Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Steven's knew too much. And an opportunity presented itself to have him taken out with "plausible" deniability.
We'll see how long that remains plausible.
Taken out by whom is the question. Any random guesses?
It's not that he was "taken out". It's more that he might have been angry about the situation. Stevens seems like a "true believer" and was really happy about Libyan independence.
Glenn Beck may have gotten one thing right. That the CIA wanted Libya for a different reason. A honeypot for terrorists. Which was part of the reason for the Iraqi invasion. Except this time..they were doing it on the sneak.
Shooting fish in a barrel as it were.
And Stevens may have left the reservation over that. He wasn't "taken out" but he was probably in the wrong place at the wrong time for the "right" reasons.
Just kidding
Taken out by whom is the question. Any random guesses?
It's not that he was "taken out". It's more that he might have been angry about the situation. Stevens seems like a "true believer" and was really happy about Libyan independence.
Glenn Beck may have gotten one thing right. That the CIA wanted Libya for a different reason. A honeypot for terrorists. Which was part of the reason for the Iraqi invasion. Except this time..they were doing it on the sneak.
Shooting fish in a barrel as it were.
And Stevens may have left the reservation over that. He wasn't "taken out" but he was probably in the wrong place at the wrong time for the "right" reasons.
Damn, you're an annoying bastard!
So Stevens was taken out by one of his own? Only conclusion that makes sense. (I am assuming you googled all of this.)
There is still the whole question of what happen the 12th and beyond.
It's not that he was "taken out". It's more that he might have been angry about the situation. Stevens seems like a "true believer" and was really happy about Libyan independence.
Glenn Beck may have gotten one thing right. That the CIA wanted Libya for a different reason. A honeypot for terrorists. Which was part of the reason for the Iraqi invasion. Except this time..they were doing it on the sneak.
Shooting fish in a barrel as it were.
And Stevens may have left the reservation over that. He wasn't "taken out" but he was probably in the wrong place at the wrong time for the "right" reasons.
Damn, you're an annoying bastard!
So Stevens was taken out by one of his own? Only conclusion that makes sense. (I am assuming you googled all of this.)
There is still the whole question of what happen the 12th and beyond.
Not really sure about that..to be honest.
It's plausible.
It's this:
No one is going to touch that.
I have heard the prison break theory also but it does not seem to fit. If there were prisoners I doubt they would be kept at such a building. Have you looked at the size and shape of the actual building?
The ambassador was only stopping by for a day or two and otherwise practically no one would be there. Definitely not enough to guard high value prisoners.
I think what is most suspect is that the attackers had so much intel. They knew the when, where, what, why and how of it. Who the fuck were these people? Is this the level of a state run operation and if so which state? And most important question is, "where are they right now?"
It fits fine.
The fact there is even mention of a "CIA Annex" fits fine as well.
And it goes along with Obama's aggressive policy of cloak and dagger ops against Al Qaeda.
In terms of diplomacy? This is a huge clusterfuck.
That's why no one wants to touch it.
Republicans are probably going to back off soon. But..the damage may already be done. This story is out there. So far..no one is running with it. But that may not last.
I have heard the prison break theory also but it does not seem to fit. If there were prisoners I doubt they would be kept at such a building. Have you looked at the size and shape of the actual building?
The ambassador was only stopping by for a day or two and otherwise practically no one would be there. Definitely not enough to guard high value prisoners.
I think what is most suspect is that the attackers had so much intel. They knew the when, where, what, why and how of it. Who the fuck were these people? Is this the level of a state run operation and if so which state? And most important question is, "where are they right now?"
It fits fine.
The fact there is even mention of a "CIA Annex" fits fine as well.
And it goes along with Obama's aggressive policy of cloak and dagger ops against Al Qaeda.
In terms of diplomacy? This is a huge clusterfuck.
That's why no one wants to touch it.
Republicans are probably going to back off soon. But..the damage may already be done. This story is out there. So far..no one is running with it. But that may not last.
what prisoners and rendition or some such?
no, I don't think thats it, I personally think that we are/were buying or acquiring weapons (especially SA-7s) by any means possible to ship to the Syrian rebels.
I don't have a problem with that, BUT it will be found that the folks whom they were providing weapons too, are extremist elements that are or who will shortly be shown after Assads fall, to be nothing but more AQ or offshoots of such which would totally scramble his supposed success in killing AQ and other assorted jihadists as well, like the ones how took down the Benghazi consulate and annex etc.
If that is the case, it will be interesting watching you do somersaults with your reactions since something like arming the mujaheddin has been an idiotic point you've used to make the usual idiotic cases you make.
And it doesn't involve Obama.
It's also a huge problem and may be why so many of our diplomatic installations are routinely attacked.
It's not something conservatives want to change, either.
But I am wondering if..anyone of them even know what it is..
It fits fine.
The fact there is even mention of a "CIA Annex" fits fine as well.
And it goes along with Obama's aggressive policy of cloak and dagger ops against Al Qaeda.
In terms of diplomacy? This is a huge clusterfuck.
That's why no one wants to touch it.
Republicans are probably going to back off soon. But..the damage may already be done. This story is out there. So far..no one is running with it. But that may not last.
what prisoners and rendition or some such?
no, I don't think thats it, I personally think that we are/were buying or acquiring weapons (especially SA-7s) by any means possible to ship to the Syrian rebels.
I don't have a problem with that, BUT it will be found that the folks whom they were providing weapons too, are extremist elements that are or who will shortly be shown after Assads fall, to be nothing but more AQ or offshoots of such which would totally scramble his supposed success in killing AQ and other assorted jihadists as well, like the ones who took down the Benghazi consulate and annex etc.
If that is the case, it will be interesting watching you do somersaults with your reactions since something like arming the mujaheddin has been an idiotic point you've used to make the usual idiotic cases you make.
You're a pip.
No really.
A pip..
I have heard the prison break theory also but it does not seem to fit. If there were prisoners I doubt they would be kept at such a building. Have you looked at the size and shape of the actual building?
The ambassador was only stopping by for a day or two and otherwise practically no one would be there. Definitely not enough to guard high value prisoners.
I think what is most suspect is that the attackers had so much intel. They knew the when, where, what, why and how of it. Who the fuck were these people? Is this the level of a state run operation and if so which state? And most important question is, "where are they right now?"
It fits fine.
The fact there is even mention of a "CIA Annex" fits fine as well.
And it goes along with Obama's aggressive policy of cloak and dagger ops against Al Qaeda.
In terms of diplomacy? This is a huge clusterfuck.
That's why no one wants to touch it.
Republicans are probably going to back off soon. But..the damage may already be done. This story is out there. So far..no one is running with it. But that may not last.
what prisoners and rendition or some such?
no, I don't think thats it, I personally think that we are/were buying or acquiring weapons (especially SA-7s) by any means possible to ship to the Syrian rebels.
I don't have a problem with that, BUT it will be found that the folks whom they were providing weapons too, are extremist elements that are or who will shortly be shown after Assads fall, to be nothing but more AQ or offshoots of such which would totally scramble his supposed success in killing AQ and other assorted jihadists as well, like the ones how took down the Benghazi consulate and annex etc.
If that is the case, it will be interesting watching you do somersaults with your reactions since something like arming the mujaheddin has been an idiotic point you've used to make the usual idiotic cases you make.
It fits fine.
The fact there is even mention of a "CIA Annex" fits fine as well.
And it goes along with Obama's aggressive policy of cloak and dagger ops against Al Qaeda.
In terms of diplomacy? This is a huge clusterfuck.
That's why no one wants to touch it.
Republicans are probably going to back off soon. But..the damage may already be done. This story is out there. So far..no one is running with it. But that may not last.
what prisoners and rendition or some such?
no, I don't think thats it, I personally think that we are/were buying or acquiring weapons (especially SA-7s) by any means possible to ship to the Syrian rebels.
I don't have a problem with that, BUT it will be found that the folks whom they were providing weapons too, are extremist elements that are or who will shortly be shown after Assads fall, to be nothing but more AQ or offshoots of such which would totally scramble his supposed success in killing AQ and other assorted jihadists as well, like the ones how took down the Benghazi consulate and annex etc.
If that is the case, it will be interesting watching you do somersaults with your reactions since something like arming the mujaheddin has been an idiotic point you've used to make the usual idiotic cases you make.
That too could be why the cover up. In any case there is something very wrong. The worst of it started 9/12 in the beginning of the lies.
Prison?And it doesn't involve Obama.
It's also a huge problem and may be why so many of our diplomatic installations are routinely attacked.
It's not something conservatives want to change, either.
But I am wondering if..anyone of them even know what it is..
A CIA prison? One along the lines that the current President signed an executive order disbanding as soon as he was elected?
It's just dawning on you now? I've written posts on this several times, including before the election.
what prisoners and rendition or some such?
no, I don't think thats it, I personally think that we are/were buying or acquiring weapons (especially SA-7s) by any means possible to ship to the Syrian rebels.
I don't have a problem with that, BUT it will be found that the folks whom they were providing weapons too, are extremist elements that are or who will shortly be shown after Assads fall, to be nothing but more AQ or offshoots of such which would totally scramble his supposed success in killing AQ and other assorted jihadists as well, like the ones who took down the Benghazi consulate and annex etc.
If that is the case, it will be interesting watching you do somersaults with your reactions since something like arming the mujaheddin has been an idiotic point you've used to make the usual idiotic cases you make.
You're a pip.
No really.
A pip..
its sad seeing your idiocy deflated again isn't it? you should be used to it by now sallow.
You're a pip.
No really.
A pip..
its sad seeing your idiocy deflated again isn't it? you should be used to it by now sallow.
Well..
Coming from a joke like you?
I find it laughable.
See?
its sad seeing your idiocy deflated again isn't it? you should be used to it by now sallow.
Well..
Coming from a joke like you?
I find it laughable.
See?
you should, idiots often laugh unprompted.......
It fits fine.
The fact there is even mention of a "CIA Annex" fits fine as well.
And it goes along with Obama's aggressive policy of cloak and dagger ops against Al Qaeda.
In terms of diplomacy? This is a huge clusterfuck.
That's why no one wants to touch it.
Republicans are probably going to back off soon. But..the damage may already be done. This story is out there. So far..no one is running with it. But that may not last.
what prisoners and rendition or some such?
no, I don't think thats it, I personally think that we are/were buying or acquiring weapons (especially SA-7s) by any means possible to ship to the Syrian rebels.
I don't have a problem with that, BUT it will be found that the folks whom they were providing weapons too, are extremist elements that are or who will shortly be shown after Assads fall, to be nothing but more AQ or offshoots of such which would totally scramble his supposed success in killing AQ and other assorted jihadists as well, like the ones how took down the Benghazi consulate and annex etc.
If that is the case, it will be interesting watching you do somersaults with your reactions since something like arming the mujaheddin has been an idiotic point you've used to make the usual idiotic cases you make.
That too could be why the cover up. In any case there is something very wrong. The worst of it started 9/12 in the beginning of the lies.
Well..
Coming from a joke like you?
I find it laughable.
See?
you should, idiots often laugh unprompted.......
They do.
You laughing?
Because the joke's both you and on you.
You do little more then engage in territorial pissing and moaning in each and every thread.
You think repeating McCain talking points makes you astute?
But he did not mention Al Qaeda.
Isn't that what you guys are pissed over?
Well, there may be a REAL LIVE REASON for it.
Susan Rice went beyond the talking points. "She even mentioned that under the leadership of Barack Obama we had decimated al-Qaida. She knew at that point in time that al-Qaida was responsible in part or in whole for the death of Ambassador Stevens.
Could be rabbit..could be.
what prisoners and rendition or some such?
no, I don't think thats it, I personally think that we are/were buying or acquiring weapons (especially SA-7s) by any means possible to ship to the Syrian rebels.
I don't have a problem with that, BUT it will be found that the folks whom they were providing weapons too, are extremist elements that are or who will shortly be shown after Assads fall, to be nothing but more AQ or offshoots of such which would totally scramble his supposed success in killing AQ and other assorted jihadists as well, like the ones how took down the Benghazi consulate and annex etc.
If that is the case, it will be interesting watching you do somersaults with your reactions since something like arming the mujaheddin has been an idiotic point you've used to make the usual idiotic cases you make.
That too could be why the cover up. In any case there is something very wrong. The worst of it started 9/12 in the beginning of the lies.
Here's what you folks don't get..or don't wanna get.
This is nothing new. The CIA embeds itself into diplomatic missions all the time. Which is why I kept asking about you folks wanting to get to the root cause of these incidents.
It's obvious you don't.
Because there's nothing here about changing CIA policy.
For the most part, the operate with a "free hand" in these sorts of operations. And do so with little or no oversight. On one level, that's sort of necessary, since they do things that can not "justified" by our government. But there will be costs that go along with this..
you should, idiots often laugh unprompted.......
They do.
You laughing?
Because the joke's both you and on you.
You do little more then engage in territorial pissing and moaning in each and every thread.
You think repeating McCain talking points makes you astute?
mccain? I have not the foggiest idea what hes saying, did he surmise that arms going to Syria may be one reason behind the political erasure of the terrorist information in the talking points? if so, hes on the right track.
in your inanity you never once actually addressed what I said, becasue you cannot, becasue you don't have a clue.
your BIG gotcha is petraesus' girlfriend said we had prisoners there, you didn't make a case, becasue you're just hack in the end and this is just more goggle ranger and probably read this big scoop on thinkprogress , spare us. Please.
That too could be why the cover up. In any case there is something very wrong. The worst of it started 9/12 in the beginning of the lies.
Here's what you folks don't get..or don't wanna get.
This is nothing new. The CIA embeds itself into diplomatic missions all the time. Which is why I kept asking about you folks wanting to get to the root cause of these incidents.
It's obvious you don't.
Because there's nothing here about changing CIA policy.
For the most part, the operate with a "free hand" in these sorts of operations. And do so with little or no oversight. On one level, that's sort of necessary, since they do things that can not "justified" by our government. But there will be costs that go along with this..
fucking clueless.....seriously.
Susan Rice went beyond the talking points. "She even mentioned that under the leadership of Barack Obama we had decimated al-Qaida. She knew at that point in time that al-Qaida was responsible in part or in whole for the death of Ambassador Stevens.
Could be rabbit..could be.
That was a political campaign slogan. Susan Rice went beyond Counter Intelligence. She was using PsyOps on US citizens to help get Obama re-elected.
