The Black Vault

I don't want to get in the middle of the arguments here but...

The Obama admin is now making noises that they are planning to end the pursuit of al Qaeda, and to move the prisoners from GITMO to the continent. BO wants to end the WOT and I have mixed feelings on that. It sounds like they think the WOT has already succeeded.

I see NO reason to move the prisoners from GITMO. What is the purpose of that? Guantanamo is US territory.

Terrorism itself is not defeated. So the "peace" could be short lived. Maybe the original goal of the WOT was to get the Mid East into the mode it is now, Arab Spring.

Does the WOT have clearly defined goals? Surely George Bush et al knew that the WOT could not be "won" -- as in the defeat, capture, or kill of all terrorist fanatics -- without spending endless resources for decades on end. And even then, I think we can all agree, it couldn't be done. The more we aggressively fight it, the more people are easily convinced we are the enemy of peace.

I'm not all that surprised or disheartened to hear that Obama wants to declare the WOT over, but, I just hope (without any reason to do so) that Obama isn't *stupid* enough to think we can drop our guard, return home, and everything will be just fine.

Oh, and once the war is "over," we better beef up our security in our consulates and embassies all over the world, because Benghazi was just the tip of the iceberg.

I saw last night an interview with a lady that lost 2 family members in the US Embassy bombings in Africa 1998... she said that, just like Benghazi, the Embassy begged Clinton for more security because they knew something was coming. Clinton, just like Obama, repeatedly denied their requests and the end result was a successful terrorist attack and dead Americans. The lady was totally shocked and dismayed that Obama obviously learned NOTHING from the 1998 incident.

One has to wonder if Clinton wanted our Embassies bombed. Obama on the other hand doesn't seem to have had any benefit from the attack in Benghazi so it looks like in his case, he was just being naive and stupid. He didn't want to send forces to Benghazi because it would go against his narrative that Al Qaeda is no longer a threat and we are safe.

BO didn't want to deal with Benghazia because he didn't want it to affect the election. When it came down to a choice between saving our people and protecting his re-election, he chose the latter. Sickening.

I have been seeing more on another theory about Benghazi.


What if Ambassador Stevans was left there , for Alqada to kidnap, and be traded back to the USA as a deal to get back the blind shiek? Obamao may have agreed to a swap, and was willing to allow for his kidnapping in return we would give up the blind sheik.

Unfortunately the others who went in to rescue Stevans tried to stop the arranged kidnapping, because they werent in on the Obamao deal with the enemy. Now Obamao couldnt let them know why they were being told to stand down, therfore allowing all of them to die , so the word on the deal wouldnt get out.


I think this explains why they were left to die, and Obamao never expected true Americans to rush into danger to save Stevans from being kidnapped. Think about it , makes the most sense.



BloodStone...

2BloodStone:
Wow! You're of great invention. I don't think that it was SO intricate. That's mere politics. The State Department needed a cause for staying in mid east under pretence of WOT. And those guys never were too particular about lives of their officials. And being a US diplomat in muslim state means that this man or woman is an expectable victim of the next provocation of Foggy Bottom. They never want to stop conflicts against islam states. It is too unprofitable. So from time to time they refresh pretext of US military presence in mid east. So it was in this September. It was enough to make stove-piping of that dung movie about Prophet Muhammad. It was obvious that those dumb muslim morons would lift a cry about offense of their precious religion. The only moment is that DC agents lost Stevans during that attack and found him already dead in the Benghazi hospital. But his death could be ordered for utmost tragedy of situation. For local islam fanatics didn't managed disorders of large scale expected by State Department.

All interesting theories but I still think mine is the correct one. BO doesn't want to be labeled a War President. That doesn't sit well with the left. I wonder what is up with Hillary.

CodeBlackv2 wrote:BO doesn't want to be labeled a War President.

When have we not been at war? Not in my lifetime.

As long as people struggle for freedom and someone tries to stop them, there will be war. Accept it. I'll bet even advanced aliens have to deal with an occasional A-hole.

blackvault wrote:

You knock my source, yet you offer a "Free-Press-Release.com" link to a press release by some "One World Order" group?

Here's my opinion... you aren't researching.

Senate Bill #1867? Have you even tried to research this? If you Google it, a bunch of "Patriot" sites come up, "Free Republic" sites, but no reliable source that says our freedoms are going to be overrun, and the days of Marshall Law are among us. It was nearly a 1,000 page bill, and people were up in arms over a couple paragraphs. It was all grossly overexaggerated... and does nothing like you copy and pasted below. Plus, this was passed about a year ago, and not a single case of anything that people were claiming was going to happen, actually happened.

Boston, city of one million people, locked down in the attempts to catch TWO men.
One million people. A whole city! For two people!


No sound of any pennies dropping yet John?

Homes invaded at gunpoint and without warrants in their search for TWO people! Mostly for Just One. ONE!


And STILL,

In HR 658: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112h ... 658enr.pdf

and in FAA MODERNIZATION AND REFORM ACT OF 2012 to Accompany HR 658: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-112hr ... rpt381.pdf

There is no mention of the "Wide Area Aerial Surveillance System" or "WAASS".

I hadn't looked at that no, but how about you look here.... ?


“.............the leading industry group representing companies developing drones for domestic use, the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), released a new study earlier this month as well indicating UAV development may soon create tens of thousands of new jobs in the U.S. to support the growth of the industry nationwide. It is literally exploding, with sales expected to reach $6 billion annually in U.S. within a few years..........”
[READ: Oregon Company to Sell Drone Defense Technology to Public]
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/201 ... -to-public


In addition, the Electric Frontier Foundation—the non-profit watchdog group that first raised privacy concerns about the use of drones by police departments—recently released a map that illustrates dozens of locations and cities where municipalities, universities, agencies or companies have applied to the FAA to fly UAVs such as unarmed Predator drones........”

America's overseas and internal policies have turned your country into an open prison, with a whole army's worth of people, somewhere between 7 and 10 times as many people per head of population than their closest 'rival', already locked up.

Land of the Free.
At war in 74 countries right now!
“
http://intellihub.com/2013/05/12/u-s-cu ... cly-admit/

.........Citing a page at US Central Command’s (CENTCOM) website, they highlight the “areas of responsibility” publicly listed:
The US Central Command (CENTCOM) is active in 20 countries across the Middle Eastern region, and is actively ramping-up military training, counterterrorism programs, logistical support, and funding to the military in various nations. At this point, the US has some kind of military presence in Afghanistan, Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, U.A.E., Uzbekistan, and Yemen.
US Africa Command (AFRICOM), according to the paper, “supports military-to-military relationships with 54 African nations.”
[Gosztola points out that the U.S. military is also conducting operations of one kind or another in Syrian, Jordan, South Sudan, Kosovo, Libya, Yemen, the Congo, Uganda, Mali, Niger and other countries.]
Altogether, that makes 74 nations where the US is fighting or “helping” some force in some proxy struggle that has been deemed beneficial by the nation’s masters of war.
***
A Congressional Research Service (CRS) provides an accounting of all the publicly acknowledged deployments of US military forces..............”

But those are just the publicoperations.

I would expect more from you... like a valid point.

My point is self-explanatory.

It took you more than six months to cook up a response, and you are trying to say "I told you so!" ?? Or, at least, I think you are. Your quoting, copy and pasting, then responding inside the quotes, is kind of confusing.

Not sure if this is worth the time to even respond.

Welcome back... I think you'll find some newer, more appropriate threads you can spread your American hate speech?