Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You all need to understand the truth about terrorism, and it seems pretty clear that most don't. The first point that needs to be understood is that this so called "war on terror" is the fundamental pretext to the entire security scenario relative to both foreign and domestic policies and operations. Not only has this served as the justification for wars overseas, but also a complete reshaping of domestic policy and the systematic dismantling of the US constitution. So, keep in mind the stakes involved in allegedly combating this ghost enemy called "terrorism", which can never be identified or defeated, or the need for that "enemy" to make it's presence felt in order to justify continued security and military operations in response. So, the fate of Seal Team 6 is just part of the overall scenario which has been distorted to the point of incoherence, and as much as you think you understand about it .. you're wrong, because you cannot reach reasonable conclusions with false and fabricated information.
The issue needs to be placed in proper context, and then analyzed. First of all, the entire Bin Laden raid and killing stinks to high heaven, and those who believe the narrative presented ... including this idiotic burial at sea nonsense will believe anything, except the more likely truth that is just too "far fetched" in their minds to consider. But the fact is, several informed sources claim that Bin Laden died several years ago, and that this "raid" was pure theater. I tend to believe that, especially given the way in which this alleged killing and disposal of the body has been presented. When viewed in that context, the deaths of the Seal Team who were alleged to have captured and killed Bin Laden takes on a more sinister posture, given the rather dubious nature of the raid itself, along with the dubious nature of the subsequent deaths of those special ops personnel involved. The old adage "dead men tell no tails" is a strong motive for those willing to do anything to cover up previous lies and false operations. Now, the gut reaction most would immediately respond with would be "Oh, you wouldn't be suggesting that the military or intelligence community would intentionally murder it's own, would you? And the answer is, you're damned right that is a possibility that cannot be dismissed. The premise behind such illusory notions that such things would never be done, ignores the fact that our military personnel have been routinely sacrificed on too numerous occasions to count, and that scenario has long been a part of war and warfare tactics ... the documented cases of military operations which predict mass casualties up front, assume such loss as a cost of war. This idea that the well being of military personnel is some overriding preoccupation ignores the reality that military strategy places more value on strategy and goals than on individual soldiers, and always has. If it serves a purpose, soldiers will be sacrificed, without hesitation.
That doesn't mean that the entire military command structure, or those close to and intimately involved with the day to day operations of this Seal Team would willingly participate in something like this ... I do not believe for a second that they would. But one has to understand compartmentalization, and the reality that something like this can be facilitated with very few actually involved or complicit in the plan. It doesn't take very many people to gain knowledge of the time and place of a particular "mission", identifying the aircraft that this Seal Team was on, and see to it that someone on the ground has a stinger missile in wait to complete the task. This type of activity was routine during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, spearheaded by the CIA who supplied the Mujahadeen (the precursor to Al Qaeda) with such weapons which literally drove the Soviets out with their tails between their legs. They made it so dangerous for the Soviets to engage in air operations, their once air superiority over the skies of Afghanistan became their downfall. With gorilla fighters armed with hundreds of stingers, hiding in the rugged terrain and virtually undetectable and impossible to combat ... shooting down aircraft .. and particularly choppers was like shooting fish in a barrel. So, it would certainly be no huge task to take out the chopper transporting a special ops team, and blame it on insurgents who scored a "lucky shot" with small arms fire. I mean, it's not like we haven't heard about British Special Ops teams dressed as Arabs and engaging in terrorist activity against targets in Iraq to be blamed on Iraqi insurgents ... that's been documented. One such team was captured and arrested by Iraqi police, and held in a jail. What happened? Well, British military forces sashayed on over to that jail with tanks and armored personnel carriers and special forces units and ordered their release, for which the Iraqis had little choice but to comply. So, don't dismiss criminal conduct, to include false flag terrorist activity, or the elimination of certain participants after the fact in order to ensure such information is NEVER revealed. Does anyone think that the criminals who may be behind such false flag operations would hesitate to cover their tracks by eliminating certain participants after they have served their purpose?
These types of scenarios are made that much easier to conduct given the public's short memory span that seems to reset each time a new "controversy" emerges, overshadowing the previous one. A dumbed down public who accepts whatever story is fed them by the talking heads on TV establishes a safe environment for continuing such activity with impunity.
When attitudes such as has been voiced suggesting that drinking red wine with fish is more "scandalous" than Benghazi prevail, or the attitude of apathy remains dominant, explains why criminal elements feel perfectly safe in continuing their behavior, and why we can expect only more of the same, until those attitudes change, and memories become longer.
Last edited by GuyNTexas; 08-14-2013 at 10:29 AM..
Terrorism, as the dictionary tells us, is created by those who use fear as a tool to spread propaganda. Guess what the R-Wingers, warhawks, FBI, CIA, etc,etc, do? They spread fear by talking about terrorists all the time. They use fear as a means of controlling the masses and to push their agenda.
You want terrorists? Look at Bush and Cheney during the 8 years they were in office. You'll have your answer.
Hard to argue with some of this .... but to assign this to "right wingers" exclusively ignores the fact that the left wing Obama administration has been no different than the Bush administration, other than extending the target list to American citizens on US soil to be treated in the same fashion as Gitmo prisoners and Pakistani drone strike victims.
The wars rage on, and the police state grid continues to fortify it's infrastructure. We've seen DHS purchase Billions of rounds of ammo ... levels exceeding the amount of ammo used in overseas wars, which suggest that the next war may be closer to home ... all under the leftist regime of Obama.
So, promoting this fraud that this is a product of the right ignores who has been in charge for several years now .... Bush is ancient history.
You all need to understand the truth about terrorism, and it seems pretty clear that most don't. The first point that needs to be understood is that this so called "war on terror" is the fundamental pretext to the entire security scenario relative to both foreign and domestic policies and operations. Not only has this served as the justification for wars overseas, but also a complete reshaping of domestic policy and the systematic dismantling of the US constitution. So, keep in mind the stakes involved in allegedly combating this ghost enemy called "terrorism", which can never be identified or defeated, or the need for that "enemy" to make it's presence felt in order to justify continued security and military operations in response. So, the fate of Seal Team 6 is just part of the overall scenario which has been distorted to the point of incoherence, and as much as you think you understand about it .. you're wrong, because you cannot reach reasonable conclusions with false and fabricated information.
The issue needs to be placed in proper context, and then analyzed. First of all, the entire Bin Laden raid and killing stinks to high heaven, and those who believe the narrative presented ... including this idiotic burial at sea nonsense will believe anything, except the more likely truth that is just too "far fetched" in their minds to consider. But the fact is, several informed sources claim that Bin Laden died several years ago, and that this "raid" was pure theater. I tend to believe that, especially given the way in which this alleged killing and disposal of the body has been presented. When viewed in that context, the deaths of the Seal Team who were alleged to have captured and killed Bin Laden takes on a more sinister posture, given the rather dubious nature of the raid itself, along with the dubious nature of the subsequent deaths of those special ops personnel involved. The old adage "dead men tell no tails" is a strong motive for those willing to do anything to cover up previous lies and false operations. Now, the gut reaction most would immediately respond with would be "Oh, you wouldn't be suggesting that the military or intelligence community would intentionally murder it's own, would you? And the answer is, you're damned right that is a possibility that cannot be dismissed. The premise behind such illusory notions that such things would never be done, ignores the fact that our military personnel have been routinely sacrificed on too numerous occasions to count, and that scenario has long been a part of war and warfare tactics ... the documented cases of military operations which predict mass casualties up front, assume such loss as a cost of war. This idea that the well being of military personnel is some overriding preoccupation ignores the reality that military strategy places more value on strategy and goals than on individual soldiers, and always has. If it serves a purpose, soldiers will be sacrificed, without hesitation.
That doesn't mean that the entire military command structure, or those close to and intimately involved with the day to day operations of this Seal Team would willingly participate in something like this ... I do not believe for a second that they would. But one has to understand compartmentalization, and the reality that something like this can be facilitated with very few actually involved or complicit in the plan. It doesn't take very many people to gain knowledge of the time and place of a particular "mission", identifying the aircraft that this Seal Team was on, and see to it that someone on the ground has a stinger missile in wait to complete the task. This type of activity was routine during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, spearheaded by the CIA who supplied the Mujahadeen (the precursor to Al Qaeda) with such weapons which literally drove the Soviets out with their tails between their legs. They made it so dangerous for the Soviets to engage in air operations, their once air superiority over the skies of Afghanistan became their downfall. With gorilla fighters armed with hundreds of stingers, hiding in the rugged terrain and virtually undetectable and impossible to combat ... shooting down aircraft .. and particularly choppers was like shooting fish in a barrel. So, it would certainly be no huge task to take out the chopper transporting a special ops team, and blame it on insurgents who scored a "lucky shot" with small arms fire. I mean, it's not like we haven't heard about British Special Ops teams dressed as Arabs and engaging in terrorist activity against targets in Iraq to be blamed on Iraqi insurgents ... that's been documented. One such team was captured and arrested by Iraqi police, and held in a jail. What happened? Well, British military forces sashayed on over to that jail with tanks and armored personnel carriers and special forces units and ordered their release, for which the Iraqis had little choice but to comply. So, don't dismiss criminal conduct, to include false flag terrorist activity, or the elimination of certain participants after the fact in order to ensure such information is NEVER revealed. Does anyone think that the criminals who may be behind such false flag operations would hesitate to cover their tracks by eliminating certain participants after they have served their purpose?
These types of scenarios are made that much easier to conduct given the public's short memory span that seems to reset each time a new "controversy" emerges, overshadowing the previous one. A dumbed down public who accepts whatever story is fed them by the talking heads on TV establishes a safe environment for continuing such activity with impunity.
When attitudes such as has been voiced suggesting that drinking red wine with fish is more "scandalous" than Benghazi prevail, or the attitude of apathy remains dominant, explains why criminal elements feel perfectly safe in continuing their behavior, and why we can expect only more of the same, until those attitudes change, and memories become longer.
Thank you for taking the time to post this. I'm sure many will not read it, or won't understand that our military and the alphabet agencies have conducted operations and assassinations of powerful people - worldwide - that required that people involved be eliminated. Americans are made to believe that this is something that government is incapable of doing, but are quick to believe that only other countries are capable of such acts. Yet, today, we have a President who has a "kill list" with the name of Americans to be assassinated.
Thank you for taking the time to post this. I'm sure many will not read it, or won't understand that our military and the alphabet agencies have conducted operations and assassinations of powerful people - worldwide - that required that people involved be eliminated. Americans are made to believe that this is something that government is incapable of doing, but are quick to believe that only other countries are capable of such acts. Yet, today, we have a President who has a "kill list" with the name of Americans to be assassinated.
You're so right. What is most astonishing is the fact that little effort is being made nowadays to disguise this behavior, and instead, the effort now seems to be to justify and normalize this as just the way things are. I would cite the supreme disconnect in accepting this "Al Qaeda is gonna get us" narrative, while the government simultaneously provides military assistance to Al Qaeda forces in such places as in Libya and Syria. So, we are asked to ignore this absurd contradiction, and simply accept whatever we are told on any given day, even if it contradicts what we were old yesterday. So what if we are arming Al Qaeda in Libya and Syria, while fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan? This is what is happening, and it's such a transparent fraud, how anyone buys this nonsense thoroughly escapes me. The hard cold truth of the matter is that this "Al Qaeda" group, if indeed such an organized group actually exists, cannot be both ally and enemy simultaneously. One would expect that walking, talking, thinking people would immediately understand this simple concept, but apparently, this seems to go unnoticed, or is ignored.
It literally defies explanation as to why such extreme contradiction isn't being called out. Apparently, if the media doesn't plant the thought, few are capable of coming up with their own rational ones. We're becoming a nation of nitwits, who wait for the television to tell them what to think and believe.
Hard to argue with some of this .... but to assign this to "right wingers" exclusively ignores the fact that the left wing Obama administration has been no different than the Bush administration, other than extending the target list to American citizens on US soil to be treated in the same fashion as Gitmo prisoners and Pakistani drone strike victims.
True and I apologize for not expanding the bubble further. The majority of blame lies with the right wingers; however, the lefties are no shining examples of innocence either.
Quote:
The wars rage on, and the police state grid continues to fortify it's infrastructure. We've seen DHS purchase Billions of rounds of ammo ... levels exceeding the amount of ammo used in overseas wars, which suggest that the next war may be closer to home ... all under the leftist regime of Obama.
Only thing to say here is at least Obama is bringing our men and women home, as delayed as it is.
Quote:
So, promoting this fraud that this is a product of the right ignores who has been in charge for several years now .... Bush is ancient history.
True again, but Bush sent us over there knowing full well there wasn't any Weapons of Mass Destruction. The word "terrorist" wasn't a buzz word until after 9/11 when the Bush Administration kept on using the term to spread fear into the hearts of the citizens. That's also what a terrorist does, but I digress. The Obama Administration isn't too much better, but at least he's doing what he can to bring the soldiers home.
It appears your going to run around posting this nonsense all over. Have you even looked into any of those attacks listed. You keep whining about outrage for American lives lost and you don't even know what even happened. Typical.
Bumble - a continuous series of mistakes due to lack of brains.....Then when a stupid person in power realizes they have made a horrible mistake - They lie to keep face....Then they commit another error and on it goes again.
You can go back to 1926 when there was an attack on a US embassy/consulate in Argentina. If you are going to compare the number of attacks under Bush which totaled 13 if you count multiple attacks in Iraq (3) you need to look at the number of attacks under Bill Clinton - which were 14, with deaths. 1998 Kenya - 212 deaths. People can go around in circles blaming what attacks on embassies/consulates took place under what president.
There was never an attack that drew as much attention as the Benghazi attack, especially since a US Ambassador was the target. The details surrounding Benghazi are murky and questionable. There were questions regarding Obama's whereabouts and lack of response and his indifference to the death of a US Ambassador - attending a campaign fund raiser the following day in Las Vegas? The absence of the Secretary of State. The release of bad information, which turned out to be the mischaracterization of the attack. The way Obama and Clinton handled, or didn't handle, the attack on Benghazi is NOT how a president and secretary of state handles an attack when a US Ambassador is the target. IMO, Obama should have been the first one to call for an investigation as to what happened in Benghazi, not wait until he felt pressure into calling for one. And how far did the investigation get? What have they learned from their investigation? Who has been arrested and is in custody?
There was an internal review and investigation of the attack in Benghazi.
As to the initial response from the White House and the State Department, the CIA got their initial assessment wrong. The White House and the State Department relied on what the CIA was reporting.
The where was Obama and the claims of his indifference is just partisan spin.
Well, that's the regime's playbook.
Stall and run out the clock until it's "old news."
We are still waiting for answers to every one of the "phony" scandals.
There was an internal review and investigation of the attack in Benghazi.
As to the initial response from the White House and the State Department, the CIA got their initial assessment wrong. The White House and the State Department relied on what the CIA was reporting.
The where was Obama and the claims of his indifference is just partisan spin.
And who conducted the internal review? Did the Obama administration investigate itself?
I'm sure if it was a republican president that was AWOL when Benghazi happened people would want to know where was the President, and rightfully so. Let's say it was a republican, would you just take the word of a republican administration who investigated itself and what they report as truth in spite of so many contradictions?
Don't diehard defenders ever take a step back and try to separate them self from loyalty and love of party and take a look at reality? Do they ever find anything that could be questionablethat this administration has done??
If attending a campaign fundraiser is one's top priority the day after a US Ambassador and 4 SEAL/CIA agents are killed, obviously party comes first. That my friend is showing indifference to the death of 5 Americans, especially when you know one personally and is there serving his country at the request of the President.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
