It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Looks like the US Ambassador to Libya got exactly what he deserves.

page: 12
71
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by LiberLegit
 


Outstanding and very well said.

The asinine and disgusting nation insulting by cowards who don't even have the fortitude to display their own true country in their profile has deteriorated beyond belief in the last couple years here on ATS; they really aren't worth responding to and the old block feature that this message board used to have came in handy for these fools. The author of this thread portrays an image in my mind of someone who is nothing more than a vile repugnant psychopath who doesn't deserve honest intellectual debate. The statement of "Looks like the US Ambassador to Libya got exactly what he deserves." ranks right up there with the simple minded drool monkeys commenting on politically based YouTube video's -welcome to grade 5.
edit on 14-9-2012 by Jocko Flocko because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by marker3221
 
reply to post by luciddream
 
BBC Video

Pay close attention starting at 0:20...
Does this look like it was just a portion of Libya's population that hated and feared Gaddafi?

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly
 
You expressed doubt at the perfect English on the signs held by Libyans...there is something in this video for you, too...see that at 1:47.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by freemarketsocialist
reply to post by stonedogdiary
 


Libya was an awesome country. Now look at it. Look at Iraq. Syria will be the same. And you are still defending the CIA/USA?


Oh my god. Do you seriously believe that? Those countries implode all by themselves. They used to be the cradles of the world, the Middle East, where civilization started. But BEFORE we EVER stepped in, those countries turned into sh*tholes. Long ago they turned into the cesspools of violence they are. Libya was soooo awesome, being torn apart by its own civil war until we stepped in. Syria as well. That shows how much you know. I will defend the USA with my life if need be. Which. it may come to one day. Who knows. But I, for one, know the middle east is a violent and tyrannical place. And it was long before we messed with them. I'll go vacation in Libya though, you know, since it was an "awesome country."



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Fair play to you OP, pointing to the truth.

It boggles the mind just how brain washed many of the Americans on this thread really are.

Do you not see the destruction in the world your country has wreaked since 911 - not to mention the countless conflicts they have been involved in, directly or indirectly, since WW2?

Your govt. have become the foremost terrorist nation. Anyone with open eyes and mind can see that.

Starting pre-emptive wars seems to be fine now. Was it ok when hitler did it? Apparently not!

This guy shouldn't have been in Libya fomenting conflict.

Hopefully what we see On the news today is finally the arab peoples awakening en masse to the expLoitation of it's lands and natural resources and America getting some come uppance for it's greed and terrorism.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by nunya13

Originally posted by stonedogdiary]

You're blaming the US for killing people when the Libyan people were killing each other? How dare we step in! How dare we try to help put an end to that! What a cruel country we are.
.


I always have to wonder if people who say what you just did would take a liking to or welcome some other country stepping on our turf and start blowing away Amercans and destroying our cities to "help" us if we started a civil war?

Its not our place to interfere. We would flip out if anothr country had the audacity to tell Americans how our country should be ran. The military, despite good intentions, are fighting foreign enmies abroad while our real enemies and the only ones who truly threaten our freedom are right here at home.



This question you posed is never anwered, and rarely addressed by those in favor of our nation building foreign policy the last 60 plus years. The point you make is paramount in understanding the blowback we receive.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by marker3221
None of us know the full story of what went on in Libya, the day to day, week to week events that led up to the fall of Gaddafi would be very intricate, delicate and complicated.

Not really...and no one is really in the dark...it wasn't like Gaddafi hid his intentions during the Civil War or in the 42 years prior...a little research isn't going to make it more mysterious. You might gain some perspective on the situation.


However, the motivation, the reason they (they: America, Britain & France) undertook this task is at its core, very, very simple: Libya's oil reserves, their black gold.


It was the UN Security Council. In a vote of 10 for, 5 abstaining, and 0 against, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 was passed. It included the following, demanding

"an immediate ceasefire" and authorizing the international community to establish a no-fly zone and to use all means necessary short of foreign occupation to protect civilians.



Now, onto the question of the ambassador. While I have sympathy for anyone who dies in tragic circumstances and I would have unwavering sympathy for their innocent families who must bear the brunt of their loss, I must admit I have less sympathy for those who partake in less than savory behavior, a consequence of which would be their death.

Unfortunately the ambassador falls into the latter category. He knowingly partook in an armed rebellion where, under his direction & guidance (and not only his), hundreds, perhaps thousands, of nameless people met their death including the country's previous leader who died at the hands of a lynch mob. This man was no innocent.


You are saying that Chris Stevens was someone who partook in 'less than savory behavior?'

Really?!?

You seem to be feeling more sympathy for Gaddafi than Mr. Stevens. Am I correct in making that assumption from your statements?


You live by the sword, you die by the sword. I am a firm believer in that philosophy. If you choose to make rebellion, insurrection war & death your line of business you cannot feign innocence when you meet a grisly end.


Funny that you should say that about the Ambassador. It really fits more in context with the end that Colonel Gaddafi met...not at the hands of a lynch mob, either...do you even know what happened last year in Libya? I can perhaps understand your lack of clarity on the situation in Libya prior to the Civil War...but if you don't even know the details of what happened last October, then why are you even making comments?

And don't tell me you do know, because if you did...you wouldn't be saying these things at all...or, if you were...you'd wouldn't be directing your sympathies for Libya's former 'leader,' now dead.


It is not healthy to lean too heavily one way or the other, so while we shouldn't condemn his name into the ground, we also shouldn't be sugarcoating his role & pretending he was a wholly innocent man either.


And he was guilty of what, again?
Directing and guiding an armed rebellion against the undeserving leader of Libya?
That resulted in hundreds...no 'perhaps thousands' of nameless people's death?

Perhaps?
Do you even KNOW?

I suppose you feel that Chris Stevens had some responsibility in the Lockerbie plane bombing, too?



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   
Because Chris Stevens was totally deserving of what happens. And because a "civilized, awesome," country totally sodomizes people before killing them and then dragging their body through the streets.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dextraphite

Oh my god. Do you seriously believe that? Those countries implode all by themselves. They used to be the cradles of the world, the Middle East, where civilization started. But BEFORE we EVER stepped in, those countries turned into sh*tholes. Long ago they turned into the cesspools of violence they are. Libya was soooo awesome, being torn apart by its own civil war until we stepped in. Syria as well. That shows how much you know. I will defend the USA with my life if need be. Which. it may come to one day. Who knows. But I, for one, know the middle east is a violent and tyrannical place. And it was long before we messed with them. I'll go vacation in Libya though, you know, since it was an "awesome country."


Sorry to burst your bubble but everything you just wrote about Libya an Syria is what the MSM has been reporting all this time. Both countries were extremely rich and civilized and 'western' before 2010
You are oblivious and obviously have never been to the Middle East since everything you wrote is just western MSM war propaganda - shows how much you know.

Boycott wikipedia and start reading books i would say.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38
reply to post by marker3221
 
reply to post by luciddream
 
BBC Video

Pay close attention starting at 0:20...
Does this look like it was just a portion of Libya's population that hated and feared Gaddafi?


I don't mean to be blunt, but yes it does. I see no more than 3,000 people on the street in one shot. The rest are all shot quite tight, showing no more than 50 - 70 while the remaining are just small groups & people in cars.

I'm not saying only 3,000 people showed up to celebrate, but your choice of video to make your point was poor.

A few thousand out of a population of approx 6.5 million, is just a portion of Libya's population.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by queenannie38
 


I'll keep it as brief as I can.


It was the UN Security Council. In a vote of 10 for, 5 abstaining, and 0 against, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 was passed.


Wow, you're serious aren't you? And of course you're saying that if Britain or France had not pushed, pushed and really pushed their agenda the UN would have passed this anyway? C'mon, we all know its was France, Britain & the US just getting the legitimacy card, this does not make it any less wrong.




You are saying that Chris Stevens was someone who partook in 'less than savory behavior?'

Really?!?

You seem to be feeling more sympathy for Gaddafi than Mr. Stevens. Am I correct in making that assumption from your statements?


No, you are incorrect. I feel as much sympathy for Gaddafi as I do for Mr. Stevens.




Funny that you should say that about the Ambassador. It really fits more in context with the end that Colonel Gaddafi met...not at the hands of a lynch mob, either...do you even know what happened last year in Libya? I can perhaps understand your lack of clarity on the situation in Libya prior to the Civil War...but if you don't even know the details of what happened last October, then why are you even making comments?

And don't tell me you do know, because if you did...you wouldn't be saying these things at all...or, if you were...you'd wouldn't be directing your sympathies for Libya's former 'leader,' now dead.


I have already stated quite clearly no one (including myself) can know the full story of what happened on the ground. A "lynch mob" is a descriptive term that is not so out of place in describing what happened. A group of men captured him & in the ensuing melee he was most likely shot in the head. The only thing missing was a lynching, but a death is a death no matter how it was carried out. People regularly use the term lynch mob to describe a group of people run amok (which in the immediate aftermath of his capture, the adrenaline & excitement is exactly what happened) I'm surprised you're not aware of this & single out the term.

But to answer your point, yes "live by the sword, die by the sword" can be applied to Gadaffai. And no matter what you like to say otherwise, he was Libya's former leader.




And he was guilty of what, again?
Directing and guiding an armed rebellion against the undeserving leader of Libya?


Yes. Wether he was undeserving or not is not up to Americans to decide. I don't get why this is so hard for you to understand. It was wrong for America to go into Libya, it was none of the American's, British or France's business yet they made it their business all because they seen dollar signs.

Mr Stevens played a key role in this. It's not rocket science.




Perhaps?
Do you even KNOW?


Are you going to deny that thousands of people died? (FYI A minister with the NTC put the figure at 30,000)




I suppose you feel that Chris Stevens had some responsibility in the Lockerbie plane bombing, too?


Am I supposed to answer this?
edit on 14-9-2012 by marker3221 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   
OP said: "Looks like the US Ambassador to Libya got exactly what he deserves."

I say: Middle finger to you!
edit on 14-9-2012 by Staroth because: I actually said F U C K you to the OP but felt it would get pulled



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   


Wow.

So 'studying' this stuff is better than literal personal experience?


Yes. The "personal experience" that the poster is referencing has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with foreign relations, diplomacy, or geo-politics. Just because a guy can fight in a war...that doesn't necessarily mean that he understands WHY THE WAR IS BEING FOUGHT. It's like architects and framers. The architect knows a HELL of a lot more about the engineering and design principles in constructing a building...but that doesn't mean he can swing a hammer. Likewise...while the framer might be very skilled in terms of hands on experience they probably aren't qualified to draft a blueprint and site plan from scratch.

However...like I said previously...I'll be happy to defer to his expertise in finding IED's or repairing Humvees should we be engaged in such a discussion.


I'm not sure how old you are...but I'm guessing you are pretty young...probably < 25 years old?

Not even close. I was around when bombed Ghadafi the first time in the '80's. More importantly I'm both experienced AND educated enough to know that the tensions we had with Ghadaffi all these years were our own doing, given that Ghadaffi was a puppet dictator which WE HELPED TO BRING TO POWER IN THE FIRST PLACE. Very similar in many ways to Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. It's the "Devil you know" and whatnot.



And the people of Libya were oppressed and even abused for years.

Yet another reason we shouldn't have intervened and installed Ghadaffi in the first place. So what's the solution? Let's try that same repeated pattern of failure for another 60 years or so? That's insane.


The civil war started when peaceful protestors against that regime were fired upon by that regime...I remember when I heard what had happened, that I couldn't believe anyone had finally mustered the boldness to actually do something like that...simply because Qadafi's reaction wasn't a surprise but exactly what you'd expect.

Yep. Sucks to be a Libyan and Ghadaffi is an a^^hole. Unfortunately, whether we like it or not the United States as a nation simply is not able to successfully handle yet another war of any kind in the Middle East. WE HAVEN'T DECISIVELY WON A MAJOR ARMED CONFLICT IN 67 YEARS. So...I guess it just sucks to be a Libyan.


I cannot imagine the horror that living in a place like that with a despot of that degree in control.
And how to get relief from it?
Usually...just hope you die young, probably...even if that is all that a person ever knows...in their soul they know they aren't truly living and that it isn't right.
But there is no help when you are born into a country being held in such forced subjugation.

Yes...agreed. It would totally suck to be a Libyan.


And...in any country...even when the worst tyrant to ever have lived is gone...for a while it is even worse than that...because there is a power vacuum and many people who, for many many years, have been thinking about how they would change things if the chance ever came. There is suddenly a surge of human passion and relief and anger and every emotion you could imagine...suddenly let loose in everyone. This is just the way the course of humanity and its efforts socially evolve...I would think you would know this better than I do, since you are the one with the degree in this stuff...

Oh...I do know it better than you do. The power vacuum ins't the problem. The problem is WHO USUALLY WINDS UP FILLING THAT VACUUM! Mathematically speaking the odds favor the ones with the MOST guns and the LEAST reservations about using them against innocent civilians.


What if it were us...and we called...and no one came?

Well...I suppose if it we called for help and nobody came then it would probably look a whole lot like it looks right now. "Multi-national forces" consisting of 500,000 US troops, 10 British helicopter pilots, 4 Australian mechanics, and one random Canadian.


A Buddhist proverb goes like this:

If you do not care for each other, who will care for you?


If your idea of "caring" is undermining a government that gave it's people 0% mortgages, free health care, and free college educations because you are absolutely convinced that "the people" would prefer civil war...you are out of your mind.
edit on 14-9-2012 by milominderbinder because: formatting



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


Well...it just goes to show that life is about something more than being totally taken care of without having to worry about anything at all...except, of course, freedom of speech and privacy and interaction with the outside world.

As far as the US having a part in putting Gaddafi in power...to that end, they did not go along with Britain's suggestion of stopping Gaddafi's coup to overthrow King Idris.

And other than that....unless you have some new or recently discovered information...which, if you do, then please share! it's only fair if you bring it up to bring it out and let us see it, too....but other than that...it wasn't like that.

Not even a little bit.
Admittedly, it has been like that too many times...one time is too many...but not EVERY time.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by marker3221
Wow, you're serious aren't you? And of course you're saying that if Britain or France had not pushed, pushed and really pushed their agenda the UN would have passed this anyway? C'mon, we all know its was France, Britain & the US just getting the legitimacy card, this does not make it any less wrong.


No one pushed an agenda with this situation.
Other than concern over the Libyans who were not being taken care of by their so-called leader, but attacked.
If you have evidence of the US or UK or France pushing some other agenda, then please let us see it.

Here is something from me in that same vein:
UN Discussion about 1970



No, you are incorrect. I feel as much sympathy for Gaddafi as I do for Mr. Stevens.


So does that mean you feel no sympathy for Stevens and therefore for Gaddafi?
Or some for Gaddafi and therefore some for Stevens?


I have already stated quite clearly no one (including myself) can know the full story of what happened on the ground. A "lynch mob" is a descriptive term that is not so out of place in describing what happened. A group of men captured him & in the ensuing melee he was most likely shot in the head. The only thing missing was a lynching, but a death is a death no matter how it was carried out. People regularly use the term lynch mob to describe a group of people run amok (which in the immediate aftermath of his capture, the adrenaline & excitement is exactly what happened) I'm surprised you're not aware of this & single out the term.


No...it is because a lynch mob chooses to forgo a trial and get right to the capital punishment. The plan was that Gaddafi would stand trial and this was what the Libyans wanted, too...they had unanswered questions and they wanted answers and closure. They were disappointed in how it ended because they didn't get to ask their questions.

It also wasn't a lynch mob in the true sense of the word...in that a lynch mob usually goes on the hunt for their victim...this was an accidental discovery and Gaddafi was fleeing...it was not even apparent that Gaddafi was in that caravan until it was derailed by the drone strike...]

I assumed that you either did not know what a lynch mob was or else didn't know the details of his capture and death...so I opted for you knowing the meaning of lynch mob. I stand corrected.


But to answer your point, yes "live by the sword, die by the sword" can be applied to Gadaffai. And no matter what you like to say otherwise, he was Libya's former leader.


It depends on how one defines 'leader,' I suppose. Yes, he was the one controlling and in charge of Libya. A leader...to those that followed him, yes. But of the Libyan people...I bet they would say NO.


Yes. Whether he was undeserving or not is not up to Americans to decide. I don't get why this is so hard for you to understand. It was wrong for America to go into Libya, it was none of the American's, British or France's business yet they made it their business all because they seen dollar signs.


It was the UN that decided to do this and it was NATO that did it.
No one is going to profit from their oil or other wealth...in fact, they unfroze Gaddafi's assets so that the new Libya could use the funds for their start up endeavors...said endeavors being their decision and under their control...no one is there now...or rather there weren't...no ground occupation forces at all.

No one saw dollar signs on this situation.
They saw people in danger of their lives for wanting to be free...they saw their neighbors having revolution so they did it, themselves...and yes, I know they lost 30,000...but that wasn't because we went in...that was WHY we went in.
They were happy for our help...the night it started, I think it was, Gaddafi informed everyone that "we are coming and there will be no mercy" and vowed to go house by house removing all rebels one by one.
And it wasn't an empty threat and the people who had lived under those kind of threats knew it.
The proverbial velvet glove.


Mr Stevens played a key role in this. It's not rocket science.


So you are saying that Mr. Stevens stirred up sedition and revolution in a country that was doing pretty good before that...from all accounts...both Gaddafi's and the people of Libya?

Are you going to deny that thousands of people died? (FYI A minister with the NTC put the figure at 30,000)


If you already knew that...why did you write 'perhaps?'



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by marker3221
 


Well, since you are obviously endowed with super-powers enabling you to do accurate headcounts of youtube shots...then I'm sure you know how to put a search term such as "celebrating gaddafi's death" in the google box and then choosing 'images'.

If not...then I just told you how to do it.

You might not need to, though...if you can count heads maybe you can also determine things like size of the area in the camera and then extrapolate the data given a rough estimate of Libya's population and tell us just how many short of 'all' are we really talking about here.

Or you can choose to maintain a willfully ignorant position or even one that is just plain out rejecting and resisting the facts in favor of something easier for you to deal with, maybe...your own opinion?

You are entitled to that, for sure...



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   
no, no he didnt



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38
Afghanistan has NEVER had a "stable, western-style, secular, democratically-inspired, republican forms of government." The British started interfering with Afghanistan in the middle of the 19th century.

Incorrect. Afghanistan adopted a western-style bicameral legislature which was led by Zahir Shah as a transitional form of government away from the old monarchy. The monarchy remained, albeit in diminished power as the royal aristocracy was only permitted to appoint 1/3 of the legislators. On July 17, 1973 Zahir Shah led a bloodless and non-violent coup in which he dissolved the remains of the monarchy and the democratic republic came out of "beta" so to speak.

Unfortunately, the Russians invaded in 1979 and after we armed and funded the Afghani "freedom fighters" we promptly reneged on our promise to provide monetary assistance to rebuild after the collapse of the Soviet Union. This was viewed as a betrayal and paved the way for the Taliban to take control of the country. However...the 1964-1973 transition to a western-style government WAS STARTED AND INITIATED BY THE AFGHANS THEMSELVES.


Iraq has NEVER had a "stable, western-style, secular, democratically-inspired, republican forms of government."
The Republic of Iraq only came into being in 1958...before that, it was called the Kingdom of Iraq in those years following the end of Ottoman rule (WWI) in which it was under British administration.


Incorrect. The Ottoman Empire had very much westernized their territories during the Tanzimat (trans. "organization") period starting in 1839!! While we were still buying and selling human beings as chattel property and exterminating the Indians the Ottomans adopted a Constitution, abolished slavery (1847), established standardized banking system reforms, decriminalized homosexuality, replaced religious law with secular law, and guaranteed equality for all Ottoman citizens regardless of their ethnicity and religion, and allowed for the freedom of expression and the press by private individuals which was previously restricted to ONLY religious institutions.

This all went to hell after WWI during the British Mandate when the UK had the "brilliant" idea of stuffing a hodgepodge of ethnicities together and arbitrarily appointing Hashimites (originally from Syria) to be the interim monarchy. Needless to say...ethnic conflict ensued. The US and Britain's "solution" to this chaos was to begin funding and arming the Ba'ath Party and help them to assassinate the Prime Minister and President of Iraq in 1963. If the name "Ba'ath Party" sounds familiar that's because their big claim to fame was guy named Saddam Hussein.


Iran has NEVER had a "stable, western-style, secular, democratically-inspired, republican forms of government."
It was a monarchy up until 1979 when it became the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Incorrect. After WII ended the Russians decided to stay awhile. By 1946 the Iranians had successfully kicked the Soviets out...at which time they adopted a constitutional republic and even allowed the people to vote on important issues via referendum as well as just their legislators. Ironically this proved to be the downfall of their republic because in 1951 the people voted to nationalize the British-owned oil industry. The British immediately blockaded Iran and from 1952-1953 the CIA and MI6 organized, planned, and funded a military coup to collapse the fledgling democratic republic and return it to autocratic rule under the Shah. The people resented this and wanted a return to self-governance...but the only party strong and wealthy enough to fund the Iranian Revolution in the 70's was, of course, with the fundamentalist religious nutters. Hence...the era of Ayatollah Khomeini was ushered in. Of course...it didn't help that the US was funding and arming BOTH the Islamic revolutionaries as well as the old Pahlavi autocratic dynasty. For some reasons the average Iranian interpreted this as being indicative of the US simply wanting Iran divided and in chaos...I'm not sure why.


Syria has NEVER had a "stable, western-style, secular, democratically-inspired, republican forms of government." It's birth as a republic type government is sometime in the years just prior to the start of WWII.

Incorrect. Syria was doing swell from the years of 1943-1963. However...it turns out that the power-hungry Ba'ath Party was still a little pissed at being ruled by the formerly Assyrian Hashimites and after toppling their own Iraqi government decided they might as well just go ahead and do the same thing in Syria since the CIA gave them all these cool guns. Ba'ath Party golden boy Hafez-al Assad took control of Syria in 1970 and today it's being currently run by 'lil Assad.

Yeah...the Middle East sure needs the US and Britain to "help" them some more...don't they?



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jocko Flocko
reply to post by LiberLegit
 


Outstanding and very well said.

The asinine and disgusting nation insulting by cowards who don't even have the fortitude to display their own true country in their profile has deteriorated beyond belief in the last couple years here on ATS; they really aren't worth responding to and the old block feature that this message board used to have came in handy for these fools. The author of this thread portrays an image in my mind of someone who is nothing more than a vile repugnant psychopath who doesn't deserve honest intellectual debate. The statement of "Looks like the US Ambassador to Libya got exactly what he deserves." ranks right up there with the simple minded drool monkeys commenting on politically based YouTube video's -welcome to grade 5.
edit on 14-9-2012 by Jocko Flocko because: (no reason given)


OK...aside from your completely subjective opinion do you have anything else to add?



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by milominderbinder
 

To the OP.

In her eulogy, Hillary Clinton said that Stevens was on the ground in Benghazi in the "early days" of the uprising against Gaddafi. I was looking for statements made to the press at that time by the US State Department, wondering what the officially stated attitude to the uprising was in those "early days".

I doubt very much if anything was said along the lines of:

"Yes, we are watching the situation as it develops but are witholding any statements until we know what precisely is going on. Around the water cooler at State everyone is hoping that Chris Stevens, our liason with the hooligans, is safe and that the arms that we have been sending into the port of Benghazi, along with recently released Al Qaeda inmates from Gitmo, sent to organize the malcontents, are being put to good use.

It would be premature, however, to make a statement at this time, because the State Department can't be seen to be openly fomenting chaos. Thankyou."


edit on 14-9-2012 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dextraphite

Originally posted by freemarketsocialist
reply to post by stonedogdiary
 


Libya was an awesome country. Now look at it. Look at Iraq. Syria will be the same. And you are still defending the CIA/USA?


Oh my god. Do you seriously believe that? Those countries implode all by themselves. They used to be the cradles of the world, the Middle East, where civilization started. But BEFORE we EVER stepped in, those countries turned into sh*tholes. Long ago they turned into the cesspools of violence they are. Libya was soooo awesome, being torn apart by its own civil war until we stepped in. Syria as well. That shows how much you know. I will defend the USA with my life if need be. Which. it may come to one day. Who knows. But I, for one, know the middle east is a violent and tyrannical place. And it was long before we messed with them. I'll go vacation in Libya though, you know, since it was an "awesome country."


You don't read many books, do you?



new topics

top topics



 
71
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join