Ummm...not exactly. It's 2005 not 1981

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

http://dailymusings.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!EBAB74DA8F94C559!5351.entry

1981 - Obama Visits Pakistan When All Non-Muslim Vistors Unwelcome - Bin Laden There, Too

The following asks a lot of good questions about Obama's supposedly "innocent" visit to Pakistan in 1981. One thing not asked is whether we know exactly how long he was there? Campaign mangers are known to lie a lot, especially when a troublesome issue arises. And where is our major media on this? Quiet!!!!!!

At a fundraiser in San Francisco, Ca., Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., claimed he had more world experience than his rivals, Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and introduced a new bit of biographical information.

"Foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Senator Clinton or Senator McCain," Obama said, according to the Huffington Post.

"It's ironic because this is supposedly the place where experience is most needed to be Commander-in-Chief. Experience in Washington is not knowledge of the world. This I know. When Senator Clinton brags 'I've met leaders from eighty countries' -- I know what those trips are like! I've been on them. You go from the airport to the embassy. There's a group of children who do native dance. You meet with the CIA station chief and the embassy and they give you a briefing. You go take a tour of a plant that [with] the assistance of USAID has started something. And then -- you go."

"You do that in eighty countries," Obama said, "You don't know those eighty countries. So when I speak about having lived in Indonesia for four years, having family that is impoverished in small villages in Africa --knowing the leaders is not important -- what I know is the people...I traveled to Pakistan when I was in college -- I knew what Sunni and Shia was [sic] before I joined the Senate Foreign Relations Committee." (But later he says the USA has 58 states and he's been to 57 of them, not counting Hawaii and Alaska. I guess he knows Muslims better than Americans, he certainly is not picking 58 out of the air, what about 58 relates to Muslims?)

This last part -- a college trip to Pakistan -- was news to many of us who have been following the race closely. And it was odd that we hadn't hear about it before, given all the talk of Pakistan during this campaign.

So I asked the Obama campaign for more information.

Apparently, according to the Obama campaign, In 1981 -- the year Obama transferred from Occidental College to Columbia University -- Obama visited his mother and sister Maya in Indonesia. After that visit, Obama traveled to Pakistan with a friend from college whose family was from there. The Obama campaign says Obama was in Pakistan for about three weeks, staying with his friend's family in Karachi and also visiting Hyderabad in Southern India.

NOW, It all sounds very innocent, "a college trip to Pakistan".

Pakistan was in turmoil in 1981 and ruled of martial law. Millions of Afghan refugees were living in Pakistan, while the Afghan Mujahedeen operated from bases inside Pakistan in their war with the Soviets. One of the leaders that based his operation in Quetta, Pakistan was Usama Bin Laden (The Sheik).

Pakistan was on the banned travel list for US Citizens at the time and all non-Muslim visitors were not welcome unless sponsored by their embassy for official business.

The would be only a few reasons a young Westerner of the Muslim faith would travel to Pakistan in 1981:

To Participate in Jihad, which is the duty of every "True Believer".

For religious education in a Wahabbi sect, Saudi funded, Madrassa.

In order to purchase drugs from the drug marketplace.

Pakistan was not a tourist stop nor the place to hang out with someone's family in 1981.

So you don't think waterboarding is illegal -- even though it goes directly against at least 4 existing treaties? If we aren't going to be held accountable by treaties that WE agree to, what's the point of being in them?

This is actually where I do disagree with Obama. He doesn't want to make this into a partisan thing and is seemingly not too interested in prosecutions. My opinion is that its not partisan to enforce existing laws. As far as I'm concerned the whole bunch from the Shrub gang need to be prosecuted. Maybe we can just extradite them to Spain. That would work for me.

"what right does the government have to take MY money and give to an organization like ACORN to pass out to democratic candidates for their campaigns"

Well, that was straight out of O'Reilly's mouth. LOL. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's just about exactly what he said last night.

So you think that there is a direct funnel that takes our tax dollars and just hands them over to Acorn? Here's a news flash --- as the ladies noted last night on Billo's show, they are a nonprofit organization and have to apply and compete for grants and loans just like everyone else.

As for whether they are completely on the up and up, I have no idea, but I don't think I'll base that judgment on the commentary of a right-wing show host.

Exactly how is it that Fox's ratings prove that O'Reilly is not far right? LOL.. Ratings have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion.

However, since you mentioned Obama and fulfilling his promises, it may not turn out like you think. For the most part people who voted for him are pretty happy with how he's handling the economy and foreign affairs. However, there are a few things that have gotten to a lot of dems. For example, he hasn't gotten rid of "don't ask don't tell" yet. He hasn't fulfilled promises he made to the LGBT community. He's carrying on seemingly with "indefinite detention." He ran on a platform that promised these things would be fixed. Granted, he hasn't been there long and can still come around on these things. However, if he doesn't my guess is that the country will go even farther to the left than they did this time. Now that is what you should be worried about, not Fox ratings.

And just as a side note, if he gets healthcare reform through, it will be decades before a pub sets foot in the White House.

The Declaration of Independence is not and was not a legal document. It simply stated the intent of the US to separate from Great Britian and why. It did not define any rules or regulations to be imposed in this nation.

Explain the Treaty of Tripoli that says "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Another note: Not everyone in this country is in the business of impressing your god and therefore has no need of any kind of "blessing" from your god. What if I were a pagan and told you that the sun god was going to scorch the US unless everyone prayed to him/her. Would you do it? That's what you expect everyone else to do to impress your god. Why? Because YOU don't want to be in the mix when your supposed wrath of god experience comes. I would put that in the category of trying to make others do something they don't agree with just to save your behind. Don't even bother with the "but we want to save you too" speech. Believe me, we don't want or need saving.

Your main point was what you initially stated, and that was that there was no mention in the MSM about this incident. Unfortunately for you, I can undoubtedly come up with even more proof of MSM coverage if you'd like, but that would only serve to embarass you further.

As far as Obama not saying much about it, I think that was a good choice. At the time he was only a couple days out from his speech in Cairo. --- That would be the speech where he is seeking to calm tensions between our religous nuts and their religious nuts. Yeah....that would have been just a perfect time to bring that up. How about using your brain for a change instead of just spitting out the right wing talking points.

I do believe I've more than proven I can take the heat on this board....LOL, even from the loons like you who just lurk around waiting for me to post something so you can jump on it, which is rather funny and pathetic all at the same time, as well as from the paranoid lunatics like Patty.

BTW, you can now take "paranoid lunatic" out of the insinuation box and put in the statement box......just so you don't get confused.

The whole point of the gag order (which the prosecutors asked for, btw) is so they can come up with a jury that has not been overexposed to the case. I guess Fixed Noise wants to ensure that everyone hears about this so we can have a really hard time prosecuting this guy. Way to go Fox!

If we just "let it go" then we have said it is okay to torture and to break the law. We are supposed to be a nation of laws. Those laws apply to everyone, even the former administration.

You guys constantly try to justify the war in Iraq by saying that Saadam was a tyrant (which he was) and that he was committing inhumane acts on his people. We also ridiculed the Taliban for its treatment of women.

How much credibility do we really have to judge anyone else if we don't hold ourselves accountable for our OWN laws?

I hope the whole Bush bunch that came up with and ordered torture go to trial and are given the most severe sentence possible. Maybe that way when other countries look at us they can see that we mean what we say instead of having a double standard for ourselves.

You were asked a question. It requires an answer. Instead, you attack the questioner.