• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

BenghaziGate: Obama Admin Knew Libyan Terrorists Had US-Provided Weapons

Well maybe you can tell us what you know then. How bout it...spill!!!

Watch CNN, FOX News, watch ABC watch any news program it gets talked about and mentioned.
 
Huh. Providing weapons to "freedom fighters" ends up backfiring on us? This is a shocking development with no historical precedent!



We'll never ****ing learn, will we? We're just going to do this again in another decade with another group of assholes who happen to be fighting someone we dislike at that particular moment.
 
This is silly. France cheerfully admits that it sent the bulk of weaponry to supply the Libyan rebels. Qatar and Saudi Arabia may have sent weapons. The British sent non-weapon war supplies. The USA provided artillary, drone and missle support to what was primarily a French, British and Spanish "war" against Qadaffy. The last thing Obama wanted was for the USA to become involved in a Libyan revolution; however, he also understood that the US needed to support its NATO allies, which is exactly what he did.

If one must revise history in order to revile a single man, then the basis for said revilement must be pretty damned weak.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/01/world/europe/01london.html?_r=0

BBC News - Libya conflict: France air-dropped arms to rebels
 
This is silly. France cheerfully admits that it sent the bulk of weaponry to supply the Libyan rebels. Qatar and Saudi Arabia may have sent weapons. The British sent non-weapon war supplies. The USA provided artillary, drone and missle support to what was primarily a French, British and Spanish "war" against Qadaffy. The last thing Obama wanted was for the USA to become involved in a Libyan revolution; however, he also understood that the US needed to support its NATO allies, which is exactly what he did.

If one must revise history in order to revile a single man, then the basis for said revilement must be pretty damned weak.

Britain Sends Supplies to Libyan Rebels - NYTimes.com

BBC News - Libya conflict: France air-dropped arms to rebels

Obama said 6 times in his UN speech it was a protest from an anti Muslim video. You don't believe that?
 
In a story that’s been largely buried by the media for years upon years – and was doubly buried in the aftermath of the Benghazi terrorist attack on September 11 resulting in the death of four Americans – the New York Times is now reporting that US-approved arms that were supposed to go to Libya rebels went to Islamist terrorists. Even more importantly, the Obama administration knew about it before, during, and after the Benghazi attacks. The Times reports:

No evidence has emerged linking the weapons provided by the Qataris during the uprising against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi to the attack that killed four Americans at the United States diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, in September.

But in the months before, the Obama administration clearly was worried about the consequences of its hidden hand in helping arm Libyan militants, concerns that have not previously been reported. The weapons and money from Qatar strengthened militant groups in Libya, allowing them to become a destabilizing force since the fall of the Qaddafi government ….

The United States, which had only small numbers of C.I.A. officers on the ground in Libya during the tumult of the rebellion, provided little oversight of the arms shipments. Within weeks of endorsing Qatar’s plan to send weapons there in spring 2011, the White House began receiving reports that they were going to Islamic militant groups

This was clearly a risk in arming the rebels in the first place. As Breitbart News reported, Benghazi was controlled by terrorist group Ansar Al-Shariah. And terrorists like Sufyan Ben Qumu, who was originally rumored to be the planner of the Benghazi attack (sources later denied he was the planner), were armed and supplied by the United States in their war against Muammar Qadaffi.

If, in fact, US-funneled weapons were used in the Benghazi attack and the administration knew about it, that would explain their initial attempt to position the Benghazi attack as a spontaneous riot gone amiss. It’s one thing to hand guns to Libyan rebels who later go crazy about a YouTube video – that’s at least mildly justifiable. It’s radically unjustifiable to hand over weapons to terrorists, who then go on to plan attacks against the United States.


BenghaziGate: Obama Admin Knew Libyan Terrorists Had US-Provided Weapons



Man Obama sure likes to run guns and give them to undesirables, especially those who hate Americans. Of course this is exactly what I suspected quite awhile ago. This is why the bogus story about the video came out...still don't know who thought that little ditty up...prolly Jarrett or Axelrod.
Gee Obama lies, what a surprise!!!

This is always a risk whenever a country provides weapons to another country or group, the fact is that once they leave your hands they leave your hands and your dependent on the willingness and ability of the group you give them to, to not let them fall out of their control. However, its a common practice for several reasons although mostly because we don't have to do the fighting ourselves, or at least keep boots off the ground, if we arm an opposition group. Of course by not using our own Soldiers, and thus having no risk of weapons getting into the hands of the enemy, we take a greater risk with their lives. The calculus of decision making is often difficult in these situations, but before we judge Obama too harshly for arming opposition groups in Libya lets remember that arming opposition groups has been a staple of US foreign policy for decades, and its often had unwanted consequences like those in Benghazi.
 
This is always a risk whenever a country provides weapons to another country or group, the fact is that once they leave your hands they leave your hands and your dependent on the willingness and ability of the group you give them to, to not let them fall out of their control. However, its a common practice for several reasons although mostly because we don't have to do the fighting ourselves, or at least keep boots off the ground, if we arm an opposition group. Of course by not using our own Soldiers, and thus having no risk of weapons getting into the hands of the enemy, we take a greater risk with their lives. The calculus of decision making is often difficult in these situations, but before we judge Obama too harshly for arming opposition groups in Libya lets remember that arming opposition groups has been a staple of US foreign policy for decades, and its often had unwanted consequences like those in Benghazi.

That's not what Chaddelamancha said...maybe you better take it up with him.
 
No, Obama is called the "Commander in Chief" and what happens on his watch is his. Surly you know that Obama is the commander in Chief.

So we can blame the entire Iraq war on G.W.B. and you guys are okay with that? No WMD's, yet we invaded anyways?
 
Obama said 6 times in his UN speech it was a protest from an anti Muslim video. You don't believe that?

Obama did? Could you give me a link to that?

Meanwhile, would you care to comment on my actual post, which was pointing out that France and other countries supplied weapons to the rebels, not the USA. You know, which was the allegation you made in your OP, and I refuted with evidence.
 
OK...what do you hope to prove??? That Obama knew nothing about it, that is was the video, that it was a spontaneous protest...what exactly??

What i stated earlier. You claimed in your OP that the media has been silent on this issue and the whole Benghazi event when in reality and actuality they havent at all.
 
Obama did? Could you give me a link to that?

Meanwhile, would you care to comment on my actual post, which was pointing out that France and other countries supplied weapons to the rebels, not the USA. You know, which was the allegation you made in your OP, and I refuted with evidence.



You can look up his UN speech and you have proof that the US provided no weapons to the Libyan rebels which are actually Islamic terrorists???
 
What i stated earlier. You claimed in your OP that the media has been silent on this issue and the whole Benghazi event when in reality and actuality they havent at all.

OK, then tell me what you have heard on stations other than Fox?...I'll wait.
 
You can look up his UN speech...

Yes, I just happened to have a transcript. He mentions the hate video only once, in a context that had nothing to do with the attack on Benghazi but as an encompassing comment to the violence that specific video had sparked throughout the entire region, and to assure the people that the USA itself had nothing to do with the production of the video. But please, peruse the transcript and point out the "6 times" that he stated the video had anything to do with the violence in Benghazi. We'll wait.

Obama?s Speech to the United Nations General Assembly ? Text - NYTimes.com

and you have proof that the US provided no weapons to the Libyan rebels which are actually Islamic terrorists???

Er, no. Please reread my post, more slowly if necessary. I provided evidence in the form of legitimate journalistic sources proving that it was France and other countries that provided weapons to the Libyan rebels. There is no evidence the USA provided any weapons to the Libyan rebels... which I again remind you was the allegation you made in your OP and the topic of your thread.

Please respond to my actual words with actual answers that do not end in ???? and actually address what I have actually said. Thanks. :)
 
OK, then tell me what you have heard on stations other than Fox?...I'll wait.

Uhh CNN reporting on the issue CNN holding panel discussions about the issue, hell even MSNBC on the issue as well, TIME magazine, newspapers, do i need to go on?
 
So we can blame the entire Iraq war on G.W.B. and you guys are okay with that? No WMD's, yet we invaded anyways?

Yes, Bush was the "Commander in Chief" as was Obama letting our ambassador die along with 4 others because he failed to protect them. Now do you get it.
 
The entire quote came from breitbart. It is a known source for lies and misinformation. You used it.

Pretty much like anything out of the NY Times, or MSDNC.....huh? Do you think when Breitbart puts up a piece and validates it sources thru news links that it is Credible? Do you think when they show several sources to validate their piece that they are following the Laws of Copy Right?

Yeah I kinda of figured as much!
rolleyes.png
 
Pretty much like anything out of the NY Times, or MSDNC.....huh? Do you think when Breitbart puts up a piece and validates it sources thru news links that it is Credible? Do you think when they show several sources to validate their piece that they are following the Laws of Copy Right?

Yeah I kinda of figured as much!
rolleyes.png

I see your problem. You think breitbart validates stuff. I am pretty sure they just get as high as they can, suffer from paranoia and then put on their tinfoil hats and write whatever crazy thing comes to mind. At least i hope they get high because if they came up with that stupid crap sober we should let retards roam free and have wetnurses for them. How insulting would that be to the retard community that they need supervision and breitbart reporters get to walk around without an escort?
 
I see your problem. You think breitbart validates stuff. I am pretty sure they just get as high as they can, suffer from paranoia and then put on their tinfoil hats and write whatever crazy thing comes to mind. At least i hope they get high because if they came up with that stupid crap sober we should let retards roam free and have wetnurses for them. How insulting would that be to the retard community that they need supervision and breitbart reporters get to walk around without an escort?

Is that like your Problem understanding CopyRight Laws with links to Credible Sources. Such as Direct new sources? Or are you attempting to say Breitbart doesn't do this. All due to your Bias against Breitbart.
rolleyes.png
 
Is that like your Problem understanding CopyRight Laws with links to Credible Sources. Such as Direct new sources? Or are you attempting to say Breitbart doesn't do this. All due to your Bias against Breitbart.
rolleyes.png

Was my response about the tinfoil hats and drugs not clear?

i will give you a fun game that entertains me. you go to breitbart or some other wacko right wing nutjob supposed news place like the NY post. You read their stories and then try to match up their stories with actual news stories. This is fun because their interpretation is always way out there and filled with so many lies sometimes you cannot even find a real news story it applies to. i think those are the moments when the drugs really kick in and they start hallucinating.
 
Was my response about the tinfoil hats and drugs not clear?

i will give you a fun game that entertains me. you go to breitbart or some other wacko right wing nutjob supposed news place like the NY post. You read their stories and then try to match up their stories with actual news stories. This is fun because their interpretation is always way out there and filled with so many lies sometimes you cannot even find a real news story it applies to. i think those are the moments when the drugs really kick in and they start hallucinating.

It was simple a question.....but if you can't answer it truthfully, that's on you. For as much as you rail about these guys. I can throw a host up from the left. Still even the left and their sources. JUST like those on the Right. Validate Copy Right Laws. Again now.....minus the your spiel
tinfoil.gif
do they have to provide those Sources?
rolleyes.png
 
I thought this would be a fun waste of time, so I took your challenge just now and went to Breitbart. Headline is Tina Brown firing Newsweek staffers, but the second lead is "Geithner: Obama 'Absolutely' Willing to Go Over Fiscal Cliff."

Here are the first two paragraphs:

The President who once claimed that he wanted to unify the country has a funny idea of how to make peace. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told CNBC that the White House is "absolutely" ready to careen over the fiscal cliff if they don’t get their way on taxes for the wealthy.

When Geithner was asked, "If Republicans do not agree to that, is the administration prepared to go over the fiscal cliff?" he responded, "Absolutely. We see no prospect for an agreement that doesn't involve those rates going up on the top 2 percent of the wealthiest."

Geithner: Obama 'Absolutely' Willing to Go Over Fiscal Cliff

Then I Googled "Geithner says Obama ready to go over cliff."

From WaPo: Geithner: ‘Absolutely’ ready to go over cliff if top earners don’t face higher tax rates. Geithner: ‘Absolutely’ ready to go over cliff if top earners don’t face higher tax rates - The Washington Post

From Money News: Geithner: We're Ready to Go Over Cliff if Taxes Don't Rise

Geithner: We're Ready to Go Over Cliff if Taxes Don't Rise
 
Back
Top Bottom