jump to last post 1-15 of 15 discussions (41 posts)

Obama called a Jew-hater

  1. Make  Money profile image73
    Make Moneyposted 7 years ago

    Obama called a Jew-hater
    "A campaign of defamation against U.S. President Barack Obama was launched by far-right Israeli activists Thursday, in anticipation of the president’s outreach to the Muslim world in his speech in Cairo."

    This also aired on CBC today.

    1. profile image60
      manizposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      hii

      i am not agree with whos that tell it ...brack obama is very honest person ...he is the man who ...cares our country ...very much..i like him ...nd he deserve it...

      <no signatures please>

    2. Wagle 3 profile image60
      Wagle 3posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Dear "everybody of mideast" Ihave a coment to make about calling the President a jude hater:He is trying a new form of politics in the mideast."If he doesent hold back some atempts" :that would say, that he should be agreeing to all the sugestions from the stats in the middel east",isent leading anywhere at all.Then the leaders of the states, will do what ever they would like to, inkluding warfere.And the inwolved country will take furter chanses, and never stop, or ,change in the future.Or change  politics,in such a way that they will do, what ever they will.Regardless and never....conseqence!!!Think 2 twice,No one wil surwave nukclear attaks.Hirashima and Nagasaki in Japan for example, they cant eat what they are growing, after 50-60 years later.

      1. tksensei profile image60
        tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Say what?

    3. Harvey Stelman profile image60
      Harvey Stelmanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I shall add more amunition tomorrow. He has Jewish advisor, accepts a lot of Jewish and has a list of do's and don'ts for Israel. They all favor the arab's.

  2. nyliram profile image60
    nyliramposted 7 years ago

    I couldn't imagine why a Black man,surely they have suffered bigotry, would hate Jews, are people saying that because his middle name is Hussein. My middle name is Hussein, and I am a female. In the Arabic  Countries almost everyone is called Hussein somewhere in their name, most also have mustaches.
    I do not have such a thing. I grew one once and it did not suit me.
    May Allah bless you forever.

  3. profile image0
    Leta Sposted 7 years ago

    Yeah, sure he is.  Why?  Because tried to recognize the other side as having legitimacy?  Extremists have a hard time seeing anything clearly.

    1. Harvey Stelman profile image60
      Harvey Stelmanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I don't think you know the true history of what is now called Israel. Why do 2 million Arabs choose to stay in Israel? Do you really think Israeli's are bad to Israeli Arabs? Israeli Arabs are in government, the army, police force, etc. If these people go to Arab controlled lands their lives will be destroyed.

      Would you like to live in an Arab country? Oh sorry, you may not be a Muslim (that means you can't in certain countries).

      1. profile image0
        Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I see your point, but I believe the situation to be a little more complex than the black and white you are trying to grasp for here.  As does, I believe, our president.

  4. earnestshub profile image87
    earnestshubposted 7 years ago

    Obama's views on race are plain to see. He is a modern man, he does not look down on any race, he just wants to stop extremists on both sides from pulling the peace process apart with their narrow demands. He will cop it from fundamentalists on both sides.

    1. tksensei profile image60
      tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      "modern"?

      You comment as if you are privy to his thoughts and feelings, which you are not - not any more than you are to the thoughts and feelings of political figures you DON'T support. Suffice to say that there is no good evidence that the president is anti-semitic at all and leave it at that.

    2. profile image0
      Am I dead, yet?posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Earnest, your response is by far the most brilliant here so far. It would seem that too few understand any attempt at world peace. Not everyone can have it their way all the time, there has to be a balance, a compromise. President Bush had done something similar in 2008 when he spoke at Knesset and there was a similar public outcry that the then President Bush hated Muslims.  There has to be an agreement, on both sides, a compromise. It would seem that no one side is willing to do either.

      Such a shame.

      1. earnestshub profile image87
        earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Thank you Am I Dead yet, If we could get an agreement from both sides to back away from their current extreme positions it would be a near miracle I reckon.

        If Israel says no to a 2 state solution, and the Palestinian leadership wants Israel obliterated nothing can move.

        1. tksensei profile image60
          tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          And if Israel says yes but the Palestinian leadership refuses to acknowledge the right of the state of Israel to exist, then what?

          1. earnestshub profile image87
            earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Back to square one!

      2. Vladimir Uhri profile image61
        Vladimir Uhriposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I my former country we were fooled and compromised. Then we got full scale of communism. You compromise, you are done.

        1. ledefensetech profile image80
          ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Very true Vladimir.  I wish we had more people like you around here in the States spreading the word.  It seems like we're about to get some real-world experience with communism ourselves.  Who would have thought?  Just goes to show if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

  5. Prince Moses profile image59
    Prince Mosesposted 7 years ago

    Barack Obama is the descendant of an oppressed people, much like my own.  This man is surely an ally to the Hebrews, not our enemy.

    1. profile image0
      Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      So, Moses.  Were those first set of stone tablets heavy?  And what additional commandments were on them the first time around?

      smile

      1. Prince Moses profile image59
        Prince Mosesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        No heavier than the weight we bore under Pharaoh's bondage.

        1. profile image0
          Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Very good PR campaign, btw.  A.

  6. tksensei profile image60
    tksenseiposted 7 years ago

    So, the Pharaoh was into the kinky stuff?

    1. AEvans profile image70
      AEvansposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      tkensei....naughty , naughty..sad

  7. ledefensetech profile image80
    ledefensetechposted 7 years ago

    It's insane to think that anyone but the Palestinians and the Israelis can do anything about the peace process.  The best anyone else can do is enforce a peace of the sword.  Those only last as long as the occupying forces remain in enforcing the peace.  If everyone and I mean everyone left the place alone, peace would have been achieved decades ago.

    1. Make  Money profile image73
      Make Moneyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I suppose that would include the millions that Israel has received from the US tax payer.  Actually I think the count would even be in the billions or possibly a trillion by now.

  8. ledefensetech profile image80
    ledefensetechposted 7 years ago

    That's a big part of the problem.  It's another tendril of the American Empire.  We need some strategically important goods from that area and we're protecting our mercantile interests. 

    We're also seen as backing the Israelis and their plays in the region.  The IDF really doesn't need the support, in fact the support has probably made them soft.  The Arabs had tanks when they invaded in 1946 and the Israelis had machine guns and bazookas to hold them off.  The IDF just wanted it more than the Arabs.  Always have, that's why they win. 

    You can't enforce a peace of the sword, it has to be done by the people involved because they're the ones who have to learn to live together.

  9. someonewhoknows profile image34
    someonewhoknowsposted 7 years ago

    The Rockerfellers,Rothchilds,and some other superwealthy families around the world who are puppets of the puppet master who is controlling things in the world in my opinion.

    Take a look at these webpages.Let me know what you think about they say.

    http://thx1138.wordpress.com/2006/11/25 … -an-angel/

    http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/04/06/16/lang.htm

    1. Make  Money profile image73
      Make Moneyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      That is quite the story about Edith Cavell.  Definitely a story that the state of Israel and the bankers wouldn't want the world to know about.  I think if the author included a copy of Edith Cavell's article that she submitted to The Nursing Mirror before they executed her the whole story would be hard not to believe.  So I attempted to find the article that she submitted to The Nursing Mirror.  I haven't found it yet but there sure are a lot of people that write about Edith Cavell and Edith Cavell's article in The Nursing Mirror.  That alone makes the story plausible.

      I've read that Prescott Bush, Dubya's grand father was Hitler's banker before but I had no idea that the Bush family were so connected to Hitler and the Nazi Regime.  Chamberlain and the English aristocracy would have swung either way too.

  10. ledefensetech profile image80
    ledefensetechposted 7 years ago

    I'm afraid I don't give too much credit to cabals and conspiracies.  People don't tend to be able to do that stuff very well in the real world.  Not for lack of trying mind you, but a successful conspiracy needs to much planning and timing, plus we live in a universe ruled by chaos theory, sometimes the smallest thing can ruin years and years of planning.  It could be as simple as wrapping a copy of your army's battle plan around some cigars and losing the cigars.  If the enemy finds that, we'll your plan will most definitely not survive contact with the enemy.

    What makes those conspiracy theories so plausible to most people is that once things reach a certain level of complexity beyond which we know much, we tend to ascribe effects to certain forces.  Much mythology is based on this, but the same mechanism is behind conspiracy theories.  It's the things we tell ourselves so the world makes sense.

    1. someonewhoknows profile image34
      someonewhoknowsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      It makes perfect sense.Those who are at the top  of the pyrimid are the most powerful.Like say the president ,sometimes anyway.They may get assassinated but,at least they tried to warn the people.

      1. someonewhoknows profile image34
        someonewhoknowsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Kennedy comes to mind ,as well as Eisinhower,and Lincoln.

  11. ledefensetech profile image80
    ledefensetechposted 7 years ago

    The President is part of the problem.  Unlike a conspiracy, a government has a monopoly on the use of force.  Only they can imprison someone or take their life while getting a majority of people behind them.  Anyone else who tries that is called a thug or a criminal.  That gives governments a pretty big stick to get people to conform to their wishes.

    Have you ever heard of Occam's Razor?  It's the theory that if you take two equally plausible theories and have to choose between them, the simpler one is the one chosen.  Conspiracy theories make great plots in books and movies but to do so in real life it's a bit harder.  I can name any number of conspiracies and cabals that have failed over the years.  Or one or two that succeeded by pure dumb luck.  Not exactly the resume of an all seeing, all powerful organization.

    1. someonewhoknows profile image34
      someonewhoknowsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      They say if want to hide something,put it out there for all to see.There's a Quote from Hitler "It is to our great advantage that the people do not think ! The bigger the lie the harder for the masses to believe it of their chosen leader.

  12. ledefensetech profile image80
    ledefensetechposted 7 years ago

    Kennedy was killed because he almost killed us all in a nuclear war.  I'm sure our military killed him, or the CIA.  After all they got pretty good at removing heads of state in the 50's and 60's.  Eisenhower might have warned us, but he was a major part of the shenanigans going on around the world at the time.  He could have checked the Industrial/Military/Congressional complex, but he chose not to.  Finally Lincoln was murdered for starting a Civil War, shredding the rights of American citizens and winning said war and setting a mercantilist economy in motion.  Most of what would be called Progressive started during the Civil War.  It only makes sense as in many ways the Republican party was a descendant of the Whig party and the Federalist party before it.

    1. someonewhoknows profile image34
      someonewhoknowsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      You have to admit Lincoln did warn us about the central bankers,and Lincoiln as well as Kennedy printed up millions in Greenbacks in the case of Lincoln ,and unitedstates bank notes in Kennedy's case.I don't think they were perfect but they did make comments about the banking system ,that got someone's attention. The military  in both cases were hostle to both men to some extent. I agree with you there.

      1. Make  Money profile image73
        Make Moneyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Yeah both Lincoln and Kennedy printed money to pay for wars.  I've read that Lincoln printed the Greenbacks without the bankers.  Was Kennedy planning to do the same or did he?  And now is Obama?  I'd have to think that a secret society besides just the military were behind both the Lincoln and Kennedy assassinations.  Any secret society come to mind?

        Edit: After asking the question about Kennedy I found this web site titled John F. Kennedy vs The Federal Reserve with these quotes.

  13. ledefensetech profile image80
    ledefensetechposted 7 years ago

    In many ways I think Lincoln was a dupe of the Republican party.  There were an awful lot of ex-Whigs and latter day Federalists in the early Republican Party.  Guys like Sumner and Seward.  Had he lived, I think things would have turned out much different than the did later.

    As for Kennedy, he caused the Fed to ramp up the printing presses to pay for Vietnam.  There's plenty of evidence to suggest that he was pretty well connected with some people in the military who wanted to go into Southeast Asia and expand the war against Communism there.  Of course the fact that some of that largess would stick to their hands had little to do with it.  Then he spooked some other guys with the nuclear thing and they offed him.  One thing that conspiracy theories ignore that that the government is like a many headed beast and the right hand often times doesn't know what the left hand is doing.  Kind of breaks the idea of this great monolithic conspiracy when you realize something like that.

    1. someonewhoknows profile image34
      someonewhoknowsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      What do you think about certain religious conspiracy theories.Say the Anti-Christ or the mark of the beast,where no man rich or poor slave or free that will be able to buy or sell without taking the mark of the beast? Technology today brings chip implants to mind.

  14. ledefensetech profile image80
    ledefensetechposted 7 years ago

    It's a common misconception among non-scholars of the Bible, but instead of being an account of the future, John of Patmos was describing the plight of Christians at the time he set down his Revelation.  It's interesting to note that after his death the Church established itself for about a millennium, from around 400 AD to around 1400 AD when the Renaissance and secular humanism started to come to the fore.

    It's also little known that at the various Councils that determined the Bible, Revelations was almost not put in it.  I imagine it was because fear is a great motivator to keep people in line.  The Church Fathers knew that very well.  It was better than Peter's Apocalypse which seemed to suggest that we're all saved regardless of if we believe in Christ or not.  Not very effective at getting butts in the pews though.  So Revelations was in.

    One thing those religious fundamentalists forget is that you need to have at least the majority of a population with you in order to have a functioning society.  So chipping people as the Mark isn't really a good idea. Do you know how many hackers will be able to spoof such systems?  Or shut them down?  Or flood the system with so many fake ID's that the entire system would be useless.  There's so many things wrong with that scenario, to suggest that some great conspiracy could get it to work would require some magic to get it done.

    1. Make  Money profile image73
      Make Moneyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Well yeah the first part of the book of Revelations is directed to the first seven churches as well as us today but the rest of it is clearly an end times prophecy.  Martin Luther did remove the book of Revelations as well as some other books and placed them in the back of his Bible un-numbered.  Eighty years later the book of Revelations and I think two more books were placed back in the original spots.

  15. profile image0
    \Brenda Scullyposted 7 years ago

    The only place that everyone agrees is hub pages, and then sometimes ................

 
working