President Obama Throws Israel Under The Bus

Obama Refers to Israel Concern Over Iran as 'Noise'





Mod Note (This Appears On Every New Thread Page):
AboveTopSecret.com takes pride in making every post count. Please do not create minimal posts to start your new thread. If you feel inclined to make the board aware of news, current events, or important information from other sites; please post one or two paragraphs, a link to the entire story, AND your opinion, twist or take on the news item as a means to inspire discussion or collaborative research on your subject.

Havent we been dragged into enough wars on the off chance a country might be developing WMDs... and Why didn't we rush to stop NK a country we still technically are at war with?

Right no resources there to exploit, lets not act like this isn't all convoluted excuses, we invade when it is in our direct interest, right now, Iran is not so much.

In a few months who knows.

reply to post by ollncasino

My worry is more along the lines of how Israel sees us. This is not an isolated incident. Obama has been acting really luke warm at best towards Israel's concerns.

Does this lead Israel to conclude they no longer have to pay any attention to the US, since we're not paying any attention to them? How, practically, do we hold them in check now, if they feel Iran is going to uncork a nuke?

It looks like we're taking ourselves out of the game, and if the only remaining players are Israel and Iran, I don't see how war can be avoided.

And how does Iran see us? If they believe we won't get involved, then what's stopping them from attacking?

Yup, I'm worried.

Just heard about it and I am totally speechless.

He is either lying (as politician), or he is growing some balls lately. Nevertheless I am worry about his future as next JFK “incident”.

President Obama Throws Israel Under The Bus

If we go down the route Israel are determined on large swathes of humanity will be 'thrown under the bus'. Israel want a war that could have catastrophic consequences for us all. Large scale death and destruction and a true division between the muslim world and the west.

Obama's stand against this madness is admirable, and should be applauded by peace loving people everywhere. Whether he can hold out against this insidious zionist pressure remains to be seen, i realy do hope he can.

I hate this guy! I think I dislike him even more than Obama, he's just so creepy.

reply to post by Atzil321

Obama's stand against this madness is admirable, and should be applauded by peace loving people everywhere. Whether he can hold out against this insidious zionist pressure remains to be seen, i realy do hope he can.

My problem is that he doesn't seem to be "holding out," he just seems to have his fingers in his ears. It appears to me that he has given up on a diplomatic solution, for whatever reason. Truly peace loving people would want him to be talking with Iran and Israel daily to find a solution.

Originally posted by Atzil321
Israel want a war that could have catastrophic consequences for us all. Large scale death and destruction and a true division between the muslim world and the west.

And the Fundamentalist Islamic regime of Iran wants nuclear bombs.

By the way, there already is a true division between the Muslim world and the West. The West and Islam have been at war, off and on, but mostly on, for the last 1,300 years.


Conquests of Muhammad and his immediate successors.


Ottoman Empire in 1580



Retreat of the Ottoman empire 19th and 20th century

It's not just Obama, I have seen reports that the head of MI6 from the UK, has visited Israel to dissuade them from launching any attack. I think most sensible people want to avoid any conflict. If Iran attacks Israel , then that is a different matter or until we have some conclusive evidence they have a deliverable nuclear weapon. Until that time we should be exploring all other avenues.

I've just run across an idea which is different from our emphasis on diplomacy. I'm not saying whether it's right or wrong, but it deserves a monent's consideration.

"The president of the United States turned down Bibi Netanyahu's request and instead agreed to meet with Mohamad Morsi, the president of Egypt, where our embassy is under assault," Klein explains.

He has learned that Obama campaign manager, David Axelrod, nixed an Obama-Netanyahu meeting because he was concerned the prime minister would feel obligated to also meet with Republican challenger Mitt Romney, who happens to be an old friend of Netanyahu.

"He did not want to see a photograph of the president and Netanyahu having a chilling meeting, while the same newspapers would run photographs of Netanyahu meeting with Romney and warmly embraced," Klein concludes.

onenewsnow.com...

Sounds plausible to me.

reply to post by ollncasino


So what do you think is better? A pre-emptive strike that would almost inevitably result in a nuclear catastrophy on the premise that Iran 'might' be working on nuclear weapons OR would it not be better to gather more inteligence on the matter till we are sure...

Also, don't we have missile defenses that would make it almost impossible for Iran to deliver a nuclear payload?

It seems that the more Obama ignores this 'noise' the louder it will get. It isn't the best idea that this administration shrug off Israel's concerns over Iran's nuclear capability, because there's no telling who will be the first to strike; regardless of who you think is right or wrong preparations must be taken.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by Atzil321
Israel want a war that could have catastrophic consequences for us all. Large scale death and destruction and a true division between the muslim world and the west.

And the Fundamentalist Islamic regime of Iran wants nuclear bombs.

By the way, there already is a true division between the Muslim world and the West. The West and Islam have been at war, off and on, but mostly on, for the last 1,300 years.


Ottoman Empire in 1580



Retreat of the Ottoman empire 19th and 20th century

See, this post proves that you are either delusional or just a paid troll.
Ottoman Empire was not an Islamic invasion, they fought wars against Islamic countries aswell for f**k sake.
You got debunked over this in one of your previous posts, so why do you keep spreading this ignorant and meaningless BS over and over again ?

Why ?

reply to post by ollncasino


c 'mon - they just play The Good Cop, right now. Thats all.

oh right -
two days ago, i woke from a dream - i walked toward arailroad complex, and it was filled with trainwagons being loaded, with all kind of civil defense stuff; foods, blankets, etc
... they were 'israel wagons ' - i knew that - but the whole sphere of the situation resembled the 1940 s

interpreted: because , like backthen, also nów the several 'enemies ' are but controlled opposition

i dream much, and often to the point - but it has been 6,7 years i had a dream like this one

Originally posted by ArtooDetoo

See, this post proves that you are either delusional or just a paid troll.

Ottoman Empire was not an Islamic invasion, they fought wars against Islamic countries aswell for f**k sake.

You got debunked over this in one of your previous posts, so why do you keep spreading this ignorant and meaningless BS over and over again ?

Why ?

Ah. So the Islamic invaders of Southern Europe don't count as Islamic because they also fought at times with other Islamic peoples?

I'm sure the Africans, Indians, Slavs and Spanish and other assorted people's who have had Muslim overlords feel much better in the knowledge that their Islamic conquerors were not really Islamic at all due to the fact that those Muslims sometimes fought each other.

I think I see your logic now. It is very, very special.

Here is another map of Islamic aggression.



As I said, the Islamic world has been at war, on and off, with the West for 1,300 years. The divide between the West and Islam has existed for a long time.

It's nothing more than diplomacy, mainly for American voters for the coming election.
The majority aren't wanting to be dragged into another war.
Obama's speech only gave a firm statement that he won't be pushed by Israel into taking action that will accelerate the war, which will happen anyway.

Romney seems to want the cold war back with Russia and do anything that Israel wants the US to do. His stance comes across as aggressive not defensive or wanting to build bridges through diplomacy.

A vote for Romney is a step closer to WW3.

reply to post by ollncasino

Here is another map of Islamic aggression.

You describe it as a map of Islamic aggression....
BUT the map you posted is labelled as "Expansion of the Islamic world".

Wow.

As I said, the Islamic world has been at war, on and off, with the West for 1,300 years. The divide between the West and Islam has existed for a long time.

Its not a divide between the west and Islam... its a divide between the west and everybody else in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, South America.

Oh wait, I forgot.... the conquest of peoples, cultures and resources through imperialism and colonization is more noble than "conquest" by a religiously motivated force, right?

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n

You describe it as a map of Islamic aggression....

BUT the map you posted is labelled as "Expansion of the Islamic world".

Wow

Islam expanded by the sword. Muhammad himself spread Islam by the sword.

• At the Battle of Badr (624 C.E.) Muhammad could put only 314 men in the field.

• Two years later at Second Badr (626 C.E.), 1,500 Muslims took the field.

• At Kheibar in 628 C.E., the Muslim army had grown to 2,000 combatants.

• When Muhammad mounted his assault on Mecca (630 C.E.) he did so with 10,000 men.

• And at the Battle of Hunayn a few months later the army numbered 12,000.

• Some sources record that Muhammad’s expedition to Tabuk later the same year comprised 30,000 men and 10,000 cavalry, but this is probably an exaggeration.

HistoryNet

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
Oh wait, I forgot.... the conquest of peoples, cultures and resources through imperialism and colonization is more noble than "conquest" by a religiously motivated force, right?

reply to post by ollncasino

Islam expanded by the sword. Muhammad himself spread Islam by the sword.

Christianity spread through the world through colonization, which also involved conflict as well. Whats your point?

Conquerors and conquests.... History has tons of examples... Alexander, Genghiz Khan, Caesar, Napoleon etc. Mohammad is not the only one.

That does not address what I said earlier about the Wests history of imperialism and conquest of people the world over. You seem to think Islam is the only thing that spread to places.

And ... we also have this...



But of course, American military presence is always a good thing anywhere, eh?

reply to post by ollncasino


I see you side stepped my question. Here's another:

And the Fundamentalist Islamic regime of Iran wants nuclear bombs.

Do you have any evidence to back this claim up or is it just conjecture?