This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Why Did CIA Director Petraeus Suddenly Resign … And Why Was the U.S. Ambassador to Libya Murdered?

George Washington's picture





 

The Deeper Questions Behind the Ambassador’s Murder … and the CIA Boss’ Sudden Resignation

While the GOP is attacking (and Dems defending) the Obama administration in connection with the murder of the U.S. ambassador to Libya, there is a deeper story.

Sure, it is stunning that the State Department never requested backup or that people such as Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer allege that President Obama personally watched in real time the attacks as they occurred via video feeds from drones flying over the Benghazi consulate.

But these claims only can be assessed – and the whole confusing mess only makes sense – if the deeper underlying story is first exposed.

Many Syrian Terrorists Come from Libya

The U.S. supported opposition which overthrew Libya’s Gadaffi was largely comprised of Al Qaeda terrorists.

According to a 2007 report by West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center’s center, the Libyan city of Benghazi was one of Al Qaeda’s main headquarters – and bases for sending Al Qaeda fighters into Iraq – prior to the overthrow of Gaddafi:
WestPoint 1 LibyaAQvsAS Why Did CIA Director Petraeus Suddenly Resign ... And Why Was the U.S. Ambassador to Libya Murdered?
Al Qaeda is now largely in control of Libya.  Indeed, Al Qaeda flags were flown over the Benghazi courthouse once Gaddafi was toppled.

(Incidentally, Gaddafi was on the verge of invading Benghazi in 2011, 4 years after the West Point report cited Benghazi as a hotbed of Al Qaeda terrorists. Gaddafi claimed – rightly it turns out – that Benghazi was an Al Qaeda stronghold and a main source of the Libyan rebellion.  But NATO planes stopped him, and protected Benghazi.)

CNN, the Telegraph,  the Washington Times, and many other mainstream sources confirm that Al Qaeda terrorists from Libya have since flooded into Syria to fight the Assad regime.

Mainstream sources also confirm that the Syrian opposition is largely comprised of Al Qaeda terrorists.  See this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this.

The U.S. has been arming the Syrian opposition since 2006. The post-Gaddafi Libyan government is also itself a top funder and arms supplier of the Syrian opposition.

The Real Story At Benghazi

This brings us to the murder of ambassador Stevens and the sudden resignation of CIA boss David Petraeus.

The Wall Street Journal, Telegraph and other sources confirm that the US consulate in Benghazi was mainly being used for a secret CIA operation.

They say that the State Department presence in Benghazi “provided diplomatic cover” for the previously hidden CIA mission.

Reuters notes that the CIA mission involved finding and repurchasing heavy weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals.

Business Insider reports that Stevens may have been linked with Syrian terrorists:

There’s growing evidence that U.S. agents—particularly murdered ambassador Chris Stevens—were at least aware of heavy weapons moving from Libya to jihadist Syrian rebels.

 

In March 2011 Stevens became the official U.S. liaison to the al-Qaeda-linked Libyan opposition, working directly with Abdelhakim Belhadj of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group—a group that has now disbanded, with some fighters reportedly participating in the attack that took Stevens’ life.

 

In November 2011 The Telegraph reported that Belhadj, acting as head of the Tripoli Military Council, “met with Free Syrian Army [FSA] leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey” in an effort by the new Libyan government to provide money and weapons to the growing insurgency in Syria.

 

Last month The Times of London reported that a Libyan ship “carrying the largest consignment of weapons for Syria … has docked in Turkey.” The shipment reportedly weighed 400 tons and included SA-7 surface-to-air anti-craft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades.

 

***

 

Reuters reports that Syrian rebels have been using those heavy weapons to shoot down Syrian helicopters and fighter jets.

 

The ship’s captain was ”a Libyan from Benghazi and the head of an organization called the Libyan National Council for Relief and Support,” which was presumably established by the new government.

 

That means that Ambassador Stevens had only one person—Belhadj—between himself and the Benghazi man who brought heavy weapons to Syria.

 

Furthermore, we know that jihadists are the best fighters in the Syrian opposition, but where did they come from?

 

Last week The Telegraph reported that a FSA commander called them “Libyans” when he explained that the FSA doesn’t “want these extremist people here.”

 

And if the new Libyan government was sending seasoned Islamic fighters and 400 tons of heavy weapons to Syria through a port in southern Turkey—a deal brokered by Stevens’ primary Libyan contact during the Libyan revolution—then the governments of Turkey and the U.S. surely knew about it.

 

Furthermore there was a CIA post in Benghazi, located 1.2 miles from the U.S. consulate, used as “a base for, among other things, collecting information on the proliferation of weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals, including surface-to-air missiles” … and that its security features “were more advanced than those at rented villa where Stevens died.”

And we know that the CIA has been funneling weapons to the rebels in southern Turkey. The question is whether the CIA has been involved in handing out the heavy weapons from Libya.

In other words, ambassador Stevens may have been a key player in deploying Libyan terrorists and arms to fight the Syrian government.

Other sources also claim that the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was mainly being used as a CIA operation to ship fighters and arms to Syria.

Many have speculated that – if normal security measures weren’t taken to protect the Benghazi consulate or to rescue ambassador Stevens – it was  because the CIA was trying to keep an extremely low profile to protect its cover of being a normal State Department operation.

Why Did CIA Chief David Petraeus Suddenly Resign?

CIA boss David Petraeus suddenly resigned, admitting to an affair.  This could be the real explanation, given that affairs of high-level intelligence chiefs could compromise national security.

But the timing of Petraeus’ resignation becomes more interesting once one learns that that he was scheduled to testify under oath next week before power House and Senate committees regarding the Benghazi consulate.

Many speculate that it wasn’t an affair – but the desire to avoid testifying on Benghazi – which was the real reason for Petraeus’ sudden resignation.

The Big Picture

Whatever the scope of the CIA’s operation in Benghazi – and whatever the real reason for the resignation of the CIA chief – the key is our historical and ongoing foreign policy.

For decades, the U.S. has backed terrorists for geopolitical ends.

The U.S. government has been consistently planning regime change in Syria and Libya for 20 years, and dreamed of regime change – using false flag terror – for 50 years.

Obama has simply re-packaged Bush and the Neocons’ “war on terror” as a series of humanitarian wars.

And the U.S. and its allies will do anything to topple Iran … and is systematically attempting to pull the legs out from Iran’s allies as a way to isolate and weaken that country.

Americans should ask ourselves if that’s what we want …

 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sun, 11/11/2012 - 10:58 | Link to Comment Pinky
Pinky's picture

 . . . and over in the cheap seats we are shocked, *shocked* that the CIA isn't transparent. <rolleye>

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 09:53 | Link to Comment Volaille de Bresse
Volaille de Bresse's picture

"I will live and die among mine own in New England. Good luck to you and yours.

Rootless cosmopolitans are a problem, not a solution"

 

Yours is a recipe for inbreeding, right?

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 09:41 | Link to Comment mendolover
mendolover's picture

So now it's looking like the whole thing got kicked off with a cat fight?  Was that a set up too?  My sympathies to Mrs Petraus and the family.  It looks like she is a plain ol' mom and house wife who married a shooting star and couldn't care less about her image.  I've seen these women before.  I guarantee he can't depend on Paula like he could depend on his wife.  Take him to the cleaners Holly!

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 09:37 | Link to Comment Withdrawn Sanction
Withdrawn Sanction's picture

Obama has simply re-packaged Bush and the Neocons’ “war on terror” as a series of humanitarian wars.

"Humanitarian War?"  That's rich, even for these mentally challenged folks.  A bit like "nutritious poison."  

Meet the new boss, same as...

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 10:45 | Link to Comment Mad Mad Woman
Mad Mad Woman's picture

"Humanitarian wars" is an oxymoron promoted by morons & neocons. Oh wait, neocons are morons. 

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 09:35 | Link to Comment Translator
Translator's picture

Obama and Romney are both "exactly the same"   I read that here......

 

 

So why does it matter?

 

 

Fucking Ron Paul voting Morons are dumber than knee grows

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 08:49 | Link to Comment Peter Pan
Peter Pan's picture

I must admit that the details, theories, timelines, groups and personalities involved leave me a little confused, so I am going to stick to my long held view that this whole mess is only about profit by the military/industrial complex and whoever is financing them.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 08:59 | Link to Comment Gully Foyle
Gully Foyle's picture

Can't have it both ways with Al Qaeda

They can't be a small now disorganized CIA funded group, basically a database as some claim, and a serious well organized group of fighters.

And that is the problem with these terrorist conspiracy articles, one week they argue that AQ is an illusion then the next AQ is an extremely powerful organization.

Conspiracy articles are designed to titillate with no real facts and lot's of feedback for the already scared.

I read WRH and RENSE and Jones. The majority of stories are not much different than the world being controlled by alien reptilians who worship Cthulu.

Face it if anyone had real provable facts these fictions would be all over the news somewhere. It isn't like the world media is controlled as some claim the US is.

Still the poor deluded dupes get all wet and run to grab their nearest gun to fondle when perusing these tales of terror.

 

 

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 02:32 | Link to Comment Joseph Jones
Joseph Jones's picture

Thanks for setting us all straight!  Especially with all them facts and such!   

(sarc off)

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 08:39 | Link to Comment lakecity55
lakecity55's picture

The City of London controls all finance in the West. With brief exceptions (Andrew Jackson) the US has been an economic colony of GB altho political independence was secured during the revolution.

The leading "13 Families" (The City) wish to control World Finance.

Any threats to this system are dispatched (Kaddafi switching to gold for oil).

In order to disrupt China and Russia, you must first create war between the islamic factions, resulting in instability as your enemies fight each other and spread the instability into the Sino-Russian theatre.

If you can take out Iran, you control vast reserves of oil needed by China and use your muslim army to continue to destabilize China.

Of course, you risk World War, but you are safe in your bunker. Who knows? You might win.

Once you have achieved world economic hedgemony, you institute a scientific totalitarian state.

You have now won the Great Game.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 10:50 | Link to Comment Mad Mad Woman
Mad Mad Woman's picture

lakecity55, you are absolutely correct. The rich & powerful who control the puppet strings will never realize their dream, it will all come crumbling down before that & they will be destroyed. Hopi Prophecies have said this. The people will ultimately win, but it will be a bloody battle & many will lose their lives for the cause. It's coming soon.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 09:18 | Link to Comment Vooter
Vooter's picture

"You have now won the Great Game."

And then you die. Who gives a shit?

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 09:12 | Link to Comment Crassus
Crassus's picture

"Queen Anne commands and we'll obey.

And go over hills and far away."

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 08:47 | Link to Comment Dr. Sandi
Dr. Sandi's picture

Same as it ever was.

Nothing has changed in about umpteen years. As we get older, the scales may fall from our eyes. But it is only our view that has changed, not the picture itself.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 09:02 | Link to Comment Gully Foyle
Gully Foyle's picture

Dr. Sandi

Yes, something has changed.

People are far more stupid and will fall for the least likley fictions as long as they appear on ZH, WRH, RENSE and JONES.

Ever wonder why Ron Paul remains a Republican even though they treat him shitty? Even Gores VP went Indy when he was treated like crap. Still in office too.

Is he really above all that, or simply a Republican tool to draw the fringe like a magnet?


Sun, 11/11/2012 - 08:52 | Link to Comment lakecity55
lakecity55's picture

+1.

Good vs. Evil.

It's an old, old story.

It is best for each individual to strive to keep his shop and streetfront clean.

You have no control over anything else.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 09:04 | Link to Comment Gully Foyle
Gully Foyle's picture

lakecity55

Black and White dichotomies are for the simple minded.

People who can't grasp the complexity of the world are doomed to a simple linear existence.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 18:00 | Link to Comment Jake88
Jake88's picture

Varying shades of grey to jet black can be discerned by anyone who wants to be responsible.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 07:08 | Link to Comment Money 4 Nothing
Money 4 Nothing's picture

This is more like it > http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/is-this-why-cia-chief-really-resigned/

Sums up pretty much what everyone is saying here.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 07:52 | Link to Comment falak pema
falak pema's picture

If this allegation is true :

Pseudo nation building in Syria at its worst. No wonder Russia and CHina are furious at this whole Syrian, artificially concocted scam.

To strengthen Saud-Israel pillars around oil patch and weaken its enemy structures in SYria, Iran, after having taken out Q-daffy Libya.

And if, as some posts imply, the Benghazi ambassador caper was a hollywood scenario job, it makes it even more cynical and paranoid to the point of becoming alarming.

The CIA spiel seems to be : if we could take out Bin Laden in Paki, we can manage a release Stevens scenario that we control in Libya thru surrogates, like a reverse Bin Laden operation. This time we save our good ambassador...not take out the bad guy.

Hubris beyond limits; even the guy who made Titanic movie would be impressed out of his shoes! 

That empty chair Eastwood pointed to takes on an ominous significance, when it was occupied for operation Benghazi caper! 

As somebody very aptly remarked in relation to Nixon scam of Watergate : at least nobody got killed then...

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 11:26 | Link to Comment New_Meat
New_Meat's picture

"... it makes it even more cynical and paranoid to the point of becoming alarming."

Yes, be alarmed. Paranoids can have enemies you know.

Dang.

- Ned

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 06:29 | Link to Comment Volaille de Bresse
Volaille de Bresse's picture

"Reports are that the Ambassador was sodomized by his captors"

 

Oh really? I bet he asked for it... He thought : "what a nice way to go..."

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 08:36 | Link to Comment Arthur Borges
Arthur Borges's picture

Reports say Qaddafi was sodomized with a knife; no details I know of about Stevens. Sorry, I wouldn't wish that on anyone against their will. I clicked in the first "Dislike" on your post, I'm afraid. I'd give you three or four if I could, too.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 06:01 | Link to Comment BeetleBailey
BeetleBailey's picture

Great piece Georgie....knew you'd get on this. Keep up the great work!

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 01:25 | Link to Comment Bawneee Fwank
Bawneee Fwank's picture

This needs to be added to this post...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/robbins-report/2012/oct/28/general-l...

Obama Administration Replaces Top Generals Following Benghazi Disaster

General Carter Ham

The latest rumor making the rounds is that Barack Obama replaced General Carter Ham at AFRICOM after the general made a move to help the US security officials at the Benghazi consulate and annex. Ham was replaced by Gen. David Rodriquez on October 18.
Tiger Droppings reported:

The information I heard today was that General [Carter] Ham as head of Africom received the same e-mails the White House received requesting help/support as the attack was taking place. General Ham immediately had a rapid response unit ready and communicated to the Pentagon that he had a unit ready.

General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was to screw it, he was going to help anyhow. Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command.

The story continues that now General Rodiguez would take General Ham’s place as the head of Africom.

Sure enough Obama nominated Gen. David Rodriguez to replace Gen. Carter Ham as commander of U.S. Africa Command.
The Stars and Stripes reported:

President Barack Obama will nominate Army Gen. David Rodriguez to succeed Gen. Carter Ham as commander of U.S. Africa Command and Marine Lt. Gen. John Paxton to succeed Gen. Joseph Dunford as assistant commandant of the Marine Corps, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced Thursday.

Both appointments must be confirmed by the Senate.

Rodriguez is the commander of U.S. Army Forces Command and has served in a “variety of key leadership roles on the battlefield,” Panetta said.

He’s “a proven leader” who oversaw coalition and Afghan forces during the surge in Afghanistan, and “was the key architect of the successful campaign plan that we are now implementing,” Panetta said.

In announcing Ham’s successor, Panetta also praised the work Ham has done with Africa Command.

“Gen. Ham has really brought AFRICOM into a very pivotal role in that challenging region,” Panetta said. “I and the nation are deeply grateful for his outstanding service.”

Hat Tip Tom

More…
The Obama Administration also relieved the admiral in command of an aircraft carrier strike group in the Middle East, Rear Adm. Charles M. Gaouette. It is highly unusual for the Navy to replace a carrier strike group commander during its deployment.
The Stars and Stripes reported:

The Navy said Saturday it is replacing the admiral in command of an aircraft carrier strike group in the Middle East, pending the outcome of an internal investigation into undisclosed allegations of inappropriate judgment.

Rear Adm. Charles M. Gaouette is being sent back to the USS John C. Stennis’ home port at Bremerton, Wash., in what the Navy called a temporary reassignment. The Navy said he is not formally relieved of his command of the Stennis strike group but will be replaced by Rear Adm. Troy M. Shoemaker, who will assume command until the investigation is completed.

It is highly unusual for the Navy to replace a carrier strike group commander during its deployment.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 08:38 | Link to Comment Arthur Borges
Arthur Borges's picture

Pres. Putin is doing a shake-up of his top military folks right now too.

Funny that.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 02:21 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

this was linked by someone earlier, I'll include it to add to your posting,

Just before the election, Vice Admiral Gaoulette was “perp walked” off the deck of the USS Stennis, 20 miles off the coast of Iran.  Goulette was commander of nearly a third of the naval forces in the Persian Gulf.

Goulette has neither been seen nor heard from since his removal from the region under force for “unfitness for command.”

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/11/09/petraeus-resigns-mccain-celebrat...

thanks.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 05:56 | Link to Comment Middle_Finger_Market
Middle_Finger_Market's picture

So what are you saying...? They are replacing men with military morales with men that have none, for what benefit. I am connecting the dots but all I can see is a shape that looks similar to the borders of Iran...

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 11:29 | Link to Comment DeadFred
DeadFred's picture

Benghazi was an October surprise gone bad. That's the rumor I've read that explains a lot. The attackers were supposed to kidnap the ambassador who would then be rescued by the skilled negotitions of our Kenyan head-statesman. Applause all around and relelection with a new mandate. The problem was that the minions followed honor not orders. The small marine contingient that defended the embassy had been ordered not to engage but did so anyway. The frustrated kidnappers ulltimately said "F_ this" and killed them instead.

The facts/rumors that fit well with this theory:

-Obama watched the attack live but did nothing

-Ham was ordered to stand down and relieved of duty on the spot when he started to disobey those orders.

-Petraeus resigns

Watch to see how the Petaeus marriage fares. My bets are the wife will 'forgive' him and they fade away from sight and MSM attention. This won't be National Inquierer news for long. Otherwise the couple may be disappeared.

If this theory has any credibility Obama is now in charge of a seriously unhappy military. Over the last six months I've had conversations with four people in intelligence positions and three have been highly unhappy with the current leadership. The fourth was unhappy but believed that in the military FUBAR is SOP. I haven't been able to find a connection between the Stennis change in command and Benghazigate but I'm always happy to conjure one.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 23:27 | Link to Comment Jena
Jena's picture

DeadFred:  I had a thought that maybe the General and Mrs. decided together that enough was enough but how to get out?  Resigning would raise questions, especially around the election and even more given the damned Benghazi fuck-up.  How about claiming an affair with the reasonably hot biographer, with whom the general spent plenty of time?  (That title is unfortunate in retrospect.)  

Even better if it was Mrs. Petraeus' idea.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 18:07 | Link to Comment Jake88
Jake88's picture

Petraeus might have a canoeing accident.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 11:15 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

Cult of personality...check.

Officer purges...check.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 15:57 | Link to Comment Bawneee Fwank
Sun, 11/11/2012 - 11:22 | Link to Comment overmedicatedun...
overmedicatedundersexed's picture

ever wonder why the homo's and lesbians should be in today's military and now out in the open?? well who do they remain loyal to and replacing the old strait men results in the neutering of opposition to the ruling elite..naw it's just the right thing to do ...

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 08:44 | Link to Comment Arthur Borges
Arthur Borges's picture

Elementary, Dear MFM: War is the extension of politics by other means, as Col. von Clausewitz put it.

In China, it's a dyadic set of checks and balances: the military vs. emperor + civil service but Out West, Clausewitz rules and a civilian is the C-in-C with the military out of the checks/balances loop, which may be a shame. 

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 01:06 | Link to Comment walcott
walcott's picture


Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4_9kDO3q0w&feature=related

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 00:56 | Link to Comment walcott
Sun, 11/11/2012 - 00:50 | Link to Comment walcott
walcott's picture


Fast Times At Ridgemont High Pool Scene Phoebe Cates

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbHth5ErTs8

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 00:44 | Link to Comment walcott
walcott's picture

 


The true meaning of temptation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjio-F47IfM

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 00:48 | Link to Comment walcott
walcott's picture

 


Monty Python, Ritual Idioting

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVzt2HSvUis&feature=fvwrel

 

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 00:19 | Link to Comment Mark Noonan
Mark Noonan's picture

To say what is going on over there is "unclear" is to massively understate the issue - this isn't just the normal fog of war:  there is just no explanation which can be offered at the moment which covers all the known facts.  There is a chance that no one really knows what the heck is going on and various departments of the US government as well as various factions in Libya are all working at cross-purposes and/or double- and triple-crossing each other as things shift day to day.  Take, for instance, the theory that we were shipping Libyan arms to Syria - could be true and there could even be some sense in it:  the old Libyan regime stockpiled massive amounts of weapons and better to have them collected and then expended than just lying around to find their way in to the black market - and with a Syrian civil war convenient to hand, that is an excellent way to dispose of them (provided, of course, that you are in some sense an amoral bastard who doesn't care about people being killed).  But who in heck really knows?  Even if we can demonstrate conclusively that Libyan arms have wound up in Syria we can't tell if it was with our cooperation or done in spite of us...that, say, we had worked out a deal for the Turks to dispose of them and they sent them across the border in to Syria (or that something like this would be a cover story and wink/wink, nudge/nudge to the Turks as they arm the Syrian rebels).

This is why shortly after the Benghazi incident I advocated for a massive pullout from the region.  Whatever we might have wished to do in the area, its all gone wrong.  Whether they all hate us or its just a tiny minority hating us is immaterial - enough of them hate us to cause trouble at a moment's notice.  Get out; get all our troops out; get almost all our diplomats out; move our consulates to the coasts in easily defensible locations open to easy evacuation by helicopter; no more money to them; only food and medical aid and that delivered by non-American third parties. 

This won't solve our problem - knowing as I do the history of Islam's relentless war against the West, no matter what we do they will attack us.  But if we're not there then we leave no easy targets and if the do attack us again at home then it will be clearly our moral right to drop on them like a ton of bricks.  But, get out - get out, now!

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 04:07 | Link to Comment andrewp111
andrewp111's picture

If we pull out, we have to do something to put those Islamic vermin down for good. Directed asteroid strike, anyone?

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 01:59 | Link to Comment blindman
blindman's picture

@ "..This won't solve our problem - knowing as I do the history of Islam's relentless war against the West, no matter what we do they will attack us." ...
if this is not the most outrageous lie and misrepresentation of fact and history i am at a loss
to know what is the most outrageous lie and misrepresentation of history ever stated.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 12:55 | Link to Comment Mark Noonan
Mark Noonan's picture

How is it a misrepresentation?  You tell me:  when was the first time people of Islam and people of the West met in armed conflict.  Islam started in Arabia and, at various times, was fighting at Tours in France and at the gates of Vienna.  What was the Western provocation which led to all these wars.  Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria and Morrocco used to be Christian lands - how did they become Muslim lands?

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 20:22 | Link to Comment blindman
blindman's picture

lands are lands, they do not self identify
in terms of mythological orientation.
best to you !

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 14:46 | Link to Comment JR
JR's picture

We should get out first, if I hear you correctly, and then go bomb them?

Mark: be fair and preface all your analyses with the disclosure: I am a supporter of Israel; I consider Iran and all Muslims a threat to the US; I would consider engaging World War III for the benefit of Israel.

Here is a rebuttal to some of your former war "Options" suggested on ZH. Perhaps you could use it as a disclaimer:

As to Option 1, clearly Iran poses no threat to the United States.

As to Option 2, there is nothing to be gained with Option #2 since removing a threat to the United States that doesn’t exist does not have a positive solution. You assume we are going to take a risk of engaging WW III, with widespread disruption of petroleum resources and initiating decades of catastrophic relations with the people of the world for the benefit of an ally (Israel).

As to Option 3, your “lunatic scenario” suggests you support Option 2, World War founght by Americans for the benefit of an ally (Israel).

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 17:19 | Link to Comment Mark Noonan
Mark Noonan's picture

JR,

No, we should get out because there's nothing we can do there right now.  As I stated, doesn't matter if its a tiny minority or a huge majority hating us:  enough of them hate us with enough passion to cause us no end of trouble.  But I know Islam - I know its history; I know where it comes from, what it believes and what the goals of the Islamists are.  I know that even if we pulled out every last American from the area and forbade any Americans from visiting, the Islamists would still attack us because of what we are.  You must understand them - to the thoroughgoing Islamist, the world belongs to Muslim.  No non-Muslim must ever have any power at all, anywhere.  If there was only a single Muslim in the United States then the Islamists believe that the Muslim should be in charge because they believe that God has decreed it so. 

They attacked us (entirely unprovoked) when we were deeply Christian.  They attacked us (entirely unprovoked) when we ceased to be deeply Christian.  They attack us because we're not Muslim.  Period.  So, they will attack us, here in the United States, again.  When they do then we'd be fully justified in responding - and just maybe we'll understand that the conflict between Islam and th West is a battle to the death.  Eventually, one or the other has to go.

But that is also something that we can't really do anything about - in the meanwhile, I want us out of the shooting gallery.  We've got other fish to fry at the moment.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 03:27 | Link to Comment Boxed Merlot
Boxed Merlot's picture

We've got other fish to fry at the moment...

Agreed.

Let the limousine democrats take their ill-gotten gains, defective US real estate “deeds” and pseudo jewism back to Israel and fight their own war in the “land of Canaan”.  No “Jew” alive today can trace their lineage back to Jacob, nor “Muslim” to Abraham, so this whole business of war, deceit, envy and temporarily controlling others by way of compulsion and historical “right” is infantile, beastly and thankfully fleeting in the grand scheme of things anyway.

 

Jmo.   

 

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 20:15 | Link to Comment blindman
blindman's picture

she said "you squeeze the fruit, you get the juice."
.
you know the fruit by the juice as you know the tree
by the fruit. it applies to everything and everyone
and every organization of things and ones, people.
that is all.

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 17:57 | Link to Comment JR
JR's picture

There are two errant points in your answer. One, Islam does not hate us because of what we are; they hate us because they were…yes, provoked! We have been in their countries, if not militarily, then with CIA operatives and economic hit men and all the rest.

Point Two: the control-obsession and step-by-step campaign of ethnic attack is true but not for Muslims, it’s true for Jews. Or, let me put it this way, I know the Jews.

It was the Bolsheviks who killed 65 million innocents in Russia; it was the Jews in post-WWII America that set up Mao in China who killed, mainly by intentional starvation, 65 million Chinese. It was the Likud party, an offshoot of the Irgun and Stern gangs, that dispersed 700,000 Palestinians from their land and has massacred the Palestinians ad nauseam since 1947 and keeps them imprisoned in a fenced concentration camp monitored by a Joystick murder-operation called Spot and Shoot, that is the antagonistic element opposed to any agreement that would allow the establishment of an independent and democratic Palestinian state.

It is the Jews that rejected the Oslo peace agreement.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!