Rounds Of Ammo For Homeland Security? It's Time For A National Conversation
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphben...-conversation/
i just need them to leave me some, damn it -
FuriousOne wrote: »How is it Hypocrisy when Bush's body count is random as ? . There weren't any strategic targets like the ? list which is actually put together with various intelligence agencies taking part with valid high ranking terrorist targets getting taking out, it was ? the entire country and sort it out later. The only high ranking targets bush took out was a regime that had nothing to do with 9/11.
look, the "war on terror" was prosecuted in some ? -up ways under Bush, but we're really going to claim no one was trying to find and take out high-ranking targets with drones under Bush?
I was a bit too hyperbolic with that statement. Still, he wasn't nearly as focused on drones as he was on the Iraq war.
-
well, i think most of us will agree that Iraq was, at best, an incredible distraction from getting the job done in Afghanistan.FuriousOne wrote: »I was a bit too hyperbolic with that statement. Still, he wasn't nearly as focused on drones as he was on the Iraq war.
-
Janklow good point about Obama saying he wouldn't trust Romney with drones and would want it more regulated under him LOL.....just goes to show what a dangerous precedent our over use of drones has created
-
Obama got the whole nation shook. but the majority of you ? -ups voted for him so why ? now?
![[Deleted User]](https://w1.vanillicon.com/v2/15efd8efe08bb34aae25f1808aaf5018.svg)
