[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Usa Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

alt.politics.obama

America has suffered a terror attack every year under Obama

Ubiquitous

6/17/2016 2:42:00 PM

By Paul Sperry

America has now averaged one serious Islamic terrorist attack a year
on President Obama?s watch, yet he still insists the threat from
radical Islam is overblown and that he?s successfully protecting the
nation.

If only hubris could be weaponized!

In the wake of Omar Mateen?s Orlando massacre, Obama whined about
growing criticism of his terror-fighting strategy. But boy, does he
deserve it. His record on terrorism is terrible, and Hillary Clinton
should have a tough time defending it.

Here we are in the eighth year of his presidency, and the nation has
now suffered eight significant attacks by Islamist terrorists on US
soil or diplomatic property ? an average of one attack a year since
Obama?s been in office, with each new attack seemingly worse than
the last.

And there?s six long months left to go.

Obama said Orlando ?marks the most deadly shooting in American
history.? Actually, it was the second-worst act of terrorism in
American history, replacing in six short months the San Bernardino
massacre as the deadliest terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11.

Here are the previous seven:

December 2015: Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, a married Pakistani
couple, stormed a San Bernardino County government building with
combat gear and rifles and opened fire on about 80 employees
enjoying an office Christmas party. They killed 14 after pledging
loyalty to ISIS. A third Muslim was charged with helping buy
weapons.

July 2015: Mohammad Abdulazeez opened fire on a military recruiting
center and US Navy Reserve center in Chattanooga, Tenn., where he
shot to death four Marines and a sailor. Obama refused to call it
terrorism.

May 2015: ISIS-directed Muslims Nadir Soofi and Elton Simpson opened
fire on the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland, Texas, shooting a
security guard before police took them down.

April 2013: Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, Muslim brothers from
Chechnya, exploded a pair of pressure-cooker bombs at the Boston
Marathon, killing three and wounding more than 260. At least 17
people lost limbs from the shrapnel.

September 2012: Terrorists with al Qaeda in the Maghreb attacked the
US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, killing the US ambassador, a US
Foreign Service officer and two CIA contractors. Obama and then-
Secretary of State Clinton misled the American people, blaming the
attack on an anti-Muslim video.

November 2009: Army Maj. Nidal Hasan opened fire on fellow soldiers
at Fort Hood, Texas, killing 13. Obama ruled it ?workplace
violence,? even though Hasan was in contact with an al Qaeda leader
before the strikes and praised Allah as he mowed down troops.

June 2009: Al Qaeda-trained Abdulhakim Muhammad opened fire on an
Army recruiting office in Little Rock, Ark., killing Pvt. William
Long and wounding Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula.

So there you have it ? an average of one serious terror strike
against the United States every year on Obama?s watch. And we?re not
even counting the underwear bomber, Times Square bomber, Fed Ex
bombs and other near-misses.

History will not be kind to this president?s record.

When he came into office, Obama vowed to defeat terrorism using ?all
elements of our power?: ?My single most important responsibility as
president is to keep the American people safe. It?s the first thing
that I think about when I wake up in the morning. It?s the last
thing that I think about when I go to sleep at night.?

But it soon became clear he wasn?t serious.

In June 2009, Obama traveled to Cairo to apologize to Muslims the
world over for America?s war on terror. Then he canceled the war and
released as many terrorists as he could from Gitmo, while ordering
the FBI and Homeland Security to delete ?jihad? and other Islamic
references from their counterterrorism manuals and fire all trainers
who linked terrorism to Islam, blinding investigators to the threat
from homegrown jihadists like Mateen.

Obama also stopped a major investigation of terror-supporting Muslim
Brotherhood front groups and radical mosques, while opening the
floodgates to Muslim immigrants, importing more than 400,000 of
them, many from terrorist hot spots Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Saudi
Arabia and Pakistan.

Attack after attack, the president has ridiculously maintained that
global warming is a bigger threat than global terrorism. Americans
are fed up. Even before San Bernardino and Orlando, polls showed
Obama was widely viewed as soft on Islamist terrorists. He has an
absolutely awful record keeping us safe from terrorism.

And this is the security mantle Hillary is so proud to inherit? Good
luck with that.

:Paul Sperry is author of ?Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and
:Subversives Have Penetrated Washington? and ?Muslim Mafia: Inside
:the Secret Underworld That?s Conspiring to Islamize America.?



--
"Øbama is a damned narcissistic idiot who has just made the world a
much more dangerous place. Your children will curse his name."
http://www.jonmcnaughton.com/obama-forei...


1 Answer

Topaz

6/17/2016 10:39:00 PM

0



CIA insider tells 911 truth. Time to re-examine your World-view,
America!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r...

The sudden, complete, straight down at near free-fall speed collapse
of steel framed WTC building 7, which was not touched by the planes,
is the SMOKING GUN of the 9/11 conspiracy. The building's few small
fires and superficial debris damage could not account for this
collapse, which had all the earmarks of controlled demolition by
explosives. Videos clearly show this. Such demolitions take many days
or weeks to set up - not the few hours between the plane "attacks" and
the collapse. The explosives therefore had to be put in place
BEFOREHAND. This lends credibility to the use of previously placed
explosives to bring down the towers as well, which like the badly
damaged and fire-gutted Deutchbank building would probably have
remained standing.

Propaganda shills, disinformationists, and those in psychological
denial still insist the collapse of WTC 7 could not be what it
obviously was, and they employ often ludicrous rationalizations and
fabrications, elaborate lies, and infantile ad-hominem attacks to
defend their indefensible position. The REAL terrorists are desperate
to cover up their mass-murderous crime of the century - the permitting
if not perpetration of, and subsequent political and economic
exploitation of the fully preventable 9/11 disaster.

Could Bin Laden have somehow totally incapacitated NORAD - the world's
most sophisticated aerospace defense system - on that horrible
morning? I don't think so!

There is evidence of an INSIDE JOB even more clear and indisputable
than the explosive demolition collapse of building 7 and the standing
down of NORAD. Many very small HUMAN BODY FRAGMENTS have been found on
the roofs of nearby buildings. These were too far away to be from
jumpers from the towers. If the towers simply collapsed from damage
and fire alone, what blew these bodies to smithereens and sent the
fragments flying for considerable distances? The plane impacts did not
have the explosive brisance (shattering force) necessary to do this -
only HIGH EXPLOSIVES can blow bodies to tiny bits and throw them such
distances.

So - who can credibly account for these body fragments, other than
their being the result of high explosives being detonated in the
towers?


The following article proves, using the inviolate laws of physics, the
falsity of the government's propaganda explanation for the World Trade
Center building collapses:

SIMPLE PHYSICS EXPOSES THE BIG 9/11 LIE - GOVERNMENT BUILDING COLLAPSE
EXPLANATION FAILS REALITY CHECK

On September 11, 2001, the world watched in horror as the World Trade
Center (WTC) Twin Towers collapsed, killing thousands of innocent
people. Videos of the collapses were replayed ad nauseam on TV for
days. About 5 hours after the towers fell, WTC building 7 also
collapsed suddenly, completely, and straight down at near free-fall
speed. This steel-framed building was not touched by the planes that
struck the towers, and had sustained relatively minor debris damage
and small fires. Nearby buildings far more heavily damaged remained
standing.

In June 2005, in an apparent response to an article by Morgan
Reynolds, former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Robert
Gates stated, "The American people know what they saw with their own
eyes on September11, 2001. To suggest any kind of government
conspiracy in the events of that day goes beyond the pale."

We will prove here, with scientific rigor, that it's the government's
tale that's "beyond the pale!"

Did most of the American people really understand the unprecedented
phenomena they had witnessed? Could a lack of knowledge of physics,
and the emotional shock of this mass-murderous "terrorist attack" have
stymied objective thinking and led to the blind acceptance of
authoritarian assertions?

The government and the media TOLD US what we saw. The government told
us that we had witnessed a "gravitational" collapse; what is now
referred to as a "pancake collapse". According to the government
claims, the plane crashes and subsequent kerosene (like lamp oil - jet
fuel is NOT exotic) fires heated the UL-certified structural steel to
the point where it was significantly weakened, which is very difficult
to believe, never mind repeat in an experiment. Even with massive
fires that incinerate everything else, the steel frames of such
buildings generally remain standing.

According to the "pancake theory", this purported (all physical
evidence was quickly and illegally destroyed) weakening supposedly
caused part of the tower to collapse downward onto the rest of the
tower, which, we've been repeatedly told, somehow resulted in a chain
reaction of the lower floors sequentially, one at a time, yielding to
the weight falling from above.

There are some problems with that theory - it does not fit the
observed facts

* It cannot account for the total failure of the immense vertical
steel core columns - as if they were there one moment and gone the
next.

* The collapse times were near free-fall, far too rapid to be due to
gravity
alone.

This "collapse" was not without far more physical resistance than from
the air alone. It proceeded through all the lower stories of the
tower. Those undamaged floors below the plane impact zone offered
resistance thousands of times greater than that of air. Those lower
stories, and the central steel core columns, had successfully
supported the mass of the tower for 30 years despite hurricane-force
winds and tremors. Air cannot do that.

Can anyone possibly imagine undamaged lower floors getting out of the
way of the upper floors as gracefully and relatively without friction
as air would? Can anyone possibly imagine the lower stories slowing
the fall of the upper floors less than would, say, a parachute?

What is certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that the towers
could not have collapsed gravitationally, through their intact lower
stories, as rapidly as was observed on 9/11. Not even close. This is
shown to be physically impossible!


So WHERE DID ALL THAT ADDITIONAL DESTRUCTIVE ENERGY COME FROM?

Conclusions

In order for the towers to have collapsed "gravitationally" in the
observed duration, as we've been told over and over again, one or more
of the following zany-sounding conditions must have been met

* The undamaged structure below the impact zone offered zero
resistance to the collapse.
* The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any
expenditure of energy.
* The massive vertical steel core columns simply vanished, as if by
magic.

None of these laws-of-physics-violating, and thus impossible,
conditions can be accounted for by the official government theory of
9/11, nor by any of the subsequent analyses and arguments designed to
prop up this official myth of 9/11.

The Bottom Line


It is utterly impossible for a gravitational collapse to proceed so
destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near
free-fall time. This fact debunks the preposterous contention that the
WTC collapses can be blamed solely upon damage resulting from the
plane impacts.

The unnaturally short durations of the top-down collapses reveal that
the towers did not disintegrate because they were coming down, but
rather they came down because something else was causing them to
disintegrate.

So, to the extent that people accept the ridiculous "pancake collapse"
story, former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Gates'
other premise, that people know what they saw, is also false. It is
left to you to decide if his conclusion, which was based upon clearly
incorrect presumptions, is also flawed.

The collapse of WTC building 7, which was NOT hit by any plane, also
collapsed within a second of free-fall time later that same day.

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=2006011...

No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever
collapsed due to fire. But explosives can effectively sever steel
columns

Understanding the full truth of 9/11 seems to require two separate
awakenings.

The first, awakening to the fraudulence of the "official 9/11 story,"
is a pretty simple brain function and only requires a little study,
logic or curiosity. We can help a lot with that part here and it's a
major purpose of this site.

The second step, however, consciously confronting the implications of
that knowledge--and what it says about our media, politics and
economic system today--is by far the harder awakening and requires an
enormous exercise of nerve and heart. (As the Chinese say, "You cannot
wake up a man who is pretending to sleep.") In other words, this part
of the journey depends more on character than on maps and evidence so
we can't help you much here, except to point out inspiring heroes and
heroines who have courageously faced that truth, spoken out, and
survived...



www.tomatobubble.com www.ihr.org http://nationalva...

http://national-socialist-worldview.bl...