BREAKING: SMOKING GUN! US Was Running Weapons Thru Benghazi to Syria

Well. Well. What do we have here?

It looks like our earlier speculations of Obama's gun running operation has been confirmed.

And recently released documents shows that the WH, including Hillary Clinton, knew about the ISIS threat days before the Benghazi terrorist attack and they still didn't do anything about getting Ambassador Stevens out of there.

Why was Ambassador Stevens sent there in the first place?

Maybe to coordinate the gun running operation for the WH?

Hillary lied, people died.

BREAKING REPORT=> SMOKING GUN! US Was Running Weapons Thru Benghazi to Syria

 

Apparently actually going to the source of the story is a no no especially when bloggers try to spin the original story into something else.

Partisan hackery at its most mundane.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/18/military-intel-predicted-rise-isis-in-2012-detailed-arms-shipments/

 

Youre assessment is incorrect.

The CIA overthrew Libya, sodomized gaddafi with a knife, stole gaddafis weapons and shipped them and the terrorists to Syria, to do the same thing in Syria, creating ISIS from scratch....

The benghazi attack on our consulate was actually a reprisal attack for a drone strike.

[video=youtube;-oTeMREoeHI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oTeMREoeHI[/video]

 

Check out the sweet parade of new Toyota trucks

 

The Nissan company must be green with envy.

 

The citizens of Ramadi have gangrene

 

Ha! Yes, and they will look at Gangrene as having been the soft option before ISIS is finished with them.

 

falling for the work of the dumbest man on the internet:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/art...tarts_the_Week_With_a_Huge_Lie_About_Benghazi

 

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/middleeast/article3537770.ece

here's another source if anyone's interested

 

Guns given to jihadist fighters with which to topple stable, largely secular governments in Libya and Syria.
A worthy constructive goal from our government, eh?

 

Doesn't matter if it's a worthy goal. However noble it may be, it's illegal.

Hillary Clinton is up to her cankles in a criminal conspiracy.

Told ya.

My how weak and ineffectual Hillary's supporters look now. They're supporting a liar and a crook and they know it. Everyone knows it. The problem is, the hapless Democrats don't have another candidate. They put all their eggs in one basket, and the basket broke. So now they're going to have to elect a crook, and pretend they actually like her while they're holding their noses voting.

This could turn out to be an interesting election after all.

 

The story is a massive distortion attempting to smear the administration and Clinton. And you and your comrades in arms fell for it hook line and sinker, which is not surprising considering the source.

Seems there are some pundits that know exactly what their audiences predilections are and facts are definitely not necessary.

keep drinkin'


http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/44632_Stupidest_Man_on_the_Internet_Starts_the_Week_With_a_Huge_Lie_About_Benghazi

 

FAUX News, Yeah there's a reliable source for fair and balanced news

 

Attempt? LOL - it's working, because it's true.

All right, let's get specific. What part of this exactly are you disputing?

And please provide actual evidence to support your position, ridicule and conjecture won't cut it.

LMAO! A liberal complaining about facts. The whole lot of you people are arguing from a position of ignorance. You don't know the facts. You couldn't even handle the facts, because they completely decimate your position (and Hillary's too).

You clowns are great at ridicule but you're short on brain cells.

- - - Updated - - -

That's right, blame Fox News and post pictures of fat black men.

That epitomizes the progressive position on this issue.

 

No, its not true. If you took the time to read the FOX news report that was the source of the OP, you'd quickly see that the source report didn't include the "editorial interpretation" by Jim Hoft, fabled Dumbest Man on the Internet (also known as the Stupidest Man on the Internet, or SMOTI).

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/44632_Stupidest_Man_on_the_Internet_Starts_the_Week_With_a_Huge_Lie_About_Benghazi#LsY28iJE59gyPdeU.99

But of course you wouldn't ever go out of your way to actually research something you want to believe is true.

Er, you make the claim you provide the evidence. You are essentially asking me to disprove bullcrap. maybe you should read the original fox report, and compare that to the Hoft's hatchet job or just read the link I conveniently provided to you above. (for the second time).

Now that is funny. I particularly like the "position of ignorance" projection.

In considering your demonstrated skills and knowledge, I truly believe you are an expert on shortage of brain cells, but then how the hell would you be smart enough to know that in the first place?

No but it does epitomize your inability to acquire facts or question sources while spouting partisan bumperstickers.

 

[video=youtube;QSooz2wXpes]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QSooz2wXpes[/video]

You are arguing from a position of complete ignorance. You have no idea what I'm talking about, and you're asking me to educate you.

I already provided you (and the rest of the forum) with more than enough links and information to start. I gave you the name of the vessel and the port and the date, and I also gave you the name of one of the principals.

If you want more information, find it yourself, but meanwhile don't be idiotic enough to tell others they don't know what they're talking about, when it is you who are ignorant and who hasn't done your homework.

All this information I'm talking about is in the public domain, and has been for years. It is only the silly-ass liberals of this world who deliberately and purposefully ignored this information and still don't want to know about it.

Why don't you go search through my historical posts, all the information is there. I really don't feel like typing it all again for your benefit.

Go read my last few posts on this topic, in another recent thread just this week I gave you the actual Google literal to start your search.

Try not to be a lazy liberal on this one, you're going to lose whatever smidgeon of political credibility you might still have left.

 

So what?

What good will this sheer utter crapload accomplish?

Nothing.

Nada.

Ziplock.

nobody will be held accountable and nothing will change.

So this is pretty much an absolutely completely and utterly useless endeavor.

 

What a disgrace. USA is playing both sides of this ISIS conflict. Hillary Clinton will be smoked during POTUS debates if she runs.

I suspect Hilary will not run for POTUS and is just gaming at the moment to maximize revenue. She faces too much risk of exposure if she runs.

 

Exposure is not exactly the risk she's taking.

IMO.

But I do agree it's all about the revenue.

Are you hip to that whole thing with Al Gore and the Carbon Credit Exchange?

The Clintonistas are completely shameless, it actually took a United States Senator to shut down the Al Gore thing.

Al Gore, by the way, was also personally soliciting funds at the local Thai Buddhist temple, just a stone's throw from our house, while he and Bill were running.

 

Information about the gun running has been out in the open for a while now. How does the gun running relate to the attacks? Also, when did ISIS become responsible for the attacks?

 

Yes it has. There are three separate threads that I've found, and probably more that I haven't. The first thread has specifically to do with the collection of shoulder fired surface to air missiles, they were being collected from the Libyans (who supposedly no longer needed them) for the Syrians (who did). There are in fact pictures of Stinger missiles in the hands of the Syrian rebels. Whether these are the same missiles is an open question.

The second thread is thought to be the one that Ambassador Stevens was involved in, but we're still not really 100% sure. However there is a mountain of circumstancial evidence that would seem to so indicate. This has to do with a Libyan flagged vessel that docked at the Turkish port of Iskenderun on the 9th, with a full load of weapons from Libya (the allegation is somewhere between 43 and 47 crates full of surface to air missiles, and hundreds upon hundreds of crates of rifles and ammo, that kind of thing).

There is an allegation that the entire shipment was stolen from Saad Hariri by the Muslim Brotherhood, which was allegedly upset that arms were being parceled out to "other" people. The method and mechanism of the delivery of these arms has come under considerable scrutiny. Apparently Mr. Hariri himself made the ultimate decision about who would get the arms and in what quantities - in other words, if Mr. Stevens was involved he didn't have as much clout in the deal as he apparently would have liked - and maybe this is the reason he found it necessary to abandon his comfortable home in Germany and get on a plane to Libya (where he hadn't been for over a year).

According to this second theory, the linkage to the attack is via the arms, because the people doing the attacking were "supposed to" have been among the recipients, and apparently were dismayed that someone welched on the deal.

This is an interesting theory especially because of the behavior of the Turkish ambassador on the day (Sait Ali Akin? something like that?). There is no doubt whatsoever that this fellow knew what was happening, he walked right through the terrorist cordon with an open cell phone and failed to notify Stevens of what was happening.

Well.... there are so many "brigades" in the middle east it's hard to tell who's who at any given time, they're always shifting allegiances and alliances. The group in question was called BCOAR, it was a relatively minor group at the time, allied with (and later a part of) al-Nusra and the LIFG.

NOW, it may be part of ISIS, who knows. ISIS has reportedly been sending people to Libya, there's no doubt they intend to export and organize there. Obama is a stupid turd if he doesn't pre-empt them. (It may be too late already)....

 

1. It would not be an unprecedented occurrence. Covert operations (conspiracies) do have a known track record of squarely blowing up in whoever's face that undertook it. We've had some doozies ourselves: see 1953 Iranian coup.

2. Yes, that is true. I just never heard ISIS being associated with Benghazi before. Al Qaeda and their associates were known to be in Libya. ISIS is a splinter group of al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is a splinter group of the Afghan Mujahideen. We've had Muslim extremist gum on our shoes longer than my 30-years now. At least the arms industry get their pats on the back and hip-hip-hooray cheers.

 

You know the Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church...protest at soldiers funerals fame.



Gore again with Phelps.

 

Yes. My take on Benghazi is that it was something akin to Iran-Contra, although (hopefully) without the drugs. What makes it different is the new State Department policy of "overt" interference (rather than using the CIA for covert purposes) - of course they don't call it "interference", I forget what euphemism or 3-letter acronym they're calling it, probably "promoting international democracy" or some such stupidity - but whatever it's being called, the idea is equally as problematic as covert interference.

At a certain level Iran-Contra was "well meaning", it was designed to get our hostages out, and here too our interference in the Middle East might be looked at as "well meaning" from a certain perspective - however that's not the issue, is it? One of those "well meaning" people stepped over the line and into some illegal arms smuggling. In the case of Iran-Contra, if it weren't for Eugene Hasenfus we'd never have known about it - and unfortunately in this case, if it weren't for Ambassador Stevens we'd never have known about it either.

Honestly, I don't really think it's a big deal, on its face. It's the cover up that's the big deal. (And I mean, if it isn't such a big deal and we're going to do everything openly now, then why the cover-up?)

It's almost as if there were something more going on (that we don't know about yet). Simple weapons smuggling is too commonplace, too ordinary, to cause the White House to go into an extreme panic and damage control mode. Something more must have been happening, some other frightful nightmare they were trying to prevent.

If it was "just" partisan politicking (remember there were debates going on at the time), then it's truly shameful. In way, it "better" be more than that.

You mentioned Mossadegh - are you at all familiar with the history around the Kennedy assassination? The players? There's one fellow named Gen. Edward Lansdale who had a very interesting history with some non-existent rebel groups in the Phillipines. It's a really interesting story, they were trying to impact the government so they created a "scare" that the government couldn't respond to - a rebel group that didn't actually exist. Every night Lansdale would dress up a third of his men as rebels, and send them out into the woods someplace to make a lot of noise, then he'd take the other 2/3 of his men and go "fight" them, and of course win, and "arrest" them all and haul them off to "jail" (meaning, back to the barracks for a beer), Of course they didn't have social media back then so no one could tell that the same people kept getting arrested night after night.... yuk....

 

Don't get me wrong, I like thinking outside of the box, but I'm not seeing the big It with the gun running angle. There was an attempt to cover it up because it probably wasn't being overseen properly or was out and out illegal (not to mention, historically (*)(*)(*)(*)ing stupid). Look at my signature. That mentality is inherit with government. Making decisions cannot always be confined within strict legal parameters because life is not simple like that. I stopped paying attention to the administration's POV when it was said that the version of events they went with was the C.I.A.'s analysts in Langley, Virginia and not the men and women on the ground on-scene in Benghazi, Libya. Everyone knows that the C.I.A. was there. C.I.A. and other security services use embassies and diplomatic missions as official cover. The C.I.A. has a well chronicled history of running guns. I can see blowback. But I don't see a valid theory for something nefarious.

In regards to the Kennedy Assassination: it is just like one of the few conspiracy theories that actually has some real merit to it at first glance. There is more to his assassination then they let on. It has been openly shared with us that they have not told us everything. But we're supposed to believe what they say without question because they would never lie to us. We can't know what they know, but we have to ignore that fact and just take them at their word that they did nothing wrong whatsoever. After realizing the constructs of the system, there comes a point when a person is aware but is not really motivated anymore. Why you may ask? Because we're human. We are by design imperfect creatures. We most certainly are not the height of evolution. Powerful people do terrible things to people because that's who we are as a species. There is no way to stop this system of organized violence without changing who we are as an organism. We have clear as day proof with a few conspiracy theories but nothing has changed or gotten better let alone anyone going to jail. This system has been in place since we came out of the state of nature I.e. before government. Artificial control mechanisms had to be installed to keep mankind from living short brutish lives. Being subjugated by anything is being at the mercy of its whims. A bit of advice here, enjoy what you've got now and keep yer head down, but also pay attention.