"Something BIG Is About To Go Down In Syria"

Sources now tell CNN dozens of people working for the CIA were on the ground that night, and that the agency is going to great lengths to make sure whatever it was doing, remains a secret.

CNN has learned the CIA is involved in what one source calls an unprecedented attempt to keep the spy agency’s Benghazi secrets from ever leaking out.

In exclusive communications obtained by CNN, one insider writes, “You don’t jeopardize yourself, you jeopardize your family as well [if you talk to Congress or the press about Benghazi].”

Mini nukes, naaah.
Smuggling surface to air misiles to the rebels from Libya via turkey to Al Qaeda in Siria, yes.

And of the CIA, which is there to protect the USA, is found to be arming the very people, Al Qaeda, it should be protecting the America from, and the very reason the USA went to war in in the middle east in the first place, that would leave the good people of the USA with only one question -

If the CIA and Al Qaeda are working together, then they arnt enemies, if they arnt enemies, who have we been fighting since 9/11 and if the enemy isnt real, the deaths of thousands of Americas sons wasn't necesary either and everything the governemnt of the America has told them about the war on terror has been a lie. Why and for what?

andy1972

OpinionatedB
reply to post by Domo1

 

As a Muslim you are not supposed to serve it to others, have it at or in your house, or drink it.

The taboo on alcohol is total. No religious Muslim would have anything to do with working in a club, even if they weren't serving it, because they are around others who are, the forbidden gathering if you will, is not allowed.

That said, not all people who are Muslim are religious... its kind of like the christian who calls himself a christian but is anything but, there are Muslims just the same, and through their actions you can tell whether or not they are religious...

So, serving alcohol in a bar of some kind, or even working in one, means he is not religious. Period. This makes him culturally "Muslim" according to western people, but not a person of faith even a little according to the religion.

edit on 23-2-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)

I think this guy "Erol" went to the same mosque as Mohammed Atta...and probably the same srtip joints.

That is what struck me as odd in the story. Something that points to his contact/guide taints the rest of the story, besides the fact that it reads as a novel not a journalistic endeavor. Now this is not to say that this couldn't be some kind of smoke screen on whats is happening, however I am thinking personally that this is not a real story, either that they are trying to push an agenda. We all know that, that in and of itself could be possible.

Grim

OpinionatedB
reply to post by andy1972

 

lol... probably...

and you cannot call either one of them even mildly religious.

Exactly, neither are religious but given an image of religious extremism..

People with problems like drink and drugs are easily to manipulate, and easy targets for CIA operatives who need idiots who dont think, just do.

This guy "Erol", was a bartender, not very good for a person who supposedly incites others to fight in the name of Jihad, and Atta was known to like his whisky, hookers and coc aine...yet in the name of Islam he, allegedly, rammed a plane full of infidels into the WTC.

Patsy's easy to mould and manipulate.

reply to post by Danbones


True. I have personally always believed these laws are best, for perfectly natural and scientific reasons. The parts that seem extreme, are simply there in my opinion to remove the temptation to partake in something harmful.

If your never around alcohol, your certainly never tempted to drink it, whereas, you might be if you were around it socially.

Alcohol is a dehydrator, it is very bad in very high heat with not much water...

reply to post by andy1972


Very true. Very true.

reply to post by andy1972


An enemy. They need your attention focused on an enemy, whether real or imagined, to keep your nose out of their affairs. It also helps quite a bit to make you complacent concerning any loss of rights you incur. It was so shocking to see people willingly hand over their rights...

never in my life would I thought I would see that... yet we all witnessed it first hand. Without the enemy, without the fear, it would not have been possible.

But, fear must be occasionally stoked... and its time for a new injection. They are about to ramp things up in order to get their way.... and I think they want to take down syria and Iran... it didn't happen because people were done and weren't buying into it so much any more... next time it will be bigger.

It's about control... there is something in the middle east they want. bad.

OpinionatedB
reply to post by andy1972

 

An enemy. They need your attention focused on an enemy, whether real or imagined, to keep your nose out of their affairs. It also helps quite a bit to make you complacent concerning any loss of rights you incur. It was so shocking to see people willingly hand over their rights...

never in my life would I thought I would see that... yet we all witnessed it first hand. Without the enemy, without the fear, it would not have been possible.

But, fear must be occasionally stoked... and its time for a new injection. They are about to ramp things up in order to get their way.... and I think they want to take down syria and Iran... it didn't happen because people were done and weren't buying into it so much any more... next time it will be bigger.

It's about control... there is something in the middle east they want. bad.

edit on 23-2-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)

The difference is -
Since 1945 until the early 90's the enemy was Russia and the eastern bock. A real tangible enemy, an army that existed.
After Afghanistan, Russia was effectively out of the fight, so the threat wasn't there any more.
The difference is, this time, the enemy is homegrown and funded by the very intelligence agency that is tasked with defending the country from the very terrorism that it is funding and arming.
The rebels in Syria have been were (are) being armed by the CIA, the very same rebels that now openly fly the flag of Al Qaeda. So, if the intelligence sevrices are actually arming the terrorists they are charged to defeat, that means the whole war on terror is false, because the terrorist's are an invention of the intelligence services.
Still, the people in the street believe the terror is real..and every now and then, they blow up a café or shopping centre to keep up the image of the crazed jihadi.

reply to post by andy1972


I actually don't think it's all either one way or the other. It's not entirely false, nor is it entirely true.

The west has been messing in local middle east affairs since the 1920's at least. This tends to anger the locals... think about it from your perspective. If you had Russia continually walking into your country, killing this person here or there, putting into power a dictator over you whom you did not like etc. you would not be particularly pleased.

The more the west interfered, the angrier some people got. It was never all people, because it never effected all people the same... but some people were getting more and more frustrated over this. Therefore, due to western meddling, friends were lost, and a couple enemies made, over somethings in particular that would be very far off topic.

Therefore, the longer it continued the more you have pissed of people running around. lets face it, no one really enjoys meddlers. So, there is that.

At the same time, there just might not have been quite enough crazies, for the vision the US had.... and that vision, is worth more to some than any of our lives, therefore they had to invent quite a few crazies also.

It's been posted as doom on the internet therefore it will not happen.

reply to post by OpinionatedB


Its all just a poor man's die-vide and conk-ure

reply to post by Danbones


But the powerful do know well how to use those puppet strings, all the way around.

reply to post by Domo1


A suitcase nukes doesnt seem all that impossible considering there is a proxy war going on in Syria with several big players...to me its a horrible idea considering you are going to be nuking the very place you plan on taking over after you nuke them....kind of a "if I can't have this land...no one can" mentality. Good find op

OpinionatedB
reply to post by andy1972

 

I actually don't think it's all either one way or the other. It's not entirely false, nor is it entirely true.

The west has been messing in local middle east affairs since the 1920's at least. This tends to anger the locals... think about it from your perspective. If you had Russia continually walking into your country, killing this person here or there, putting into power a dictator over you whom you did not like etc. you would not be particularly pleased.

The more the west interfered, the angrier some people got. It was never all people, because it never effected all people the same... but some people were getting more and more frustrated over this. Therefore, due to western meddling, friends were lost, and a couple enemies made, over somethings in particular that would be very far off topic.

Therefore, the longer it continued the more you have pissed of people running around. lets face it, no one really enjoys meddlers. So, there is that.

At the same time, there just might not have been quite enough crazies, for the vision the US had.... and that vision, is worth more to some than any of our lives, therefore they had to invent quite a few crazies also.

edit on 23-2-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)

The west has been meddling in the afghanistan/pakistan reigion since the begining of the 19th century "The great game" they called it then.
They knew back then that this corner of the world was important, even before oil and gas natural.
They are the frontier between east and west.
Who controled the area, controled the trade, and thus, the power.

Throughout the nineteenth century, Great Britain was obsessed by the fear that one of the other European powers would take advantage of the political decay of Islamic Asia
At first it was France. Then it was Russia that moved along the caravan routes of the old conquerors and threatened to establish a new world monarchy on the ruins of the ancient ones.

It's all about who controls what.

Britain was scared that Russia would use territory captured in the Ottoman empire to launch an attack on India, Britains "jewel in the crown".

Bilk22

pheonix358
reply to post by Bilk22

 

Or the CIA have there dirty hands in this and want a scapegoat when they blow up somebody / something. It is not hard to put something up on the internet. If one goes up it will be impossible to tell who set it off, absolutely impossible.

Or this is just nothing but an attention seeking twit.

P

Well they're tied to it either way if the story is true. But there were boxes remove from that compound. Benghazi was a big deal. The whole Syria thing is much more than what it appears to be.

BOXES, not suitcases..
Surface to air missles, delivered from Libiya to Syria via Turkey by CIA Ltd.
The Problem -
Maybe someone found out what was going on, i.e. Chris Stevens, and they had to get rid of the merchandise REAL FAST, as Stevenson was about to blow the whole thing sky high.

The Soluction -
A highly organised group attack, kill Stevens and run off with the goods which only they and the CIA know are there.

The result - Stevens has his mouth buttoned for ever and the goods get delivered ontime.

Everyone's happy - minus Mrs Stevens.

andy1972

Bilk22

pheonix358
reply to post by Bilk22

 

Or the CIA have there dirty hands in this and want a scapegoat when they blow up somebody / something. It is not hard to put something up on the internet. If one goes up it will be impossible to tell who set it off, absolutely impossible.

Or this is just nothing but an attention seeking twit.

P

Well they're tied to it either way if the story is true. But there were boxes remove from that compound. Benghazi was a big deal. The whole Syria thing is much more than what it appears to be.

BOXES, not suitcases..
Surface to air missles, delivered from Libiya to Syria via Turkey by CIA Ltd.


The Problem -
Maybe someone found out what was going on, i.e. Chris Stevens, and they had to get rid of the merchandise REAL FAST, as Stevenson was about to blow the whole thing sky high.

The Soluction -
A highly organised group attack, kill Stevens and run off with the goods which only they and the CIA know are there.

The result - Stevens has his mouth buttoned for ever and the goods get delivered ontime.

Everyone's happy - minus Mrs Stevens.

no. Hanlon's Razor is especially on target when considering inexplicable activity in the political realm:

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Stevens is dead not due to some nefarious conspiracy to kill him. Stephens is dead because the agencies involved have been infested with political appointees and those who are not appointees are promoted by those appointees. abjectly non functionally stupidity to the point of thinking denying requests for more security in order to project a desired image is more important than protecting U.S. personnel even a hand picked ambassador. that's a lethal kind of stupid. and it is throughout the entire government now.

reply to post by Domo1


Why wouldn't he just e-mail the news company he works for... Surely they are slightly better at getting news out than reddit is..

reply to post by iRoyalty

there seems to be a lid on some subjects
the msm sometimes fails totally at the outing game

hence alternative media

of course if you wanted to implant muslim fear into the alternative community and deflect from something really important
you'd plant the info in a place like reddit

reply to post by Danbones


This is true, still, not convinced it's legit.

something similar is a varient of A.C. Clarke's statement on technology and magic:

"Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice"

stormbringer1701

andy1972

Bilk22

pheonix358
reply to post by Bilk22

 

Or the CIA have there dirty hands in this and want a scapegoat when they blow up somebody / something. It is not hard to put something up on the internet. If one goes up it will be impossible to tell who set it off, absolutely impossible.

Or this is just nothing but an attention seeking twit.

P

Well they're tied to it either way if the story is true. But there were boxes remove from that compound. Benghazi was a big deal. The whole Syria thing is much more than what it appears to be.

BOXES, not suitcases..
Surface to air missles, delivered from Libiya to Syria via Turkey by CIA Ltd.


The Problem -
Maybe someone found out what was going on, i.e. Chris Stevens, and they had to get rid of the merchandise REAL FAST, as Stevenson was about to blow the whole thing sky high.

The Soluction -
A highly organised group attack, kill Stevens and run off with the goods which only they and the CIA know are there.

The result - Stevens has his mouth buttoned for ever and the goods get delivered ontime.

Everyone's happy - minus Mrs Stevens.

no. Hanlon's Razor is especially on target when considering inexplicable activity in the political realm:

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Stevens is dead not due to some nefarious conspiracy to kill him. Stephens is dead because the agencies involved have been infested with political appointees and those who are not appointees are promoted by those appointees. abjectly non functionally stupidity to the point of thinking denying requests for more security in order to project a desired image is more important than protecting U.S. personnel even a hand picked ambassador. that's a lethal kind of stupid. and it is throughout the entire government now.

Who could exercise enough pressure over the departments responsable so that all Stevens requests for extra security were lost or ignored or simply denied as unnecessary to, and i quote you here " project a desired image".

More security would have made moving what they had to move, be it missiles, arms or suitcase nukes, in secret even more difficult, leading to more questions being asked.

What were the CIA doing or running from the "annex" that was so secret, so important, that the are going to such lengths to cover up.
Simply runnning arms to the rebels?? No, the company arnt bothered about the world knowing that, after Irangate and the Iran/contra deal, they can survive anything. So, what they were doing was something else.