• Mossberg Owners is in the process of upgrading the software. Please bear with us while we transition to the new look and new upgraded software.

Head in the sand middle east approach

As much as I don't like Obama, I can't see him wanting people dying on his watch. It would ruin his legacy. I think this was a colossal screw up and they weren't able to control the media on this (i.e. cover it up) the way they've been able to for 4 years prior.
 
I don't think they want to see people die either. I don't get the aversion to labeling an act of terrorism what it is. Why was the "war on terror" renamed the "global contingency operation"? Why is the Fort Hood massacre labeled an act of work place violence? I just don't get it.

Thanks for the response Bryan.
 
My opinion why he wont' call it terrorism is because he wanted to say that there were no acts of terrorism against our citizens under his administration.

I have actually heard a lot of disturbing things about Obama as of late regarding some of his (possible and probably never verifiable) activities in afghanistan in the late 70's and early 80's timeframe.

But as to what I can verify from what I have seen with my own eyes on TV concerning the attacks on our embassies, consulates, and ambassadors, extremely bothers me that he seems to be more interested in his public appearances and getting re-elected and a trip to vegas just hours after this happened. That seems very callous and even inconsiderate and rude and disrespectul to me even if he had no direct involvement, which appears that he did in the situation room if the reports I have heard are true (and I don't know why anyone would make it up because it could be proven faked too easily if someone did try to fake a document).

Also after hearing that they had some means of protecting those in Libya with spookies, but didn't/wouldn't, they should have to answer for their inaction and as far as I am concerned, derilect of duty.
 
As far as I'm concerned, both Hilary and Obama and anyone else that approved funding al Qaeda in Libya are culpable in these deaths. And I think this is the crux of the matter: Obama's Middle East policies are failing in a big way and it's not helping his legacy, so he would like to ignore it.

I'd also like to know why Romney didn't bring up in the debates the fact that we're funding al Qaeda in both Syria and Libya while fighting them in Afghanistan. No one even mentioned it and instead they quibbled over whether Obama said terrorism or not. Who gives a rip what it's called; we helped fund it. Perhaps no one would bring it up because according to the PATRIOT Act that both candidates love so much, funding al Qaeda makes our government a terrorist organization.
 
Bryan, do you have a link to something that documents we funded al qaeda in Libya? It wouldn't surprise me but I hadn't heard that before. Are you talking about money that went directly to support them or was back doored out of our never ending support dollars?

As for the name, I guess I look at it like someone who has an addiction: how can you fix it if you don't admit you have a problem? How can you fight a terrorist act when you can't admit it happened? They make me sick when they say they will capture and bring them to justice as if it were a liqour store robbery.
 
carbinemike said:
Bryan, do you have a link to something that documents we funded al qaeda in Libya? It wouldn't surprise me but I hadn't heard that before. Are you talking about money that went directly to support them or was back doored out of our never ending support dollars?
Click to expand...

Not a problem:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/benghazi-u ... da/5309017
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2012/ ... syria.html
http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/ ... ghazigate/

I don't care if it was direct or back-doored. Our government gave them money and weapons to overthrow Ghadaffi and those same people we empowered then killed 4 American citizens. And if the government didn't know where the money was going because it was back-doored, then that just shows that Washington isn't being responsible with our money. And from the sounds of it, what's been going on in Libya with weapons will make Fast and Furious pale in comparison. I guess our government didn't learn anything from the lesson of Osama Bin Laden.

carbinemike said:
As for the name, I guess I look at it like someone who has an addiction: how can you fix it if you don't admit you have a problem? How can you fight a terrorist act when you can't admit it happened? They make me sick when they say they will capture and bring them to justice as if it were a liqour store robbery.
Click to expand...

I could care less what they call it. "Terrorism" has lost a lot of its meaning because of the "war on terror", much like "bullying" is starting to lose a lot of its meaning. 4 people were murdered and justice needs to prevail. The end. If we start saying murders perpetrated by so-called "terrorists" are worse than any other that occurs, we're veering down the hate crime path that the left got us into.
 
Not a problem:
Click to expand...
Thanks for the links I asked for. They are pretty interesting reading.

And from the sounds of it, what's been going on in Libya with weapons will make Fast and Furious pale in comparison.
Click to expand...
From the links it does seem that a lot more damning evidence will be coming out.
 
Representative Peter King stated that former CIA Director David Petraeus stated that he knew the Benghazi attack was terrorism and that the talking points given to Ambassador Susan Rice were different from the ones prepared by the CIA. Petraeus stated Rice's talking points were edited to demphasized the possibility of terrorism.

Well now, the recently dumped head of the CIA knew right away that it was a terrorist act in Libya. Pretty much what everyone said except the POTUS and his lock step minions. They may as well come clean and let the chips fall where they may because this isn't going away. It will be like a band aid. Pull it off quick or long slow and painful. It will probably be slow and painful because they have much to hide as the links in the previous posts point to.

It also looks like with our election results, Israel will be on its own to eliminate the nuke threat from Iran.
 
And meanwhile...

Thousands of Muslim Egyptians protest Israeli airstrikes in the gaza strip after israel has suffered hundreds of rocket attacks from the area in recent days, President Obama talks out of both sides of his mouth on yet another significant time of impending peril

More at 11.

http://news.yahoo.com/israel-launches-s ... 37360.html
President Barack Obama spoke separately to Israeli and Egyptian leaders Friday as the violence in Gaza intensified. In a conversation with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, he reiterated U.S. support for Israel's right to self-defense. To Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, he praised Egypt's efforts to ease regional tensions.
Click to expand...
 
Yeah, it looks like Israel was able to shoot down 31 of 35 inbound missiles. They have amassed troops on the border and 30,000 reservists are mobilized for a ground war with Hamas.

The muslims should check the history books because every time they screw with Israel militarily they get their butts handed to them.
 
Israel doesn't have the "luxury" that some countries have that could withstand a pre-emptive strike against them and retaliate later.

They don't have the land mass that Russia and the U.S. and others have. One big bomb (or single nuke), and there would not be anything left to defend.

A single nuke on a large continent would be bad from any viewpoint, but would be endgame for a small country like Israel. I think their land mass is only ~8,000 sq. miles. Compared to Pennsylvania as one example is 46,056 sq miles.
 
Well, Hillary all of a sudden has a concussion and can't testify on Benghazi. (with all the sarcasm I can muster) darn the bad luck on that. On the other side I do think she is brain damaged. It seems that all of the Obama minions that said the attack was caused by a youtube video all of a sudden can't find it within themselves to testify before Congress and the mainstream media says (cue the crickets chirping) nothing.
 
I find it a little more than disturbing that Hillary is resigning the post, they're already in talks to replace her.

I wouldn't let her out of it that easily. I'd be OK to reschedule her hearing
 
Well Hillary is doing her best to avoid testifying before Congress about the Benghazi attack. She hasn't been seem in public for three weeks. Now they are saying she has a blood clot between her brain and skull. It has to be faked because I havbe never seen anything from her to indicate she ever had a brain in the first place.
 
,,,,i can hear her now testifying,,,,,,,,, I CATEGORICALLY DENY ,,,,,bla bla bla,,,,

same chit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top