Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Contingent upon whoever has their hand up his backside, of course.Honestly I prefer God's tribunals. I prefer Godly Justice.
They are more infallible...and we will all be judged in that tribunal, when we die.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Obama thread
- Thread starter Estro Felino
- Start date
I know but the world will have to see just how stupid millions of American's actually are.
just like the drunk drivers and rogue jan 6 style of criminals.
And then if the criminals run from officers, go back to what I grew up with: "YOU will be SHOT"
Selling?
Never heard of that. IS that how the trump PAC fund turned into 600 million?
Certain politicians should spend their time on some golf course,
instead of coming to Europe to bring us war, turmoil and troubles.
That's already known.
Shooting people just for running is evil.
I read news.
sad............ i live middle class and bump into them constantly
A suspect must submit to police without ever running. Or just move out of US.
I know, i see how you post.
Civil rights doesn't work that way, ie, love it or leave it.
We have the right to not be subject to unreasonable
search & seizure. This includes proportionality of force
to the threat.
This is just evil. But fellow cops approve of shooting an
unarmed teen in the back of his head as he runs away.
It wasn't a shot to stop him from running....it was a shot
to execute. The cop should be in prison for murder.
Last edited:
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Who's coming to Europe? When?
Approve?
I dont have your pessimistic approach.
This is a religious forum.......... The scope of absolution is by making hard choices with the best information possible.
Air Jordan
A fellow cop praised his shot.
His department defended his shooting the fleeing teen in the back of his head.
Yes, he did.
He has given speeches that empowered certain fundamentalist countries.
And his actions even spoke louder than words.
And I believe he has personal ideological motivations.
Absolutely not. The exact opposite.
The Obama administration rolled red carpets at the fundamentalist countries and destroyed the Arab socialist countries that have always fought against fundamentalism and terrorism: Syria and Libya.
Syria Will Stain Obama's Legacy Forever
The arc of history is long, but it won't ever judge the president's Syria policy kindly.foreignpolicy.com
9/11 and the Saudi Connection
Mounting evidence supports allegations that Saudi Arabia helped fund the 9/11 attacks.theintercept.com
Syria and Libya were destroyed by those elites in those fundamentalist countries who also fund terrorists like Hamas.
Because they cannot tolerate that there are prosperous Arab countries where women are free not to wear the veil.
They are radicals that want to drag all the Arabic-speaking world back to a world where women are treated like men's property.
Because if you kill a woman just because she wore a miniskirt, that's horrific.
I m saddened by how deceived the American citizens are.
I'm not deceived by anything, but I'm not convinced that it's all about Obama. American foreign policy has remained relatively static and unchanging through multiple administrations. Obama was just one of many in a long line of US Presidents. Obama certainly has his share of the blame, and I agree that every President should be held accountable for their own actions. As with anyone, if someone can produce evidence that they're guilty of a crime, let it be heard in court, whether a US domestic court or an international criminal court. If someone can make a formal charge and make it stick, then if nothing else, it would be part of the historical record.
But given that this is a thread about Obama, I won't quibble with the points you're making here. My only point is that US foreign policy doesn't begin or end with Obama.
It's not that I'm being deceived by anything, but I guess after more than a half-century of observing the US government and its various policies (both foreign and domestic), I've adopted an attitude which is sometimes expressed in Mexico as "ni modo." It's not that I've grown apathetic. I still care, and I still try to offer my advice and opinions as to what we can do to improve. But some of the opinions you might see here on RF are just a small taste of what I've seen just about every day through most of my 60 years here in America.
Ever since I was a kid, there was always some foreign threat, some "enemy" somewhere in the world to deal with. There were also "enemies within," which was also a constant refrain. But along the same lines, I knew many people who rejected that point of view and wanted to take a more peaceful and restrained approach to foreign policy.
I didn't say I believe it; I was just saying that's what they said at the time. A lot of Americans did believe it.
I did notice that the US media had taken an inordinate interest in Gaddafi in the 80s, especially in the wake of the US Iranian embassy hostage crisis and US attentions turning towards the Middle East in general, with the Iraq-Iran War and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan still actively going on.
It is somewhat curious, that the US government sent arms to Saddam Hussein in Iraq, made backroom deals with Iran to trade arms for hostages, and also sent arms to the same fighting force which would eventually become the Taliban.
As for Libya, I'm not sure if they ever came up with definitive proof that Gaddafi was behind the terrorist acts he was accused of. As for what Obama and Hillary did to Libya, in the end, they did it because that's what US leaders do. The US has done things like that to quite a few nations over the years, many in Latin America, the so-called "Banana Republics." The main trouble is that a lot of people in America see most of the world as "Banana Republics," and that's a huge mistake that constantly gets made.
I stopped having illusions about politicians back when Nixon was President. I was jaded from a very early age.
I think what I'm getting at here is that, all in all, given the degraded nature of US politics, the people who rise to the top and make the big decisions may be out of their element when it comes to geopolitics. Trump had no experience in political office at all. Obama was serving his first term as a US Senator when he became a candidate and won the presidency. So he had some experience, but was still a bit green. Neither one of them had any military or any real foreign policy experience either.
It was different with Nixon, who was also a US Senator, but also hobnobbed with Joe McCarthy, J. Edgar Hoover, and became Vice-President and had numerous dealings with the CIA and even the underworld. He was very much intimately involved with and had decades of experience with what we might call the "deep state," and he also had a keen understanding of foreign policy that has gone unmatched by any US President since. Nixon knew the system well, and because of this, despite his crimes, he still got off with a pardon and grew into the role of a respected elder statesman.
Since then, we seem to have Presidents who mostly came in as state-level politicians with little practical experience with foreign policy - governors mostly, although Bush Sr. had some experience as the CIA Director. Such people might be more easily directed to support policies their advisors recommend, as opposed to thinking up anything on their own. For the most part, nobody really wants them to think up anything on their own.
That must be a useful skill to have when playing poker.
I get what you're saying. As I mentioned previously, American foreign policy has always had contradictions like this, and even if we may express regret and remorse in later years, we never seem to learn anything from it.
A lot of the apparent motives for US foreign policy revolve around what is nebulously and vaguely referred to as "national interests." It's a term which can cover a lot of different things and can be used as a convenient shield to cover up government misdeeds in the eyes of a population which is largely ill-informed, yet highly patriotic and wants to believe that America is a righteous, God-fearing nation on a mission to do good in this world.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Is he? I disagree. Now if you said that he was transphobic during his administration you would probably be right. But the I was probably transphobic at that time too. Live and learn, live and learn. When I checked out this claim he does appear to support the trans community now.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Eh? I'm talking about Shapiro.
I just meant that politicians use propaganda to deceive the American people.
It's all about economic interests; the Hillary's emails show the reason why Gaddafi had to be eliminated. And it has to do with the banking interests of the CFA Franc. It has nothing to do with fundamentalism or terrorism.
Gaddafi has always fought fundamentalism and terrorism.
He was hated by the fundamentalist countries because of his stance on radicalism; for instance he said about Nine Eleven: it's a horrifying act. He called on Muslim aid groups to join international assistance efforts to the US, "regardless of political considerations or differences between America and the peoples of the world."
In fact...no hijacker came from Libya. They all came or nearly from KSA. It's a fact.
That's what's paradoxical: because of economic interests, the American Deep State waged war against the Arabs who are against terrorism, while pandering those who have an ambiguous stance on it.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Okay, I really misread that post.
PureX
Veteran Member
Obama didn't attack Iraq or Afghanistan. That was our 'little king George the second' that did that at the behest of the puppet-master, Dick Cheney. And once in, there was no easy way out. As to killing Gaddafi, I honestly have no idea what that was about. But to expect the U.S. president to be a dove of peace would be a foolish expectation given that the U. S. citizens generally love the idea of massive retaliation for the slightest offense, even toward each other. And it is the president's job to represent them to the world.May I kindly know what all this interesting consideration about his home policy has to do with this thread?
Which is about the Middle East, and his warlike policies in the Mediterranean area (where I live).
Eight years of wars.
Thank you.
Yes, I remember that very well. Colin Powell...and the Iraqi War.
The fake bottle... yes, horrible.
Neo-cons and their wars.
There was: helping the Arab countries who have been fighting the terrorism and the fundamentalism that generated Nine Eleven, and demanding inflexibility. The Arab countries who side against terrorism: Syria, Libya, Morocco, etc...
Gaddafi commenting on Nine Eleven: it's a horrifying act. He called on Muslim aid groups to join international assistance efforts to the US, "regardless of political considerations or differences between America and the peoples of the world."
Read Hillary's emails.
It was about killing the man who wanted to set the African nations free.
But the banking elites couldn't stand that. Leaked email by H.Clinton reveales NATO's aim to destroy Libya, says it was to prevent Gaddafi from unifying Africa
Again: Syria and Libya were the good guys siding against the enemies of America.
The job of the POTUS is to defend the Western Civilization, to defend America's allies, Europe, and to ensure peace.
Not to exacerbate the old continent with useless, incredibly expensive wars that have nothing to do with American citizens.
Colt
Well-Known Member
The stated purpose of Hamas is a continuation of the "Final Solution" conceived by the Nazi's. Obama had/has a need to be liked and adored by the Left. They all crowd into his mind when he writes crap like his latest people pleasing essay!The purpose of this thread is to convince me he worked for peace in the Mediterranean area.
Did he?
Last edited:
When he was elected I was the happiest person on Earth.
How could I have imagined that he was the most warlike and ambiguous POTUS...ever?
Colt
Well-Known Member
Politicians in both parties say what they need to say to appease the thinking of left, or right of center. Then move back to reality after the election. Obama publicly discouraged conventional war while droning people to death all over the place!