Bengazi Terror Group Operating in Open

[The_Golden_Turd]

topstories.foxnews.mobi/quickPag … pageNum=-1

I know about half of you still think the attack had to do with the bullshit YouTube video…

The terrorist group Obama and Hillary allowed to wipe out the US Embassy in Libya, for hours and hours using machine guns and indirect fire, are openly operating in the port of Bengazi.

Tomorrow, survivors of the assault will be testifying against Hillary and Obama, not only did they do everything in their power to prevent Libyan and American forced from lifting the siege, ppurposely denying several military commands from communicating or sending relief, they repeatedly tried to recall the navy seals who broke orders and went to defend the Embassy. They died in the process, but because of them, some of the Embassy staff survived, and will testify tomorrow.

We’re now stuck between a rock and a hard place. We have a small terrorist network in Libya, and a terrorist network in the whitehouse.

Given the evidence we have now, it would be a act if absolute insanity on our part not to convict Hillary and begin impeachment charges against Obama. Richard Nixon has proven himself 50 times the President in knowing when to step down… Obama went through considerable effort to suppress this information on the left to win reelection. He sacrificed the life of a American Ambassador for political gain.

When your president, you only get one major political fuck up, and he used that chip during The Fast and Furious scandal, where the US aided to the point of directing high power weapons sales, under otherwise illegal circumstances, to Mexican drug gangs, and several murders have already been traced to it.

That was his one allowable massive fuckup.

If I or you purposely redirected military and CIA resources from reacting against an outright assault on a US Embassy, for our political gain, we would be put to death on high treason.

There is no conceivable excuse for this. Was he planning a feint with IMF or some other super secret force the military and special forces were not aware of even existing? Was he negotiating with MI6 to parachute James Bond in? Why not just let the US Military and Libyian Military at the very least put a outer cordon on the siege, with a little suppressive fire till James Bond and Ethan Hunt shows up?

It’s fucking retarded, there is no conceivable excuse for what Obama and Hillary did. It’s impossible to imagine a scenario where this makes sense, given how eager the rest of the government was to respond to this, and Obama’s current smear campaign against the survivors.

Here is the bad part… even if Obama finally grows a conscious and steps down, Biden becomes President. All he has to do to dodge this is to pretend he wasnt aware, playing Atari in the Vice Presidential Mansion or something that night.

In order to save the republic, and to preserve what’s left of respect for the law, charges have to be at least pressed against Hillary, and impeachment begun against the president.

No one should be above the law or public scrutiny.

Realistically, I think Obama will manipulate it so he remains in office. It will be Feburary of 2017 before the US will have a president willing to go after the militia that wiped our Embassy out.

Using the public’s base, ignorant understanding of Islam to cast blame on a peaceful political protest on a fucking joke of a YouTube movie as the basis of a hardcore military operation that managed to take out three Navy Seals in fortified positions is disgusting and absurd.

That stuff isn’t realistically worthy of Jihad, if it was, they would be suicide bombing over having Tony the Tiger on boxes of Frosty Flakes. It’s just deeply fucking sick what he did.

He could of easily of stopped it. No soldier would of hesitated in going in, Libya was willing to send reinforcements… the Embassy should of stood, we could of dropped our whole damn Airborne detachment stationed across the water in Libya in for fucking hell… we do not have a shortage of troops in that area… Obama willfully killed the US Ambassador so he could get elected again.

Fucking sicko.

Tomorrow the whistleblower hearings begin. I hope they lock these two Sith Lords up after it all ends.

And remember, there is no Statue of Limitations on Impeachment, no slick double jeopardy rules. Even if the scumbag wiggles out of impeachment this time, he will be locked up eventually. Fucker killed his own people for political gain. We haven’t had a president this sick… since, shit… yeah, it’s that bad.

[Mr_Reasonable]

Obama willfully killed the ambasador?

[Flannel_Jesus]

@Contra-Nietzsche

If I or you purposely redirected military and CIA resources from reacting against an outright assault on a US Embassy, for our political gain, we would be put to death on high treason.

There is no conceivable excuse for this. Was he planning a feint with IMF or some other super secret force the military and special forces were not aware of even existing? Was he negotiating with MI6 to parachute James Bond in? Why not just let the US Military and Libyian Military at the very least put a outer cordon on the siege, with a little suppressive fire till James Bond and Ethan Hunt shows up?

It’s fucking retarded, there is no conceivable excuse for what Obama and Hillary did. It’s impossible to imagine a scenario where this makes sense, given how eager the rest of the government was to respond to this, and Obama’s current smear campaign against the survivors.

I admittedly don’t know very much about this particular case, but I found what you said here quite strange.
It’s strange, to me, that on the one hand you’re absolutely certain Obama was deliberately responsible, and on the other hand you can’t conceive of an excuse, you can’t imagine a reason for him to do it. For me, if I’m going to be certain that someone plotted some conspiracy, I’m going to need to allow for some conceivable motivation for doing it, right?

Maybe I’m reading what you’re saying incorrectly, but it just seems like you have a slightly contradictory position there, being certain Obama deliberately did X while saying that there was no possible motivation for him to do X. Surely if he did it…he did it because of some conceivable motive. No?

[Mr_Reasonable]

He’s just been indoctrinated with right wing propaganda.

[Flannel_Jesus]

I just think that if we’re going to blame someone for the deaths of other human beings, not only can we not say “there’s no conceivable motive,” we actually have to conceive of a motive. I can’t take such a blame seriously if it’s followed by “there’s no conceivable motive,” not unless the bloody dagger is in the hand of the person being blamed. As that’s not the case here…I think blame is inappropriate without a motive.

[uglypeoplefucking]

It’s a Republican smear campaign, that’s all. They’ve been trying to blame Obama and Hillary for the dead ambassadors since before the election. It’s all politics.

[iambiguous]

Is there anyone here who would argue that Barack and Hillary [along with their Republican colleagues] are not in compliance with the gist of American foreign policy: to procure natural resources, cheap labor and lucrative markets?

Or do some actually believe the gist instead is to further the cause of human freedom, human liberty and human rights.

Just take an in depth look at the Monroe Doctrine as it actually unfolded historically. Look at the autocratic right wing thugs we either put into power or sustained over the decades.

When it comes to American foreign policy, the Democrats and the Republicans are only varying degrees of each other.

And maybe [as the cynics contend] that is the best of all possible worlds. But let’s have no illusions about the point of it.

[Mr_Reasonable]

@uglypeoplefucking

It’s a Republican smear campaign, that’s all. They’ve been trying to blame Obama and Hillary for the dead ambassadors since before the election. It’s all politics.

Without a doubt. It’s like in the last 30 years or something a whole generation has gotten wise to this kind of shit except the republicans continue to insult our intelligence by assuming we’re so easily swayed w/ all this crazy radical talk about how everything in the world is the fault of the people who beat them in the polls.

I suspect it’s all just posturing so that they can get back in there and continue their plan of starving off the nation to line the coffers of their billionaire friends.

My friend says, “they’re all rich! Obama is rich!” I say, compared to Mitt Romney, or Dick Cheney, or the Koch brothers who are the real ones behind all the bad shit, Obama is actually kind of poor.

[uglypeoplefucking]

@iambiguous

Is there anyone here who would argue that Barack and Hillary [along with their Republican colleagues] are not in compliance with the gist of American foreign policy: to procure natural resources, cheap labor and lucrative markets?

Or do some actually believe the gist instead is to further the cause of human freedom, human liberty and human rights.

Just take an in depth look at the Monroe Doctrine as it actually unfolded historically. Look at the autocratic right wing thugs we either put into power or sustained over the decades.

When it comes to American foreign policy, the Democrats and the Republicans are only varying degrees of each other.

And maybe [as the cynics contend] that is the best of all possible worlds. But let’s have no illusions about the point of it.

i wasn’t defending the gist of American foreign policy, which you correctly characterize, but i think there are in fact substantial differences between Democratic and Republican versions of it. Who is in power makes an important difference as to how we interact with and engage the rest of the world. The war in Iraq would not have happened had Al Gore been president, just to take a simple example. Meanwhile, how we interact with and engage the rest of the world can and often does have a significant impact on human freedom, human liberty and human rights elsewhere, despite the fact that, as you say, promoting such lofty ideals is not actually essential to US foreign policy.

[uglypeoplefucking]

@Smears

@uglypeoplefucking

It’s a Republican smear campaign, that’s all. They’ve been trying to blame Obama and Hillary for the dead ambassadors since before the election. It’s all politics.

Without a doubt. It’s like in the last 30 years or something a whole generation has gotten wise to this kind of shit except the republicans continue to insult our intelligence by assuming we’re so easily swayed w/ all this crazy radical talk about how everything in the world is the fault of the people who beat them in the polls.

i think a lot of people are in fact easily swayed into believing this kind of shit, they simply have to be predisposed to hate the people being smeared, much like the Republicans’ hatred for Obama and Hillary.

I suspect it’s all just posturing so that they can get back in there and continue their plan of starving off the nation to line the coffers of their billionaire friends.

My friend says, “they’re all rich! Obama is rich!” I say, compared to Mitt Romney, or Dick Cheney, or the Koch brothers who are the real ones behind all the bad shit, Obama is actually kind of poor.

Often overlooked, but true.

[iambiguous]

@uglypeoplefucking

I wasn’t defending the gist of American foreign policy, which you correctly characterize, but i think there are in fact substantial differences between Democratic and Republican versions of it. Who is in power makes an important difference as to how we interact with and engage the rest of the world. The war in Iraq would not have happened had Al Gore been president, just to take a simple example. Meanwhile, how we interact with and engage the rest of the world can and often does have a significant impact on human freedom, human liberty and human rights elsewhere, despite the fact that, as you say, promoting such lofty ideals is not actually essential to US foreign policy.

Probably true. Good points.

But when it comes to people, complexity [dasein] is the rule. Still, if the whole point of a foreign policy revolves fundamentally around capitalism, the military industrial complex and the war economy, one way or the other, the Commander in Chief will toe the bottom line. Or he/she won’t be selected to be elected.

The crucial point [for me] is that the differences are in degree [and revolve largely around politics] and not in some opposing moral philosophy about Good and Evil.

At least that’s what history seems to indicate so far. Or does to me.

And let’s face it, if you embrace some variant of capitalism, human freedom always revolves around that. And if some variant of socialism, it revolves around this instead.

[uglypeoplefucking]

@iambiguous

But when it comes to people, complexity [dasein] is the rule. Still, if the whole point of a foreign policy revolves fundamentally around capitalism, the military industrial complex and the war economy, one way or the other, the Commander in Chief will toe the bottom line. Or he/she won’t be selected to be elected.

The crucial point [for me] is that the differences are in degree [and revolve largely around politics] and not in some opposing moral philosophy about Good and Evil.

At least that’s what history seems to indicate so far. Or does to me.

Sure, agreed.

And let’s face it, if you embrace some variant of capitalism, human freedom always revolves around that. And if some variant of socialism, it revolves around this instead.

i’m not sure what it means to say that human freedom revolves around a political ideology - Do you mean that to the capitalist, capitalism epitomizes true freedom, whereas to the socialist, only socialism will do the same?

[iambiguous]

@uglypeoplefucking

i’m not sure what it means to say that human freedom revolves around a political ideology - Do you mean that to the capitalist, capitalism epitomizes true freedom, whereas to the socialist, only socialism will do the same?

I think the focus here is always on either “I” or “we”. Capitalism tends to stress individuals interacting freely in and around the marketplace. The emphasis is always on individual liberty.

Meanwhile socialism tends to stress “the people” [acting together as a community] planning just and equitable social interactions that revolve around the idea of “one for all and all for one”.

Here of course the government will play a crucial role. At least until the state “disappears”.

In reality, human interactions “out in the world” are often considerably more complex. Where exactly does “we” end and “I” begin? And what particular historical and cultural juncture are we talking about? And where does any particular individual fit into this interplay of existential variables?

And then there is always the question of political and economic power. Realpolitik or whatever you want to call it.

Also, within the Republican ranks is the conflict between those who start with one or another rendition of God and those who start with one or another rendition of Ayn Rand. And Democrats are equally at variance regarding what exactly “social democracy” or “democratic socialism” means.

[Uccisore]

@Contra-Nietzsche

http://topstories.foxnews.mobi/quickPage.html?page=17224&content=92762851&pageNum=-1

I know about half of you still think the attack had to do with the bullshit YouTube video…

How can that be possible when the people who originally blamed the YouTube video don’t believe it themselves anymore, and would apparently give ANYTHING to be able to convincingly deny ever having said it?

[Moreno]

@uglypeoplefucking

The war in Iraq would not have happened had Al Gore been president, just to take a simple example.

here’s a not at all rabid argument that this is not necessarily or even likely the case…

salon.com/2011/08/30/gore_president_iraq/

And also note that Gore was one of the few democrats who voted and vocally supported the first Iraq war. Politicians position themselves in to distinguish themselves from their opponents, but this does not mean so much.

[uglypeoplefucking]

@iambiguous

I think the focus here is always on either “I” or “we”. Capitalism tends to stress individuals interacting freely in and around the marketplace. The emphasis is always on individual liberty.

Meanwhile socialism tends to stress “the people” [acting together as a community] planning just and equitable social interactions that revolve around the idea of “one for all and all for one”.

Here of course the government will play a crucial role. At least until the state “disappears”.

Something like that, yes. It’s the “I” vs the “we” for too many people, who for one reason or another won’t acknowledge that “I” and “we” are NOT in fact distinct. Neither capitalism nor socialism (nor any other ism) can ever exist in both pure and functional form. Any system that works will ultimately have to combine elements of both. This has all been said before, but people still insist on pitting them against each other - one or the other, and all or nothing.

In reality, human interactions “out in the world” are often considerably more complex. Where exactly does “we” end and “I” begin? And what particular historical and cultural juncture are we talking about? And where does any particular individual fit into this interplay of existential variables?

Yeah, the system by which human interactions are arranged and organized is more complex than either pure capitalists or pure socialists are ever willing to acknowledge, and that complexity is probably ultimately a good thing.

And then there is always the question of political and economic power. Realpolitik or whatever you want to call it.

i’m not even sure that’s a seperate question. Ideological struggles are power struggles too.

Also, within the Republican ranks is the conflict between those who start with one or another rendition of God and those who start with one or another rendition of Ayn Rand. And Democrats are equally at variance regarding what exactly “social democracy” or “democratic socialism” means.

Sure, that’s what happens when you try to cram everyone’s belief systems into either one of only two categories.

[uglypeoplefucking]

@Moreno

@uglypeoplefucking

The war in Iraq would not have happened had Al Gore been president, just to take a simple example.

here’s a not at all rabid argument that this is not necessarily or even likely the case…

salon.com/2011/08/30/gore_president_iraq/

And also note that Gore was one of the few democrats who voted and vocally supported the first Iraq war. Politicians position themselves in to distinguish themselves from their opponents, but this does not mean so much.

The basic argument seems to revolve around the assertion that it was the public that wanted the war most of all, so it would have happened anyway. That’s interesting speculation, but the war in Iraq was hardly a public grass-roots effort. It started with the neocons, who had to launch a full scale media onslaught (including the creation of FOX News) in order to get the public on board. Additionally, the president had to invest literally ALL of his political capital into getting the war off the ground. i’m not sure Gore would have done that, even if he was ostensibly hawkish relative to other Democrats - he was chasing a different set of political ambitions. Granted, i don’t think anyone can be sure. But recall that the public cries for war were anything but unanimous. There was a fairly large and vociferous opposition to war, in fact the country was pretty bitterly divided. Even in a post-9/11 world, President Gore would have represented a different constituency than President Bush, and that constituency would have not been shouting for war the way the Oreilly / Rumsfeld camp was, in fact it would have been shouting the opposite in response to it’s neocon political opponents.