The rumor on the street is that the Bengazi scandal involves illegal gun running across the Turkish border to aid the Syrian led rebels. Rumor has it that the Ambassodor who was killed was the point man and that he was targeted as a result.
I don't really want to get into the evidence for whether this is true or not, because quite frankly I don't think the evidence will ever be found. Simply put, if it is true then more than likely both parties are involved, which means that anyone coming forward to rat them out will have not support whatsoever from either party. I say this because I know that there is an attitude in Washington that anyone but Asad in power is more desirable. Whatever. I also say this knowing that the government has a history of doing this. just like Iran/Contra.
So my thread is mostly about assuming this is true. Guns were being run across the Syrian border and those pulling the strings were in Bengazi. If so, was the government justified knowing that Asad is the monster that he has been shown to be?
Originally posted by whodeyI have read such rumors for months. There is no doubt that the Benghazi facility was a CIA operation and not a "consulate" as is commonly stated; it performed no routine consulate functions like issuing passports and visas and 20 of the 30 Americans evacuated from Benghazi the day after the attack were CIA, not State Department, employees. There was also a report that the last person Ambassador Stevens met with was a Turkish "businessman" who was involved in gun running.
The rumor on the street is that the Bengazi scandal involves illegal gun running across the Turkish border to aid the Syrian led rebels. Rumor has it that the Ambassodor who was killed was the point man and that he was targeted as a result.
I don't really want to get into the evidence for whether this is true or not, because quite frankly I don't think th ...[text shortened]... o, was the government justified knowing that Asad is the monster that he has been shown to be?
I find this highly plausible though I'm not sure if it played any part in the motivations of the attackers on September 11th, 2012. We know that they said at the scene that they were outraged at the anti-Islam video and we also know that they belonged to a local extremist group not tied to any global jihadist groups in any meaningful way. Unfortunately this information has been ignored by the scandal mongers and by the Administration (saying the truth seemed politically inexpedient once the accepted version became "AQ attacked us again!"😉.
EDIT: That the CIA role was paramount in Benghazi: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/world/africa/attack-in-libya-was-major-blow-to-cia-efforts.html?pagewanted=1
EDIT2: To Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers, there is little doubt what occurred: a well-known group of local Islamist militants struck the United States Mission without any warning or protest, and they did it in retaliation for the video. That is what the fighters said at the time, speaking emotionally of their anger at the video without mentioning Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or the terrorist strikes of 11 years earlier. And it is an explanation that tracks with their history as members of a local militant group determined to protect Libya from Western influence.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/world/africa/election-year-stakes-overshadow-nuances-of-benghazi-investigation.html
Originally posted by no1marauderI would say that the only difference between this and Iran/Contra is that everyone in government is on board with overthrowing Asad. With the Iran/Contra scandal, not everyone agreed that overthrowing the Marxist rebels was a "good" thing.
Actually it seems his last meeting was with the Turkish General Council and my have been regarding a shipment of weapons: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/25/was-syrian-weapons-shipment-factor-in-ambassadors-benghazi-visit/
In a way, it takes my sympathy away from the victims. If you live by the sword expect to die by it, especially when you serve under Obama.
Originally posted by whodeyThe Boland Amendment made aid to the Contras illegal under US law. That seems a bit of a difference.
I would say that the only difference between this and Iran/Contra is that everyone in government is on board with overthrowing Asad. With the Iran/Contra scandal, not everyone agreed that overthrowing the Marxist rebels was a "good" thing.
In a way, it takes my sympathy away from the victims. If you live by the sword expect to die by it, especially when you serve under Obama.
Originally posted by no1marauderSo you are saying that there is nothing illegal about giving arms to the Syrian rebels the way it was done?
The Boland Amendment made aid to the Contras illegal under US law. That seems a bit of a difference.
It would not surprise me. Not even using the IRS as a political weapon is illegal these days.
Originally posted by whodeyI honestly don't know; my understanding is that the US was facilitating the transfer of weapons from what used to be the Libyan military to the Syrian rebels through third parties. Is that illegal? I'm not sure; it might be. However there isn't an explicit Congressional law banning it (insofar as Syria) as there was in the case of the Contras.
So you are saying that there is nothing illegal about giving arms to the Syrian rebels the way it was done?
It would not surprise me. Not even using the IRS as a political weapon is illegal these days.
Originally posted by no1marauderYes. No comparison with Iran/Contra. That was illegal and a true scandal. Reagan defecated on the Constitution and should have been impeached.
I honestly don't know; my understanding is that the US was facilitating the transfer of weapons from what used to be the Libyan military to the Syrian rebels through third parties. Is that illegal? I'm not sure; it might be. However there isn't an explicit Congressional law banning it (insofar as Syria) as there was in the case of the Contras.
Plus, reading back through the thread, the place seemed more of a CIA annex than a consulate.
"Why the CIA bears the main responsibility for the intelligence failures that led to the atrocity in Libya last year."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/17/truth-justice-and-benghazi.html
I think it will eventually come out about what happened after we nail the basterds that did the attack.
The sad part is that the unAmerican right-wing Republicans lie and distort and try to exploit an American tragedy and deaths for sheer political gain. Absolutely disgusting.
Quite the opposite of when Democrats and Republicans worked together after 9/11 when Bush was President.
Originally posted by moon1969No comparison with Iran/Contra? Are you saying that supplying the rebels in Syria is legal or are you just blowing smoke up everyones arse once again?
Yes. No comparison with Iran/Contra. That was illegal and a true scandal. Reagan defecated on the Constitution and should have been impeached.
Plus, reading back through the thread, the place seemed more of a CIA annex than a consulate.
Originally posted by no1marauderYou know - you make sense for about three lines, and then you fall back to this "video" crap, which completely disregards that the security situation in Benghazi had been deteriorating for months before the attack - to the point where Britain had ordered its diplomats out of the country. As for the New York Times, Mother Jones has more credibility as an independent news source.
I have read such rumors for months. There is no doubt that the Benghazi facility was a CIA operation and not a "consulate" as is commonly stated; it performed no routine consulate functions like issuing passports and visas and 20 of the 30 Americans evacuated from Benghazi the day after the attack were CIA, not State Department, employees. There was also ...[text shortened]... 10/16/world/africa/election-year-stakes-overshadow-nuances-of-benghazi-investigation.html