– i’d like to point out, the laughter isn’t at the face Obomber won the Nobel peace prize, and not at the comments to the article, excellent as they may be.



  1. 1 AkMaR October 10, 2009 at 7:53 am

    Obama won Nobel Prize?
    Someone told me,
    do u know why nowadays ppl are not interested in winning nobel prize anymore? cos after winning, the next Q will be “what next?”

  2. 2 lwtc247 October 11, 2009 at 4:22 am


    Very shrewd question!

    On the Iraq War website, somone said something like “Close of nominations for the Nobel PP, was two weeks after he became president.” I quite he hadn’t yet vented any of his hot air about nuclear weapons during that time, and the Nobel Committee say the award is related to Obamas ‘work with regards to nuclear weapons’. YET there is not one less nuclear weapon in the world today, or new agreement to scrap/reduce any nuclear weapons. They are now awarding Nobel PP’s for words of deception. (written by some insincere speechwriter)

    Obama’s award is utterly fishy.

    Obama forged from the same Zionist crap thats busy bringing the world to it’s knees. Henry Kissinger won the award for the massive genocige against the people in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia int he 60’s and 70’s.

    Now how many Americans will dare revolt against the “Messiah Obama”? Obama like the majority of US presidents and UK primeministers is a murdering piece of trash.

    Some of these NPP awards are utterly PERVERSE.

    DarkStar on 09.10.2009 [21:47 ] said Obama won it

    Because :

    1) He choosed Joe Biden as his runing mate and Joe Biden has been one of the earliest and staunchest advocate of the military invasion and occupation of Iraq.

    2) He choosed Hillary Clinton as his Foreign Secretary and she had been one of the staunchest supporter of the invasion of Iraq.

    3) He recently congratulated the US troops in Baghdad for “getting rid of Saddam Hussein” (in his own words) proving by this statement that he actually fully endorsed this war and its goal of regime change.

    4) His Vice-president Joe Biden called Saddam Hussein a “son of a bitch rolling in his own grave” during a recent trip in Baghdad.

    5) He escalated the war in Afghanistan.

    6) He expanded the war on terror into Pakistan immediately upon taking office and killed since countless people in this country with drones.

    7) He expanded the war on terror into Somalia by recently ordering the killing of some “suspects” there.

    8) He shielded Israel’s nuclear arsenal and activities from any inspections or treaties.

    9) He does nothing to block illegal Israeli settlements expansion in the West Bank.

    10) He praised Tony Blair’s leadership and presented him as an example to follow.

    Anything else I have forgotten ?

    Perhaps the Nobel Prize for Peace should be rebranded the Nobel Prize for Piss from now on…

  3. 3 lwtc247 October 11, 2009 at 4:35 am

    Michael Moore Said:

    “Congratulations President Obama on the Nobel Peace Prize — Now Please Earn it!”

  4. 4 lwtc247 October 11, 2009 at 4:36 am

    Howard Zinn said:

    “I was dismayed when I heard Barack Obama was given the Nobel peace prize. A shock, really, to think that a president carrying on two wars would be given a peace prize.”

  5. 5 lwtc247 October 11, 2009 at 4:36 am

    The Antagonist said…

    “What’s beautiful is the way in which the heraldry and ceremony of ages long past is simply withering away before everyone’s eyes, under only the lightest of scrutiny.

    Long may it continue.”

  6. 6 lwtc247 October 11, 2009 at 5:28 am

    Michel Chossudovsky wrote (009-10-11):

    “Obama and the Nobel Prize: When War becomes Peace, When the Lie becomes the Truth”…

    “At this critical juncture in our history, the Norwegian Nobel Committee’s decision to award the Nobel Peace Prize to President and Commander in Chief Barack Obama constitutes an unmitigated tool of propaganda and distortion, which unreservedly supports the Pentagon’s “Long War”: “A War without Borders” in the true sense of the word, characterised by the Worlwide deployment of US military might.”


  7. 7 lwtc247 October 12, 2009 at 12:53 am

    Paul Craig Roberts said about it:

    <It took 25 years longer than George Orwell thought for the slogans of 1984 to become reality.

    "War Is Peace," "Freedom Is Slavery," "Ignorance Is Strength."

    I would add, "Lie Is Truth."

  8. 9 lwtc247 October 12, 2009 at 12:59 am

    NAOMI KLEIN said:

    it’s very significant and disappointing, cheapening of the Nobel Prize. And, you know, it’s been cheapened before, and it will cheapen again—be cheapened again, but I think there’s something really striking here. And even just listening to the rationale that, despite overwhelming evidence, they’re giving this prize in the hopes that it will change Obama’s mind or encourage him to do things he hasn’t done—this is a candidate that ran a campaign that was much more based on hope and wishful thinking than it was on concrete policy. So we have hopes being piled on hope and wishful thinking.


  9. 10 lwtc247 October 12, 2009 at 1:04 am

    Also on Democracy Now with Amy Goodman, Tariq Ali,


    TARIQ ALI: Nobel [inaudible] surprises me. They’ve awarded the prize in the past to US presidents. Teddy Roosevelt, not particularly known for his love of peace. They’ve awarded it to Jimmy Carter, etc., etc. So the choice of Barack Obama, the only thing one can say is that they should have possibly waited; a decent interval might have been better, if they had waited ’til next year, because at the present moment US troops are occupying two countries: Iraq and Afghanistan. For all the talk, US soldiers remain in Iraq, and their bases are likely to stay there for some time. And the war in Afghanistan continues unabated, with President Obama actually sending in more troops. More people are being killed, both Afghans and NATO soldiers. The war has been expanded into Pakistan. So this is a sort of odd, though not surprising, choice by the Nobel Prize Committee.

    They tend to take rhetoric very seriously. And though they deny it, we know that in 1938 they couldn’t decide whether to give the prize to Hitler or to Gandhi. And finally, they gave it to the Nansen International Office of Refugees, which was a much better choice.

    It would be worth their while thinking that perhaps they should have a self-denying ordinance. They shouldn’t give the prize to serving heads of state. People still in power [inaudible] people making war.

    I mean, I could have given them two candidates who are very deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize this year. One is, of course, Noam Chomsky, who has fought for peace all his life. And the other is Mumia Abu-Jamal, who has been peacefully sitting in prison, waiting for justice for the last twenty-five years. Now, that would have given people something to think about.

  10. 11 lwtc247 October 12, 2009 at 4:16 am

    Craig Murray said:

    “Obama’s collusion in the US cover-up [over UK involvement in the torture of people] is just one reason why it was a farce to give him the Nobel peace prize.”

  11. 12 lwtc247 October 12, 2009 at 4:28 am

    MJ Here on Craig Murray’s site said:

    “I’m surprised. I was sure Netanyahu would bag it this year.”

    MJ also does well to inform us past winners include Menachem Begin and Henry Kissinger. So incidentally had Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin. You can just smell the peace (i.e. rotting bodies)

  12. 13 lwtc247 October 12, 2009 at 4:39 am

    Ruth said here on Craig Murray’s site:

    “Maybe things have become so warped, that by giving him the prize, it is hoped people will come under the illusion that he is a peacemaker.”

    Ruth is bang on I feel. Which enslaved American won’t be demonised now when he revolts against “He of peace”? It’s a scam. One that will involve a lot of people suffering (many USans amongst them).

    A good point was made that as Obama is continuing Bush’s war (and enlarging it into Pakistan) George jackass Bush (or rather his handlers) has a more legitimate claim in the prize.

  13. 14 lwtc247 October 12, 2009 at 5:08 am

    There’s some quality comments on Mr. Murray’s site. Quality invites quality I suppose.

    Ingo said:

    “I feel like being smacked in the mouth by a Nobel peace prize committee that has yet to wake up from the rethoric of the election.”

  14. 15 lwtc247 October 13, 2009 at 11:20 pm

    Matthew Rothschild said:

    Obama Undeserving of Nobel Peace Prize
    By Matthew Rothschild, October 9, 2009

    I’m sorry, there’s a lot I admire about Barack Obama, but he doesn’t deserve the Nobel Peace Prize.

    Not while he’s waging a war in Afghanistan, which he’s already escalated, and may be about to escalate again.

    Not while he still hasn’t pulled U.S. troops out of Iraq, nor while he’s going to keep tens of thousands of private military contractors there indefinitely.

    Not while he endorses Bush’s heinous policy of “extraordinary renditions.”

    Not while asserts the right to indefinitely detain people without habeas corpus rights at Bagram Air Base.

    Not while he fails to successfully prod Israel to give up the Occupied Territories.

    And not while he keeps our nuclear arsenal on hair-trigger alert.

    The Nobel committee actually praised him for his position on nuclear weapons, but he hasn’t taken this first, crucial step toward making the world a safer place.

    The Nobel committee rewarded Obama’s rhetoric.

    I love Obama’s rhetoric, too.

    I loved his speech on the nuclear issue.

    I loved his speech where he unambiguously renounced torture.

    I loved his speech in Cairo, which marked a huge break from George Bush, by showing respect to the Muslim world and owning up to some of the past crimes of U.S. foreign policy.

    And I loved his speech at the Summit of the Americas, which promised a noninterventionist approach to this hemisphere. That would be quite a departure from 100 years of U.S. imperial policy.

    But he doesn’t deserve the Nobel Peace Prize just because he isn’t George Bush.

    And he doesn’t deserve the Nobel Peace Prize just on the basis of rhetoric.

    No, the Nobel Peace Prize should reward a career of bold peace activism.

    And, to say the least, the jury is still out on Obama on that one.

  15. 16 lwtc247 October 13, 2009 at 11:24 pm

    Anthony Gregory said:

    The Real Problem With Obama’s Nobel
    October 10, 2009
    Anthony Gregory
    Town Talk

    Will Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize weaken America’s standing in the world, as some conservatives worry? They point out that the president was nominated only twelve days after taking office, by which time he had done nothing to possibly warrant his selection. Rush Limbaugh worries the prize will “neuter” his presidency, encouraging Obama to maintain his allegedly pacifistic foreign policy and not confront Iran. Unfortunately, the real problem is quite different.

    It is valid to say that Obama had achieved virtually nothing at the time of his nomination. And yet, one could argue, from a pro-peace perspective, that he was a far more worthy back then than he is now. At the time, he was making diplomatic gestures to reverse the belligerent tone of the Bush administration. He was announcing the end of an era of torture, indefinite detention, holding suspects at Guantánamo without habeas corpus, and a foreign policy of reckless war making, specifically in Iraq. He sounded as though he wanted to make America a less aggressive nation.

    Since then, the real tragedy of the Obama presidency has begun to unfold, and yet most commentators have ignored it for partisan reasons. The left has emphasized his rhetorical differences with Bush. The right has claimed he is gutting the military and undoing the “successes” of Bush’s war on terror by coddling terror suspects and being reluctant to bomb foreigners.

    In fact, Obama has increased military spending. He has essentially reverted to the Bush policy on indefinite detentions and military commissions and has fought to isolate hundreds of prisoners at Bagram in Afghanistan from the protections of habeas corpus, even after a Bush-appointed federal judge determined that the same protections that reach Guantánamo should apply to many cases at Bagram. Obama has pushed to revise the Freedom of Information Act to conceal photographic evidence of torture and has protected his executive branch predecessors from any legal accountability for their crimes.

    The president has escalated the war in Afghanistan, a war that has persisted far longer than World Wars I and II combined. The same day Obama was awarded the prize, he was contemplating much more dramatic escalation. He has killed uncounted numbers of civilians, including those attending a wedding party conspicuously destroyed by U.S. bombing. In the first half of 2009, nearly 90% of which was on Obama’s watch, civilian casualties in Afghanistan reached record numbers, according to the UN. Obama has ramped up drone attacks on Pakistan, contributing to a humanitarian disaster by fomenting the mass displacement of civilians. He invaded Somalia. He has done nothing to cut back America’s imperial presence throughout the world.

    As for Iran, the White House is still pondering harsher sanctions or even war, which would be a calamity. Obama, like Bush, has misrepresented the threat from Iran and is reportedly contemplating a bombing mission. At the least, the administration wants more trade sanctions, which could also be deemed an act of war.

    Obama probably deserves the prize as much as some previous recipients, like Henry Kissinger and Woodrow Wilson, but it is still obnoxious to see any warmonger get it. It says something perverse about what the establishment regards as pro-peace activism.

    The real problem with Obama’s Nobel is not that it might neuter him, but rather that it may embolden him. In the name of peace, he and previous presidents have kept America in a virtual state of perpetual war for three generations. The Nobel is a signal to Obama that he can keep talking like a man of peace even as he acts like a master of war. Those who favored Obama, thinking he’d be less belligerent against Iran than McCain, now have more reason to worry.

  16. 17 lwtc247 October 13, 2009 at 11:26 pm

    Minette Marrin in the
    The Sunday Times October 11, 2009 said:


    Barack Obama should never have accepted this tainted prizeMinette Marrin
    Recommend? (22)
    How we laughed when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel peace prize. It was like giving a man a gong for helping to put out a fire that he himself had been stoking up.

    It was almost as funny as the news in 2007 that Tony Blair had been appointed a special peace envoy to the Middle East — yes, the Middle East — on behalf not just of the United States and Russia but also of the United Nations and the European Union. For those who enjoy gallows humour, the regular appointment of mass murderers and kleptocrats to the UN’s human rights commission is also quite amusing.

    How do all these circles get squared? What makes these international bigwigs put together all these preposterous deals? One thing is reasonably clear, through the fog of war and diplomacy, and it is that there is nothing reliably noble about the Nobel prize. Many of the people who ought to have won it didn’t. Several who certainly shouldn’t have won it did, such as Yasser Arafat and Le Duc Tho of communist North Vietnam.

    So I should not have been surprised to hear that Barack Obama has been offered the prize….

    Read full article

  17. 18 lwtc247 October 15, 2009 at 12:09 pm

    In relation to the latest mass killler to win a nobel peace prize, Brendan Cooney wrote this:

    Ask Awal Khan About Obama’s Prize

    Khan was serving as an artillery commander in the Afghan National Army away from his home in the eastern province of Khost on April 8, when U.S. forces came knocking. In a case of “wrong house,” they killed his 17-year-old daughter, Nadia, and his 15-year-old son, Aimal. They also killed his wife, a schoolteacher who taught villagers for free. They killed his brother and wounded another daughter…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Viva Palestina – break the siege:

Viva Palestina - break the siege

This blog supports victims of western aggression

This blog supports victims of western aggression

BooK: The Hand of Iblis. Dr Omar Zaid M.D.

Book: The Hand of Iblis
An Anatomy of Evil
The Hidden Hand of the New World Order
Summary Observations and History

Data on Fukushima Plant – (NHK news)

Fukushima Radiation Data

J7 truth campaign:

July 7th Truth Campaign - RELEASE THE EVIDENCE!

Recommended book: 3rd edition of Terror on the Tube – Behind the Veil of 7-7, An Investigation by Nick Kollerstrom:

J7 (truth) Inquest blog

July 7th Truth Campaign - INQUEST BLOG
Top rate analysis of the Inquest/Hoax

Arrest Blair (the filthy killer)

This human filth needs to be put on trial and hung!


JUST - International Movement for a Just World


Information Clearing House - Actual News and global analysis

John Pilger:

John Pilger, Journalist and author

Media Lens

My perception of Media Lens: Watching the corrupt corporate media, documenting and analysing how it bends our minds. Their book, 'Newspeak' is a gem.

Abandon the paper $cam:

Honest and inflation proof currency @ The Gold Dinar
October 2009

%d bloggers like this: