34 warships sent from US for Obama visit

reply to post by iamcamouflage


It's posted all over these threads that it is not true, but nobody reads them and the insanity continues.

The 34 Ships is false also.

Just Google it.

Originally posted by hoghead cheese

Originally posted by PatriotsPride

I wrote about this on Godlikeproductions, and this is unheard off truly. 34 warships to protect against an attack? The terrorists who attacked Mumbai came in on ships but it was a small group of 20 not a division of troops. It almost looks like if DC is attacked while obama is away then he will have the ability to continue govt. from where he is at and have essentially a very large taskforce of military and their ships to protect him out of country while he commands from afar. That is the only reason, 34 ships and one is a carrier I believe.

I think you'll find that 34 warships are not there specifically to protect Obama from an attack. The ships are already in the region and have been for a while. They didn't get sent from the US specifically for Obama's trip. You might want to let the airheads at GLP know about this too...

Originally posted by Nomad451

I think you'll find that 34 warships are not there specifically to protect Obama from an attack. The ships are already in the region and have been for a while. They didn't get sent from the US specifically for Obama's trip. You might want to let the airheads at GLP know about this too...

+1, EXACTLY what I've been trying to say:

I'll repost my last post:

"The 34 warships have been stationed in and around the Gulf for years, Obamas visit has put them on alert and possibly made them regroup. The term "sent from US" is whats wrong, these ships haven't been sent from the US as a group in years, but they are right near India right now regardless."

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by iamcamouflage

 

It's posted all over these threads that it is not true, but nobody reads them and the insanity continues.

The 34 Ships is false also.

Just Google it.

It's because all these ATS and GLP conspiracy airheads want things like this to be true so badly that when given a reality check that spoils their greedy fun they flat out refuse it.

Then they call you close minded, or tell you off saying that your a government agent. Anyway, you've been around long enough you don't need me to tell you this

reply to post by Blaine91555


Don't even have to Google it. I already did all the legwork here. But as someone pointed out earlier, this and everything else will just be read over and ignored. I'm out

reply to post by PatriotsPride

I've only read up to page 6, so I apologize if this has already been posted. I found it reading today's news stories at my favorite sites. I heard he is taking 40 aircraft...is this correct? I did some reading on the entourages of past presidents and they to would seem to over do it a bit...but this one is bizzare..IMO. Read this and you'll see what I mean. And what is this for...really ?????

bunkerville.wordpress.com...

reply to post by Blaine91555

Blaine, you irrefutable logic has got to go. Around here we like sensationalism and unsubstantiated claims from bloggers in foreign countries who have no access to factual information.

Originally posted by iamcamouflage
reply to post by Blaine91555

 

Blaine, you irrefutable logic has got to go. Around here we like sensationalism and unsubstantiated claims from bloggers in foreign countries who have no access to factual information.

That was a beauty! I really laughed at that one, it's also sad because it's so true

Originally posted by Puzzlemaniac
reply to post by PatriotsPride

 

I've only read up to page 6, so I apologize if this has already been posted. I found it reading today's news stories at my favorite sites. I heard he is taking 40 aircraft...is this correct? I did some reading on the entourages of past presidents and they to would seem to over do it a bit...but this one is bizzare..IMO. Read this and you'll see what I mean. And what is this for...really ?????

bunkerville.wordpress.com...

Sounds ridiculous. Are they supposed to be just starting or just finishing? I call total BS on that one. I do believe, however, that the indians have thought ahead and removed all coconuts from the trees before Obama's visit.

Now thats thinking

reply to post by weedwhacker


Still do you really need 34 warships to protect your president ? I don't believe some terrorist in Middle east/Africa/Iran is going to fire a missile on Mumbai city for the sake of killing a President ( even if they get their hands onto one that has sufficient range). I don't think China/Russia would attempt this. Terrorists from Pakistan would not attempt to cross over in hijacked boats as it would force US to invade Pakistan. I don't think enemies from other parts of the world would be plotting something. So from all angles this just looks as an extreme case of paranoia !!! Or this story is false.

Good lord,, FFS, IT'S NOT TRUE. Can some Mod "hoax" this thread please...GAH!

reply to post by PatriotsPride


My question is what is the purpose of the visit to such a dangerous place? What is so important that it requires our President to travel to India and what is the reason for so many warships? It does not make much sense to me to place the President in such a dangerous situation without much gain for the United States other than saying we went there.

Originally posted by iamcamouflage
reply to post by Blaine91555

 

Blaine, you irrefutable logic has got to go. Around here we like sensationalism and unsubstantiated claims from bloggers in foreign countries who have no access to factual information.

What's YOUR source? Pentagone? May I LOL here?

"” He said it was customary to not discuss such security requests, but “I made an exception in batting down this absurd notion of there being 34 ships, or more than 10 percent of the Navy, deployed in support of this trip. That is most certainly not the case.” "

If it's customary to not discuss such security requests, why they DID make an exception?

Vantage Point. He won't be taken out. His double will. Excuse for war.

Deployable Battle Force Ships: 288
Ships Underway (away from homeport): 147 ships (51 % of total)
On deployment: 110 ships (38% of total)

Navy.mil

147-110 = 37

WHERE are those 37?

Originally posted by jrmcleod
Ok so thats 34 warships, 6 armoured vehicles and how many Jets???? Then he decideds to take his family at the last minute?

There are 2 outcomes here that i think could happen.

1. Obama and his family are assasinated and an immediate strike on India occurs, hence the deployment of such large numbers of military craft.

2. Something happens in the US and the states is removing some of its arsenal from the American Shore in striking range of some middle east country that will be held responsible.

No. 2 makes so much sense it's actually frightening! Guess we'll soon see........

Originally posted by Esger

Originally posted by iamcamouflage
reply to post by Blaine91555

 

Blaine, you irrefutable logic has got to go. Around here we like sensationalism and unsubstantiated claims from bloggers in foreign countries who have no access to factual information.

What's YOUR source? Pentagone? May I LOL here?

"” He said it was customary to not discuss such security requests, but “I made an exception in batting down this absurd notion of there being 34 ships, or more than 10 percent of the Navy, deployed in support of this trip. That is most certainly not the case.” "

If it's customary to not discuss such security requests, why they DID make an exception?

edit on 4-11-2010 by Esger because: (no reason given)

But somehow you take the claims of a random blogger in India as more valid?

So the two sources we have are, a) blogger in India and b) the pentagon. Now you may not entirely trust the pentagon but this blogger has no connection or source to cite.

You may "LOL" all you like but it only makes you seem silly as you are choosing to believe some blogger in India as a valid source.

reply to post by iamcamouflage


Ok, and where are those 37 warships in "training"?

Someone has the url of the website where we can see boats around the world in almost real time?

Originally posted by bluedrake
Seriously 34 war ships

Originally posted by iamcamouflage

Originally posted by Esger

Originally posted by iamcamouflage
reply to post by Blaine91555

 

Blaine, you irrefutable logic has got to go. Around here we like sensationalism and unsubstantiated claims from bloggers in foreign countries who have no access to factual information.

What's YOUR source? Pentagone? May I LOL here?

"” He said it was customary to not discuss such security requests, but “I made an exception in batting down this absurd notion of there being 34 ships, or more than 10 percent of the Navy, deployed in support of this trip. That is most certainly not the case.” "

If it's customary to not discuss such security requests, why they DID make an exception?

edit on 4-11-2010 by Esger because: (no reason given)

But somehow you take the claims of a random blogger in India as more valid?

So the two sources we have are, a) blogger in India and b) the pentagon. Now you may not entirely trust the pentagon but this blogger has no connection or source to cite.

You may "LOL" all you like but it only makes you seem silly as you are choosing to believe some blogger in India as a valid source.

The thing is... I'ts from The Press Trust of India, India largest news agency. Not a random blogger.

Again,

If it's customary to not discuss such security requests, why they DID make an exception?
Where are those 37 warships in "training"?