• 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

Rapunzel52

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 31, 2011
Messages
525
Reaction score
233
Location
The Great Midwest
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
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!!!
 
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!!!


Absolutely....Fast and Furious ME.....
 
Libyan Rebels are Islamist Terrorists...how soon we forget.
 
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.

If, in fact, US-funneled weapons were used in the Benghazi attack and the administration knew about it....

Trimmed out the unneeded information. How can you start a thread about Benghazi and try to link it to gun running when the article starts with "No evidence". That hurts the credibility of your argument from the get-go.
 
Trimmed out the unneeded information. How can you start a thread about Benghazi and try to link it to gun running when the article starts with "No evidence". That hurts the credibility of your argument from the get-go.


It was there, not trimmed at all.

FYI: Libyan Rebels are Islamist Terrorists...how soon we forget.

So are the Syrians I might add.
 
It was there, not trimmed at all.

FYI: Libyan Rebels are Islamist Terrorists...how soon we forget.

So are the Syrians I might add.

You didn't trim anything, I did. After the "no evidence" line, the entire argument was a moot point.

America has been arming rebels that turn into terrorists for decades. We did it in Iran, we did it with Al Qaeda. Is it a surprise that we did it with the Libyan/Syrian Rebels?
 
You didn't trim anything, I did. After the "no evidence" line, the entire argument was a moot point.

America has been arming rebels that turn into terrorists for decades. We did it in Iran, we did it with Al Qaeda. Is it a surprise that we did it with the Libyan/Syrian Rebels?


So, you admit I'm right then.
 
You didn't trim anything, I did. After the "no evidence" line, the entire argument was a moot point.

America has been arming rebels that turn into terrorists for decades. We did it in Iran, we did it with Al Qaeda. Is it a surprise that we did it with the Libyan/Syrian Rebels?

Not quite. The other examples have evidence backing them, whereas the article you quoted clearly stated that there is "no evidence".

If that's not an admission, not quite sure what is.
 
If that's not an admission, not quite sure what is.

It's more a poorly worded sentence. It should read "Would it be a surprise if we did it?" At this moment, we don't have any evidence.
 
You didn't trim anything, I did. After the "no evidence" line, the entire argument was a moot point.

America has been arming rebels that turn into terrorists for decades. We did it in Iran, we did it with Al Qaeda. Is it a surprise that we did it with the Libyan/Syrian Rebels?

How about Obama arming our embassies, to keep our own people safe. He's too stupid to do that.
 
Looks like it's time to impeach Obama.
 
How about Obama arming our embassies, to keep our own people safe. He's too stupid to do that.

It's called the State Department. File your complaint in their suggestion box. Unless, of course, you have a link that shows where Obama expressly ordered the disarming of our embassies.
 
Looks like it's time to impeach Obama.

:lamo :lamo :lamo

A partisan hack refers to a story that disputes his claim and you want to impeach President Obama? Sounds about right for right-wing nuts!
 
You mean the National Enquirer that broke the John Edwards story???


You can't compare a magazine busting a politician for having an affair to a newspaper trying to link the president and gun running to Libyan Rebels. That's just ridiculous.
 
It's called the State Department. File your complaint in their suggestion box. Unless, of course, you have a link that shows where Obama expressly ordered the disarming of our embassies.

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.
 
It's more a poorly worded sentence. It should read "Would it be a surprise if we did it?" At this moment, we don't have any evidence.

But we do have Obama on 60 Minutes stating he knew they were going to target Americans in Libya.
 
Large amount of stuff from republican propaganda central Breitbart


breitbart is nopt a legitimate news source. As seen by their radical jump to an unfounded conclusion in this article. Somehow they have warped no evidence into evidence. typical of republican propaganda sites named after a notorious liar and partisan dimwit. Thanks, but could you please post a credible news source that claims this. If i wanted to read a news source synonymous with bigfoot legends and UFO abduction stories i would choose something far more accurate than breitbart like the enquirer or perhaps the sun.
 
You can't compare a magazine busting a politician for having an affair to a newspaper trying to link the president and gun running to Libyan Rebels. That's just ridiculous.

Uhm, I wasn't the one who brought it up...it was one of your own...eat them.
 
breitbart is nopt a legitimate news source. As seen by their radical jump to an unfounded conclusion in this article. Somehow they have warped no evidence into evidence. typical of republican propaganda sites named after a notorious liar and partisan dimwit. Thanks, but could you please post a credible news source that claims this. If i wanted to read a news source synonymous with bigfoot legends and UFO abduction stories i would choose something far more accurate than breitbart like the enquirer or perhaps the sun.

Regardless this is not from my OP or a quote of mine.
 
I love how conservatives think the media "has been silent on Benghazi" really makes me wonder what world they live in..
 
Back
Top Bottom