Welcome to the Unhypnotize Truth Community!
A great place to discuss conspiracies, UFOs, NWO, truth, reality and enlightenment.

• » Conspiracies Discussions
• » UFOs and Extraterrestrial
• » Spiritual and Paranormal
• » World and Alternative News

Its time to wake up to the global conspiracy...and move beyond...
Our community is here to spread truth, discuss the Global Conspiracy and the world wide Truth Movement!

YES! I want to register for free right now!
Page 2 of 2 First 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17

Thread: Warmonger Barak Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize??

  1. #11

    Nobel Peace Laureate Obama Will Send 40K More Troops To War

    Pointless “will he, won’t he” debates ignore the fact that Obama has already deployed 34,000 additional troops to Afghanistan

    Steve Watson
    Tuesday, Nov 10, 2009

    Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama has decided to send close to 40,000 more troops into Afghanistan over the course of 2010, according to insiders.

    “Informed sources tell CBS news he intends to give General McCrystal most, if not all, the additional troops he is asking for,” the network reported Monday night.

    According to the report, Obama has decided to send four combat brigades plus thousands more support troops, bringing the total of new troops to be deployed close to 40,000.

    The first troops will arrive in early 2010, and it would take until the end of 2010 before all the additional troops were in position.

    The build up is expected to last four years, meaning there would be 100,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan by the end of 2012 when Obama has completed his first term.

    According to CBS, Obama will announce the decision the week before Thanksgiving, just in time to fly over to Oslo, Norway in December to pick up his Nobel Peace Prize.

    The White House has denied that any decision has been made, calling the reports, “absolutely false”.

    Watch the CBS report:


    Of course, this news is not surprising. While the mainstream media is still pointlessly debating “will he, won’t he”, the decision to deploy thousands more troops was made back in February with the announcement that 17,000 rising to 30,000 troops would be sent into the country.

    At the same time, Obama demand a total of around $800 billion in war funds and subsidiary costs.

    “According to the U.S. defense officials, Obama needs USD 75.5 billion for 2009 to cover the cost of the additional troops deployed in to Afghanistan this year and an another USD 130 billion for the rest of fiscal 2009,” reports from nine months ago highlighted.

    In addition, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mike Mullen, has made it clear that the Pentagon will request supplemental war-fighting funds sometime next year, over and above the $130 billion appropriated by Congress last month.

    The combined number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan has now reached a higher level under Obama than existed under the Bush administration at any point between 2003 and 2008.

    At the height of the Bush administration’s 2007 “surge” in Iraq, there were 26,000 US troops in Afghanistan and 160,000 in Iraq, a total of 186,000.

    According to DoD figures cited by The Washington Post last month, there are now around 189,000 and rising deployed in total. There are now 68,000 troops in Afghanistan, over double the amount deployed there when Bush left office.

    As the Post points out, these figures are also misleadingly low because the number of support troops, at least 13,000, has simply not been announced or noted, despite their authorization and deployment by the Pentagon.

    “The deployment of the support troops to Afghanistan brings the total increase approved by Obama to 34,000.” The Post noted. “McChrystal’s request, which the administration is considering, would be in addition to the troops Obama has approved.” the article continues.

    These numbers will no doubt go even higher given that McChrystal’s top end request for additional troops to Afghanistan stands at 80,000. Even more young Americans are to be pushed through the meat grinder.

    Shall we continue to debate whether or not Obama the peace laureate will increase the troops levels in Afghanistan?

    In addition, it has become clear that as in Iraq, Obama intends for U.S. forces to stay in Afghanistan permanently. One need only look at the recent headlines regarding construction and infrastructure contracts to recognise this fact.

    As Walter Pincus of the Washington Post notes, the Pentagon has spent “roughly $2.7 billion on construction over the past three fiscal years” in that country and, “if its request is approved as part of the fiscal 2010 defense appropriations bill, it would spend another $1.3 billion on more than 100 projects at 40 sites across the country, according to a Senate report on the legislation.”

    Just as in Iraq, the Pentagon is setting about building hundreds of huge permanent military bases, expanding the sprawling network of well over 700 bases worldwide. Read journalist Nick Turse’s in-depth report for more analysis.

    Just as in Iraq, tens of thousands of U.S. troops will remain in Afghanistan as a residual (read “occupying”) force in perpetuity.

    Let us not forget that the justification for escalating the war in Afghanistan is to fight “Al Qaeda” insurgents and prevent another 9/11, a notion that has no basis in reality given that, even if you believe the official story of 9/11, no Afghans were involved in the attacks which were planned by Saudi nationals in Europe.

    Furthermore, high ranking U.S. security and military officials have openly stated that Afghanistan is not in danger of falling, and that there that there are less than 100 Al Qaeda affiliated fighters currently in the country, presenting no threat to any nation.

    Should 40,000 additional troops enter the country, there will be 1,000 or more U.S. soldiers and Marines in Afghanistan for every Al Qaeda fighter.

    The real reason for military escalation is to dominate the geopolitical region, reap the financial profits from the plentiful supplies of energy and narcotics and suppress the people of Afghanistan in the process.

    Barack Obama’s election promise to bring “change” to Washington and reverse the juggernaut of rampant militarism, endless wars and occupations has proven to be nothing more than a cruel hoax.

    The perpetuation of the illegal occupation of Iraq, the expansion of the fallacy based war in Afghanistan, as well as increased faceless attacks in Pakistan, heightened belligerence towards Iran and refusal to address a strategy to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict sum up Obama’s foreign policy during his first twelve months in office.

    How in anyone’s mind can such behavior constitute a move towards peace?


  2. #12

    Nobel peace prize: Norwegians incensed over Barack Obama?s snubs

    Gwladys Fouché and Ewen MacAskill
    London Guardian
    Thursday, Dec 10th, 2009

    Barack Obama’s trip to Oslo to pick up his Nobel peace award is in danger of being overshadowed by a row over the cancellation of a series of events normally attended by the prizewinner.

    Norwegians are incensed over what they view as his shabby response to the prize by cutting short his visit.

    The White House has cancelled many of the events peace prize laureates traditionally submit to, including a dinner with the Norwegian Nobel committee, a press conference, a television interview, appearances at a children’s event promoting peace and a music concert, as well as a visit to an exhibition in his honour at the Nobel peace centre.

    He has also turned down a lunch invitation from the King of Norway.

    According to a poll published by the daily tabloid VG, 44% of Norwegians believe it was rude of Obama to cancel his scheduled lunch with King Harald, with only 34% saying they believe it was acceptable.

    Full article here


  3. #13

    Can Nobel Prize Winner Obama At LEAST Stop the Torture?

    Washington’s Blog
    Friday, Dec 11th, 2009

    On Thursday, President Obama said:

    We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend.
    Presumably, complying with American and international law are some of the ideals that we fight to defend.

    Torture is a violation of both international and American law. Specifically, the Geneva Convention makes it illegal to inflict mental or physical torture or inhuman treatment.

    As I pointed out in 2005:

    The War Crimes Act of 1996, a federal statute set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 2441, makes it a federal crime for any U.S. national, whether military or civilian, to violate the Geneva Convention by engaging in murder, torture, or inhuman treatment.

    The statute applies not only to those who carry out the acts, but also to those who ORDER IT, know about it, or fail to take steps to stop it. The statute applies to everyone, no matter how high and mighty.


    Indeed, even the lawyers and other people who aided in the effort may be war criminals; see also this article , this one, and this press release.
    Have Things Changed Under the Obama Administration?

    You may assume that things have changed after President Obama was sworn in.

    However, the Obama Department of Justice is trying to protect torture memo writer John Yoo. As constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley notes:

    The president literally has gotten onto a plane this evening to go to Norway to accept the Nobel Prize, while his Justice Department is effectively gutting a major part of Nuremberg.

    The Obama administration is arguing not only that they shouldn’t be prosecuted, but it’s now saying that you shouldn’t even be able to sue them civilly …. It’s an international disgrace.
    Well, it may be a disgrace, but at least torture isn’t continuing under the Obama administration, right?

    In fact, many reporters have said that the Bagram prison facility in Afghanistan is worse than Guantanamo ever was. Moreover, abuse is apparently still occurring there.

    As Spiegel wrote on September 21, 2009, in an article entitled “Prisoner Abuse Continues at Bagram Prison in Afghanistan”:

    US President Barack Obama has spoken out against CIA prisoner abuse and wants to close Guantanamo. But he tolerates the existence of Bagram military prison in Afghanistan, where more than 600 people are being held without charge. The facility makes Guantanamo look like a “nice hotel,” in the words of one military prosecutor

    Bagram is “the forgotten second Guantanamo,” says American military law expert Eugene Fidell, a professor at Yale Law School. “But apparently there is a continuing need for this sort of place even under the Obama administration.

    “From the beginning, “Bagram was worse than Guantanamo,” says New York-based attorney Tina Foster, who has argued several cases on behalf of detainee rights in US courts. “Bagram has always been a torture chamber.”

    And what does Obama say? Nothing. He never so much as mentions Bagram in any of his speeches. When discussing America’s mistreatment of detainees, he only refers to Guantanamo.
    Obama still never mentions Bagram.

    Spiegel continues:

    From the beginning, Bagram was notorious for the brutal forms of torture employed there. Former inmates report incidents of sleep deprivation, beatings and various forms of sexual humiliation [and rape with sticks]…

    At least two men died during imprisonment. One of them, a 22-year-old taxi driver named Dilawar, was suspended by his hands from the ceiling for four days, during which US military personnel repeatedly beat his legs. Dilawar died on Dec. 10, 2002. In the autopsy report, a military doctor wrote that the tissue on his legs had basically been “pulpified.” As it happens, his interrogators had already known — and later testified — that there was no evidence against Dilawar…

    However attorney Tina Foster feels that the new initiative is just a cosmetic measure. “There is absolutely no difference between the Bush administration and the Obama administration’s position with respect to Bagram detainees’ rights,” she says during an interview with SPIEGEL in her office in the New York borough of Queens.
    And see this.

    Moreover, Obama is still apparently allowing “rendition flights” – where prisoners are flown to countries which freely torture – to continue. This itself violates the Geneva Convention and the War Crimes Act of 1996.

    Specifically, to the extent that the U.S. is sending prisoners to other countries for the express purpose of being tortured are true, violation of the war crimes act by the highest officials of our country would be probable. For who else but Obama, Gates and other top officials would have the ability to authorize such flights? How could such a program be undertaken without their knowledge? And how could such a program be anything but the intentional “ordering” of torture, or at least “knowing about it” and “failing to take steps to stop it”?

    Finally, Jeremy Scahill – the reporter who broke most of the stories on Blackwater – says that some forms of torture at Guantanamo have continued under Obama, and may even have gotten worse. For example, Scahill points out that:

    The Center for Constitutional Rights released a report titled “Conditions of Confinement at Guantánamo: Still In Violation of the Law,” which found that abuses continued. In fact, one Guantanamo lawyer, Ahmed Ghappour, said that his clients were reporting “a ramping up in abuse” since Obama was elected.
    But Torture Is a Necessary Evil*

    Many would say that this is disgusting, but that torture is a necessary evil to defend our national security.

    But as I have previously pointed out:
    Before I provide the link for the video, let me remind you:

    • Torture has also been used throughout history as a form of intimidation, to terrorize people into obedience, not for gathering information
    Moreover, the type of torture used by the U.S. in the last 10 years is of a special type. Senator Levin revealed that the U.S. used torture techniques aimed at extracting false confessions.

    McClatchy subsequently filled in some of the details:

    Former senior U.S. intelligence official familiar with the interrogation issue said that Cheney and former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld demanded that the interrogators find evidence of al Qaida-Iraq collaboration…

    For most of 2002 and into 2003, Cheney and Rumsfeld, especially, were also demanding proof of the links between al Qaida and Iraq that (former Iraqi exile leader Ahmed) Chalabi and others had told them were there.”It was during this period that CIA interrogators waterboarded two alleged top al Qaida detainees repeatedly — Abu Zubaydah at least 83 times in August 2002 and Khalid Sheik Muhammed 183 times in March 2003 — according to a newly released Justice Department document…

    When people kept coming up empty, they were told by Cheney’s and Rumsfeld’s people to push harder,” he continued.”Cheney’s and Rumsfeld’s people were told repeatedly, by CIA . . . and by others, that there wasn’t any reliable intelligence that pointed to operational ties between bin Laden and Saddam . . .

    A former U.S. Army psychiatrist, Maj. Charles Burney, told Army investigators in 2006 that interrogators at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention facility were under “pressure” to produce evidence of ties between al Qaida and Iraq.

    “While we were there a large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between al Qaida and Iraq and we were not successful in establishing a link between al Qaida and Iraq,” Burney told staff of the Army Inspector General. “The more frustrated people got in not being able to establish that link . . . there was more and more pressure to resort to measures that might produce more immediate results.”

    “I think it’s obvious that the administration was scrambling then to try to find a connection, a link (between al Qaida and Iraq),” [Senator] Levin said in a conference call with reporters. “They made out links where they didn’t exist.”

    Levin recalled Cheney’s assertions that a senior Iraqi intelligence officer had met Mohammad Atta, the leader of the 9/11 hijackers, in the Czech Republic capital of Prague just months before the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

    The FBI and CIA found that no such meeting occurred.
    In other words, top Bush administration officials not only knowingly lied about a non-existent connection between Al Qaida and Iraq, but they pushed and insisted that interrogators use special torture methods aimed at extracting false confessions to attempt to create such a false linkage. See also this and this.

    Paul Krugman summarized eloquently summarized the truth about the type of torture used:

    Let’s say this slowly: the Bush administration wanted to use 9/11 as a pretext to invade Iraq, even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. So it tortured people to make them confess to the nonexistent link.

    There’s a word for this: it’s evil.
    Torture Is Antithetical to American Ideals

    All torture is unjustifiable, as it produces no good intelligence and weakens national security. I think that – as Congress recognized in passing the War Crimes Act of 1996 – all torture is antithetical to American ideals.

    The surge in Afghanistan is not necessary. For example, the U.S. admits there are only a small handful of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. As ABC notes:

    U.S. intelligence officials have concluded there are only about 100 al Qaeda fighters in the entire country.

    With 100,000 troops in Afghanistan at an estimated yearly cost of $30 billion, it means that for every one al Qaeda fighter, the U.S. will commit 1,000 troops and $300 million a year.
    And a leading advisor to the U.S. military – the very hawkish Rand Corporation – released a study in 2008 called “How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering al Qa’ida”. As a press release about the study states:

    Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors, and our analysis suggests that there is no battlefield solution to terrorism.
    There are additional reasons why prolonging the Afghan war may reduce our national security, such as arguably weakening our economy.

    Many experts also say that a surge in Afghanistan will actually weaken our national security by pushing the few remaining Al Qaeda into Pakistan – a county with nuclear weapons. See this and this.

    If Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama is going to escalate the war in Afghanistan anyway, the least he should do is stop all torture.


  4. #14

    Obama bags Peace Prize while his lawyers are ?gutting? Nuremberg

    David Edwards and Muriel Kane
    Raw Story
    December 11, 2009

    The Obama administration has asked the Department of Justice to dismiss a lawsuit brought by convicted terrorist Jose Padilla against torture memo author John Yoo, asserting that Yoo cannot be sued for legal opinions he offered in the course of advising then-President Bush on national security matters.

    Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley finds ths decision inexplicable. “The president literally has gotten onto a plane this evening to go to Norway,” he told MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann on Wednesday, “to accept the Nobel Prize, while his Justice Department is effectively gutting a major part of Nuremberg.”

    “The Obama administration is arguing not only that they shouldn’t be prosecuted,” Tuirley emphasized, “but it’s now saying that you shouldn’t even be able to sue them civilly. … It’s an international disgrace.”

    Turley pointed out that several legal advisors to Germany’s Ministry of Justice were convicted during the Nuremberg trials held after World War II for providing the legal advice that justified Nazi war crimes. Now the Obama administration, in its desire to uphold executive privilege at any cost, is willing to toss that principle aside.

    “There is no limiting principle here,” Turley explained. “John Yoo was essential to this torture program. … If John Yoo cannot not be sued for an alleged war crime, what possibly could a Justice official be sued for? … We’re talking about the most extreme case.”

    “The Justice Department’s prosecuted lawyers who give advice to mobsters,” Turley concluded, “but apparently if you give advice to advance a war crime, that’s just ‘full and frank advice.’”

    This video is from MSNBC’s Countdown, broadcast Dec. 9, 2009.



  5. #15

    Obama Urged to Earn His Nobel Prize at Climate Talks

    Kim Chipman
    December 11, 2009

    President Barack Obama had not even accepted his Nobel Prize in Oslo yesterday before environmental advocates began calling on him to earn it when he attends climate talks in Copenhagen next week.

    “Obama, in part, has been awarded the Nobel Prize with the expectation that he will deliver the kind of leadership necessary to get a climate treaty,” Greenpeace USA’s Damon Moglen said on Dec. 9, a day before Obama won the same prestigious award given to Al Gore two years ago for his work on climate change. “He won it, and now is the time to earn it.”

    The U.S. president, during his speech yesterday in Norway, warned about the dangers of climate change and called on countries to work together to confront the problem. Obama will attend the treaty negotiations in Copenhagen on Dec. 18, the last day of the meetings that started this week. He initially planned to make an appearance nine days earlier on Dec. 9.

    Read entire article


  6. #16

    Ron Paul: War-monger Obama should have returned Nobel Award

    Russia Today
    Friday, Dec 11th, 2009

    As the U.S prepares to send more troops to the war in Afghanistan, Barack Obama’s in Norway to receive his Nobel Peace Prize, awarded in October. The Nobel Committee said it wanted to praise Obama’s efforts to strengthen diplomacy and co-operation between nations. But for many, the 44th U.S. president was a surprise choice. Republican Congressman Ron Paul says Obama’s recent war plans show he shouldn’t have been awarded the peace prize.


  7. #17

    Obama?s Nobel Prize ? is it unconstitutional?

    Jim Brown
    December 14, 2009

    A constitutional scholar says President Obama’s acceptance of the*Nobel Peace Prize may be a violation of the U.S. Constitution because he received the award without the consent of Congress.

    Last Thursday, Barack Obama accepted the Nobel Peace Prize Oslo, Norway. He is the third sitting president, after Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt, to win the award. While controversy swirled around the award being granted to a wartime president, Matthew Spalding with The Heritage Foundation is concerned about the constitutionality of Obama’s acceptance of the Nobel Prize.

    A*clause in*Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states: “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States:*And no Person holding any Office or Trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign state.”*That raises*a question:*Is the Nobel Peace Prize an “Emolument” — a gift arising from one’s office which includes some sort of monetary award with it?

    Read entire article


Page 2 of 2 First 12

Similar Threads

  1. Is Nobel Peace Prize Winner Obama More Brutal than Bush?
    By Unhypnotized in forum Alternative News / Media
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 31st, 2011, 12:21 PM
  2. Norwegians Rally for Ron Paul, Oppose Obama Nobel Peace Prize
    By Unhypnotized in forum Alternative News / Media
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: December 10th, 2009, 10:33 PM

Tags for this Thread