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.

 

New ObamaGate Scandal; State Department Sold Stingers to Al Queda

page: 5
84
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2013 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Enderdog
 


I think the blind Sheik story is lame considering that Al Qaeda released a video on September 10th telling Libyan Muslims that it was their duty to "kill the crusaders of drone attacks".




posted on May, 22 2013 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by dieseldyk
 


Where's this asteroid? Clean this place up and start over....



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Deetermined

More like CIA.

I predict that the CIA is going to make a come back stating that they aren't the rogue arm of our government, but the Obama administration is.

Obama's pissed that they didn't go along with taking the fall on Benghazi talking points, in turn the White House fires Petraeus and then tries to dig up a CIA leak through the Associated Press, and now the CIA is retaliating by pointing the finger at the State Department for this.

It sounds like the Obama administration and the CIA are at war right now.


You know...this actually makes a lot of sense. It was obvious at the time that Petraeus was eliminated from telling the truth by the powers above him. The timing was just too weird.
It appears that maybe there are elements in the CIA that took that personally.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by caladonea
reply to post by dieseldyk
 


So...in other words...this article is telling us... that the State Department provided the weapons to our enemy...that killed our people in Benghazi.

Am I understanding this correctly?


Sounds like you are correct.

I have a weird thought.

Is this related to the encouraging of radical Islam? Encouraging through going out of our way not to offend Muslims while encouraging Christianity bashing?

Is the goal to make Christianity like smoking, just not acceptable;

and demonizing Islam by covertly encouraging horrific behavior toward humanity , children and women.

Next, making religions illegal for the "safety" of the general population.

Then turning the genetic need for religion into a worship of state leaders and the "state" itself,

thereby giving the state total control over the thoughts of individuals and the hearts of individuals?



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by dieseldyk
 





I am loving every new day. One after another, more of the crap rises to the top on the Tyrant 0bama's Admin.



The problem is, that it wasn't any better under bush and it wasn't going to be any better under Romney. Lets not have blinders on and pretend that Democrats are worse than Republicans. That shows a lack of research and due diligence.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
 

So the government was arming Al-CIAeda. And?



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by dieseldyk
 
I haven't read every post but it seems that no one talks about the radical Muslims that visit the Whitehouse on a regular bases. If you search this you will get many reports from many different sources.it should answer some of the whys and wherefores about Obama and his Muslim heritage.

A quote from his book "Dreams from My Father" would imply he is on the same jihad that his father was.
Quote; "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."
I would guess the shills will interpret this to there own ends but with what is going on today it seems purity straight forward.

Question, why is no one doing anything to expose why these people are going to the Whitehouse? Answer, because there all a part of what is happening to America, as I have stated before, there is no one left to fix it.

Again, just my opinion and should be proven out in the 2014 election when the Dems regain the House and hold the Senate.................but that's a whole nother story.
edit on 22-5-2013 by Battleline because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by amazing
 


Really????

Who is in charge right now???

Has nothing to do with blinders, nor "what ifs" in regards to Romney.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Okay, I'm trying to stick to facts here, not propaganda and CYA bull that has come AFTER the fact, when there are about 10,000 reasons to redefine everything about that night, that facility, who was or wasn't in it and what happened for months prior.

In doing that, I'm not going to read and take at face value, 'cover your ass' reports generated by the very people under investigation of wrong doing and gross misconduct in relation to these events. Hillary will be exceptionally lucky if she isn't recalled under Oath with criminal issues involved by the end of it. I watched her testimony UNDER OATH where even she knows from the 90's what it means to lie...and that testimony was singularly unhelpful in shedding light on anything. (As intended...I'm sure). Except to yell 'what does it matter' of course. Yeah, she doesn't have her bosses gift for speech, that's for damn sure.

23 or the 30 were CIA? Well, that's a definitive number. Please prove that number with support. I've never heard 23 were CIA. Not 22, not 24 but 23 out of 30. Well.. I'm dying to see a NON-MSM, non-speculative source with anything but guesswork to support that little census of the people there. If a facility meant and presented to be State Department was actually a CIA station? We need investigations of a WHOLE different nature and need them MORE urgently than what we have right now. No question.... Proving that point will make the current mess bigger, not smaller...but please do. Proof?


Going by the paperwork, purchase ordering, leases signed and serviced and obligation for security assigned to departments? That was, 100%, a State Department Site. The Central Intelligence Agency ran their facility....which by their own statements now was anything BUT a secret to the locals.... approximately 2 kilometers to the Southeast. They apparently didn't have to fight tooth and bloody nail for every single man they could get on security .....as the State Department facility did.

Now...If you'd like to argue with the man at the State Department whom we SEE, clearly, paying for and making long term arrangements with that compound property? Fine.... Let me know how that argument goes. Until then? I am taking the solid documentary evidence as it was being generated internally and without particular thought to it ever having to stand as proof of anything....one way or another. Things like that are, almost always, more accurate than the rush to save one's own butt after something goes badly wrong.

So....Please do...Please, bring anything SOLID ...as in SOURCE material... Which shows either CIA payment or direct interest in that facility and/or 23 of 30 ( I REALLY want this sourced.. I'll DO things with that data, if backed up) people being functional staff of Central Intelligence and not State. I don't believe you on either point, to be blunt. I've spent far too many of my own days and endless hours on this topic to know better, with first level material to go by. You're welcome to contradict that with material of a similar quality though.


edit on 22-5-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Wait, people are now just finding this out about the Al- CIAiada?

.........




posted on May, 22 2013 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by IAMTAT
 

Oh please... If we're going to debate something like the official and legal status of a U.S. Government compound overseas? PLEASE bring something more meaningful than the American version of Baghdad Bob?? If we want to get into the outright, demonstrably false statements that child Carney has made while playing Press Secretary, we certainly can and it might be fun.

After all, I've got several clips of him absolutely and in a downright insulting way, telling the reporters that it *WAS* about the internet video and it was silly to think otherwise. Multiple times he said this and was forceful to insulting about it. His credibility is less than my kid, hiding a bad thing he's done. At least my kid is half way cute when he lies to everyone's face. Outright.

Look... You and Indigo would benefit from some reading. I'm not making up this State Department compound designation. This isn't my interpretation, wishful thinking or fancy idea of what to call it. THEY PERSONALLY called it that from within both White House and State Department offices since the previous December when leases were renewed with the property owner BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT for long term use and occupation of the 13 acres and buildings that sit on it.

The fact it's a State Department Compound is a FACT of accounting, bookkeeping, budgeting and functional reality. It wasn't until the day after people died there through incompetence and outright stupidity that everything about it came into immediate question and the effort to re-write history began. Well.. Oooooops... Thanks to the Document Dump of the Issa committee, we need not guess what things said BEFORE that effort began. We know. We can read it...just as it existed and was released almost immediately following the murders of those men.

Benghazi Documents

Who owned and controlled that compound is covered in the first two sets of documents, in detail and with names. A little deeper and we even see dollar amounts on the lease agreement with general terms related to it. It's not guess work...it's outright facts of book keeping and property management.
edit on 22-5-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 10:57 AM
link   
It's just a new scandal to make people hate Obama and revolt against him. They're planning to make a civil war, even most Republicans said that they were looking forward to a civil war, and the target is Obama. When Obama is thrown down, a new government will establish itself, and we'll all wish Obama was back. Remember when it was predicted by two guys that Obama will be the last US president? The time is coming. But since the waiting government can't take down Obama themselves, or else it will break their image, they are releasing "scandals" after "scandals" to make people hate Obama and revolt against him.
When that happens, it will be the 1917 Russian Revolution all over again. A government taken down and replaced by an even more tyrannical government.
And people will fall for it... They are all right now excited to start a civil war and revolting against Obama. And there's no way to tell them that it mustn't happen.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 10:58 AM
link   
...not exactly right... but close.

They provided weapons that WILL be used to kill Americans and others. Stingers are Anti Aircraft ordinance... and, for older tech, do what they do very well. I'm going to bet if this is, in fact, the case... that the CIA was vociferously opposed to the idea from the start.

I've believed from the start, that the CIA started in a bad position in Benghazi (advised against State's plans), got saddled with the worst part of the operation (cleaning up State's s**t), and then has been left holding the bag and thrown under the bus.

Think the Petraeus Affair was an aberration? (Yes, he had the affair. Most likely, that was the REASON he was put in as DCI... controllability. Pretty stupid on his part to take the position, IMO)

Anyway... I have wondered just how much of being made "the bi-atch" the Agency will take before they decide to even up the score a bit.

reply to post by macman
 



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by Enderdog
 


I think the blind Sheik story is lame considering that Al Qaeda released a video on September 10th telling Libyan Muslims that it was their duty to "kill the crusaders of drone attacks".


Just an FYI... but if you read the reports I have linked above, about half way through that whole stack as I recall, are detail reports on the earlier physical attack on the compound which blew out the perimeter wall.

That attack was based on the demands for U.S. Release of the Blind Sheikh Rachman. They made no bones or vague indications about it and were crystal clear that's what it was about.

I don't know if that means the Ambassador's murder was about it as well...or perhaps his murder WAS an accident in a kidnap for ransom attempt? It's an explanation that makes enough sense to consider ...and would END this Government across the board for leadership, if proven to have actually been a plan people on our side knew and approved of playing out, IMO.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
reply to post by dieseldyk
 


This isn't new news, it's just now hitting the "mainstream" media.


Agreed! I read about this about a month after the incident! though I heard it was Stevens
who was supplying stinger missiles though to whom I'm not clear of! I doubt he was trying to
buy them back though! If the general public knew the truth there would be serious uproars!
As always no one will ever find out the truth! There will be conspiracy theories but no proof.
It seems that the conspiracy theories are sometimes more in touch with reality then the general
public but that's no surprise to me.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Propulsion
I posted this thread some time back...

Link

If I remember correctly, Glenn Beck brought this to light.


Surprise! Your video is gone dude!
Too0 bad wanted to see it.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 12:12 PM
link   
So if this all true then I guess while semi-automatic rifles and pistols are not appropriate for citizens/patriots/militia groups/terrorist's. stingers and select fire weapons are currently on the approved list -Kool-
edit on 22-5-2013 by PRwood because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Let me see what I can find...

I'll start with general claims and hunt down sources...

CNN


But in practice - and this is what so few people have focused on - the larger U.S. presence was in a secret outpost operated by the CIA.

About 30 people were evacuated from Benghazi the morning after the deadly attack last September 11; more than 20 of them were CIA employees.

Sources at the State Department say this context explains why there was so much debate over those talking points. Essentially, they say, the State Department felt it was being blamed for bungling what it saw as largely a CIA operation in Benghazi.

Internally at the CIA, sources tell CNN there was a big debate after the attacks to acknowledge that the two former Navy SEALs killed – Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty – were CIA employees. At a 2010 attack in Khost, Afghanistan, when seven CIA officers were killed in the line of duty, the agency stepped forward and acknowledged their service and sacrifice. But in this instance - for reasons many in the Obama administration did not fully understand - it took the CIA awhile to "roll back their covers." Petraeus did not attend their funerals.

LINK

Washington Post Fact Checker


In fact, only seven of the 30 Americans evacuated from Benghazi had any connection to the State Department; the rest were affiliated with the CIA.

LINK

Wall Street Journal


When the bodies of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans killed in Benghazi, Libya, arrived at Andrews Air Force Base after the Sept. 11 attack, they were greeted by the president, the vice president and the secretaries of state and defense. Conspicuously absent was CIA Director David Petraeus.

Officials close to Mr. Petraeus say he stayed away in an effort to conceal the agency's role in collecting intelligence and providing security in Benghazi. Two of the four men who died that day, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, were former Navy SEAL commandos who were publicly identified as State Department contract security officers, but who actually worked as Central Intelligence Agency contractors, U.S. officials say.

Of the more than 30 American officials evacuated from Benghazi following the deadly assault, only seven worked for the State Department. Nearly all the rest worked for the CIA, under diplomatic cover, which was a principal purpose of the consulate, these officials said.

The CIA's secrecy affected how the U.S. government dealt with the families of the two slain contractors. Kate Quigley, Mr. Doherty's sister, said officials who visited her mother in Massachusetts identified themselves as State Department representatives. Officials said the State Department deferred to the CIA to contact the families and the "notification teams" included CIA officers.


WSJ LINK....THIS LINK HAS THE MOST RELEVANT INFO...PLEASE READ IN FULL IF YOU WANT GOOD INFO



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

I don't know if that means the Ambassador's murder was about it as well...or perhaps his murder WAS an accident in a kidnap for ransom attempt? It's an explanation that makes enough sense to consider ...and would END this Government across the board for leadership, if proven to have actually been a plan people on our side knew and approved of playing out, IMO.


It's worth noting in that context that Ambassador Stevens died of smoke inhalation, holed up in the safe room?

wiki


Stevens apparently became separated from his staff while trying to escape to the roof and was ultimately overcome by smoke inhalation.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Indigo... You hand me MSM and say "read if you want good sources" with a straight face? You can keep a straight face while suggesting these are good sources??

MSM are sources when NOTHING ELSE exists. Personally. I like basing my factual arguments from the factual material MSM started with..themselves...before they butchered it into a version they figured was more fitting for us to read and absorb opinion from.

Now I appreciate the effort..really I do. I'll add your links to the other several dozen I have in my Libya bookmarks...aside the folder with a much shorter list of 'source material' on Benghazi. Given that what the MSM is claiming is *DIRECTLY* contradicted by original source material in more than one instance? It isn't even a choice to make for me...on this issue...which source I take as serious and which I pass by as agenda driven.

Some are agenda driven to the right and some to the left. MSM on this story, is ALL agenda driven though. One direction or the other. What did you find wrong with the United States Government communications, cables, situation reports and private notes of those directly involved, living in the situation and managing response to it? The fact you still run to MSM to contradict it, tells me you find something lacking in the months of evidence built up to that night....what would that be, if I might ask?
edit on 22-5-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
84
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join