Benghazi Hearing

[felix rex]

In the vast majority of these cases, these types of operations need state sanctioned intelligence agencies in order to be effective.

No

You're just trying to contrary at this juncture.

No

[Kat Kid]

It is pretty hilarious that we have someone on here that is both in a position to:
1) provide more details about what actually happened
2) would probably be willing to do it

yet almost everyone would rather just spout off their own half-baked theories based on media reports that talk to sources like the one we have right here.  It is a fascinating study in epistemic closure.

[sonofdaxjones]

This is turning into a slaughter, amongst many potential bullet points:

From offices at secret locations, American intelligence officers have helped the Arab governments shop for weapons, including a large procurement from Croatia, and have vetted rebel commanders and groups to determine who should receive the weapons as they arrive, according to American officials speaking on the condition of anonymity. The C.I.A. declined to comment on the shipments or its role in them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/25/world/middleeast/arms-airlift-to-syrian-rebels-expands-with-cia-aid.html


https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/commentaryanalysis/who-just-started-arming-syria-rebels


That sophisticated anti-tank and anti-infantry munitions are now being funneled exclusively to non-extremist rebel units, who themselves are committed to isolating al-Qaeda, suggests either a staggering coincidence or some degree of external facilitation. Now here’s another interesting fact. The M60, the M79, the RBG-6 and the RPG-22 are all currently in use by the Croatian Army.

One plausible scenario would be that these weapons were all coming from Libya, which was one of the initial arms-runners to the Syrian opposition. The former Yugoslavia, which manufactured the M60 and M79, formerly enjoyed warm ties with Muammar Qaddafi, as did Croatia prior to the Libyan revolt and subsequent NATO intervention (former Croatian President Stipe Mesi? seemed to want those ties to continue regardless).

 

So it is possible that the M60s, M79s, RPG-22s and RBG-6s were all sold to Libya a long time ago and were only just emptied from warehouses by the National Transition Council for urgent use in another country

[sonofdaxjones]

It is pretty hilarious that we have someone on here that is both in a position to:
1) provide more details about what actually happened
2) would probably be willing to do it

yet almost everyone would rather just spout off their own half-baked theories based on media reports that talk to sources like the one we have right here.  It is a fascinating study in epistemic closure.

You're just pissed off that the administration is catching heat and rightfully so, and quoting articles from sources like the New York Times and other entities who are actually on the ground in these areas and then discussing them isn't a "half baked" theory.   Unless you can tell me that Felix Rex is some sort of CIA operative clearly in the know on all of these things, than I can only assume he's just a policy wonk pushing paper and spending a lot of time on a message board.

[felix rex]

It's like you haven't read anything I've ever posted. :sockfullofnickels:

[sonofdaxjones]

Everything you've posted falls under the Captain Obvious point of the day.


. . . Platinum coin filled sock to the face and head.

[felix rex]

I kinda agree, but that's a point in my favor, not yours.

[sonofdaxjones]

I kinda agree, but that's a point in my favor, not yours.

What was that line from an old Clint Eastwood movie, Heartbreak Ridge, where the big guy in jail tells Clint that if he wants to pop the kid in the ass he doesn't have to butter him up so hard . . . I picture you as the big guy trying to regale the youngsters with your nothingness.

[felix rex]

ok

[michigancat]

It's like you haven't read anything I've ever posted. :sockfullofnickels:

I read posts from dax and I can't understand what he's upset about. Do I need the nickel sock?

I mean, yeah, we have spies running all over the place doing potentially shady crap, but did Benghazi just bring this to light? Is he upset that people wanted to get their stories straight about the shady spies?

[felix rex]

I'm really not certain. Every embassy of every country in the world is packed with spies (<--captain obvious fact of the day). So, why is it outrageous that there were CIA officers in Benghazi? And why does that dumbfuck at the Atlantic want us to relabel all our embassies as "CIA facilities"?

There's reasons to be upset about what happened, but the fact that government's don't open separate "spy facilities" in every country is hardly one of them.

[sonofdaxjones]

No one is the least surprised that there were CIA in Libya . . . hell they helped bring about the regime change in that country, and they're in the process of trying to bring about regime change in another country in the region.   What no one can really explain is . . . why?   At worst Libya and Syria are/were nothing but mild annoyances in the grand scheme of things and yet still, they WERE relatively stable and understandably calculating entities operating pretty much as typical nation states.

In turn we have and soon will have nothing but chaos and the CIA is playing an integral role in much of this process.

So spare me this faux overly simplistic disgust along the lines of, "well hell,  you want us to tell you who the spies are" . . . that's bullshit and a cop out. 

[ednksu]

Oh please EDN, I doubt Fox News puts the lack of response by the military in Benghazi in the context of a $1 Trillion Dollar Plus annual military/industrial/complex.   Those types love that stuff.

The only person who sounds like a Fox News Guy is your conservative hard on inducing comment about "Overwhelming Force" in 24 hours.

yeah these two statements kinda conflict.  But more to the point, I sound like someone who has read a book and not talking points.
The entire point of the Airborne is to provide quick reaction force upto the Division level.  Its not about getting a hard on about our forces, its the reality of the structure of the American military. 

 

I think you're just lashing out because things like your "indigenous populations" rising up thoughts are being excoriated again and again as a myriad of news sources from the NYT on down are outlining the heavy CIA/Western Intelligence involvement in all of this upheaval.   Libya was obviously a NATO/Western Intelligence operation and lots of people are asking why?   Not saying Gaddafi was a good guy (but hey, the U.S. is more than willing to arm their favorite thug regimes and Theocratic States to the teeth), but he had renounced terrorism, had renounced WMD desires etc. etc.   But wait, didn't he aspire for a North African Union that would be less dependent on Western economic mechanisms and influence . . . hmmm??    Have the Chinese been exerting more influence in North Africa in regards to things like energy production?  Funny how AQ seems to pop up in places the Chinese are poking around in, obviously forcing the U.S. to send in JSOC/Military resources and other "aid".

So once again, a right and proper series questions to be asking is . . . .why was Benghazi teaming with CIA spooks?   Were they there to weed out AQ, or get the usual AQ suspects ready to ship off to Syria, or was it some sort of CIA rendition destination?

Here is the inherent problem with your position which removes all Arab/ME/North Africa agency in their OWN affairs.  The US has been trying to get rid of Gaddafi for DECADES.  CIA, MI6 (especially) have been putting a large amount of assets behind his removal since Pan Am with NO success.  Just because the US is being opportunistic with its foreign policy or security objectives doesn't mean that the local insurgents didn't do the majority of the heavy lifting.   

Aside from your alex jones, gold standard, african union talking point, which is much more radical than i gave you credit for, Gaddafi was a hated man, his tribe were a hated people by large segments of the country. 

One school of thought is that the CIA was buying weapons that Libyan militias had captured from the Libyan military for export to the "freedom fighters" in Libya.

Multiple reports of arms that the former Yugoslavia sold Gaddafi's military being found in the hands of Syrian "rebels".

Actual Libyan "Freedom Fighters" showing up on the battlegrounds of Syria is extremely well documented.   

In the vast majority of these cases, these types of operations need state sanctioned intelligence agencies in order to be effective. 

Its been proven, as I've already mentioned, more of these resources went south to Mali and was once again the cause for direct (colonial) western intervention.  Now I'm sure there were a number of fighters and resources that went to Syria, but the timelines, logic, and common sense don't back that those movements occurred on a large scale like you're supposing.

[sonofdaxjones]

So in essence the U.S. engaged in regime change in Libya because Gaddafi was a bad guy and wasn't for all inclusive freedom for the various sects of people in Libya?

Golly, I thought regime change based on those ideals was wholly unacceptable.

"Local Insurgents" is oxymoron of n'th degree in this day and age and in that region of the world, and when F-15E's and Cruise Missiles are flying overhead in order to support the "insurgency" than it's really state sponsored regime change.

[felix rex]

It is pretty hilarious that we have someone on here that is both in a position to:
1) provide more details about what actually happened
2) would probably be willing to do it

yet almost everyone would rather just spout off their own half-baked theories based on media reports that talk to sources like the one we have right here.  It is a fascinating study in epistemic closure.

I have a friend with a boring job title who was quoted in the media regarding the September protests. He had permission from the press office and gave them his full name, etc. They quoted him as "a senior Western diplomat with knowledge of the incident" or something. So we still call him variations of that sometimes.

[felix rex]

No one is the least surprised that there were CIA in Libya . . . hell they helped bring about the regime change in that country, and they're in the process of trying to bring about regime change in another country in the region.   What no one can really explain is . . . why?   At worst Libya and Syria are/were nothing but mild annoyances in the grand scheme of things and yet still, they WERE relatively stable and understandably calculating entities operating pretty much as typical nation states.

In turn we have and soon will have nothing but chaos and the CIA is playing an integral role in much of this process.

So spare me this faux overly simplistic disgust along the lines of, "well hell,  you want us to tell you who the spies are" . . . that's bullshit and a cop out.

Do you think the U.S. triggered the incidents or merely tried to steer an inevitable shipwreck towards a friendlier shore?

[michigancat]

It is pretty hilarious that we have someone on here that is both in a position to:
1) provide more details about what actually happened
2) would probably be willing to do it

yet almost everyone would rather just spout off their own half-baked theories based on media reports that talk to sources like the one we have right here.  It is a fascinating study in epistemic closure.

I have a friend with a boring job title who was quoted in the media regarding the September protests. He had permission from the press office and gave them his full name, etc. They quoted him as "a senior Western diplomat with knowledge of the incident" or something. So we still call him variations of that sometimes.

great episode premise right there.

[sonofdaxjones]

No one is the least surprised that there were CIA in Libya . . . hell they helped bring about the regime change in that country, and they're in the process of trying to bring about regime change in another country in the region.   What no one can really explain is . . . why?   At worst Libya and Syria are/were nothing but mild annoyances in the grand scheme of things and yet still, they WERE relatively stable and understandably calculating entities operating pretty much as typical nation states.

In turn we have and soon will have nothing but chaos and the CIA is playing an integral role in much of this process.

So spare me this faux overly simplistic disgust along the lines of, "well hell,  you want us to tell you who the spies are" . . . that's bullshit and a cop out.

Do you think the U.S. triggered the incidents or merely tried to steer an inevitable shipwreck towards a friendlier shore?

So in other words, as long as the perception is that it went the U.S.'s way, than it's okay.   Sort of a blinders on, pro U.S. hegemony view of the world.   

Just say No to Regime Change . . . unless the Democrat administration says it worked out for the best . . . and the CIA can rally the troops and the arms for the next regime change.

[felix rex]

It is pretty hilarious that we have someone on here that is both in a position to:
1) provide more details about what actually happened
2) would probably be willing to do it

yet almost everyone would rather just spout off their own half-baked theories based on media reports that talk to sources like the one we have right here.  It is a fascinating study in epistemic closure.

I have a friend with a boring job title who was quoted in the media regarding the September protests. He had permission from the press office and gave them his full name, etc. They quoted him as "a senior Western diplomat with knowledge of the incident" or something. So we still call him variations of that sometimes.

great episode premise right there.

lol. I thought the same thing. Also, he's Mormon!

[felix rex]

It is pretty hilarious that we have someone on here that is both in a position to:
1) provide more details about what actually happened
2) would probably be willing to do it

yet almost everyone would rather just spout off their own half-baked theories based on media reports that talk to sources like the one we have right here.  It is a fascinating study in epistemic closure.

I have a friend with a boring job title who was quoted in the media regarding the September protests. He had permission from the press office and gave them his full name, etc. They quoted him as "a senior Western diplomat with knowledge of the incident" or something. So we still call him variations of that sometimes.

great episode premise right there.

Tentative title: "Mormon, Mor problems"

[felix rex]

No one is the least surprised that there were CIA in Libya . . . hell they helped bring about the regime change in that country, and they're in the process of trying to bring about regime change in another country in the region.   What no one can really explain is . . . why?   At worst Libya and Syria are/were nothing but mild annoyances in the grand scheme of things and yet still, they WERE relatively stable and understandably calculating entities operating pretty much as typical nation states.

In turn we have and soon will have nothing but chaos and the CIA is playing an integral role in much of this process.

So spare me this faux overly simplistic disgust along the lines of, "well hell,  you want us to tell you who the spies are" . . . that's bullshit and a cop out.

Do you think the U.S. triggered the incidents or merely tried to steer an inevitable shipwreck towards a friendlier shore?

So in other words, as long as the perception is that it went the U.S.'s way, than it's okay.   Sort of a blinders on, pro U.S. hegemony view of the world.   

Just say No to Regime Change . . . unless the Democrat administration says it worked out for the best . . . and the CIA can rally the troops and the arms for the next regime change.

Is that an answer? I bet dax would be a treat in a deposition.

[ednksu]

So in essence the U.S. engaged in regime change in Libya because Gaddafi was a bad guy and wasn't for all inclusive freedom for the various sects of people in Libya?

Golly, I thought regime change based on those ideals was wholly unacceptable.

"Local Insurgents" is oxymoron of n'th degree in this day and age and in that region of the world, and when F-15E's and Cruise Missiles are flying overhead in order to support the "insurgency" than it's really state sponsored regime change.

Once again, just because our interest align doesn't mean its a conspiracy like you want it to be. 

Also your colonialist views betray your points once again when you confine these people's identity to the western constructed states imposed on them.

[felix rex]

oh boy. edn just threw down the colonialist card.

[sonofdaxjones]

So in essence the U.S. engaged in regime change in Libya because Gaddafi was a bad guy and wasn't for all inclusive freedom for the various sects of people in Libya?

Golly, I thought regime change based on those ideals was wholly unacceptable.

"Local Insurgents" is oxymoron of n'th degree in this day and age and in that region of the world, and when F-15E's and Cruise Missiles are flying overhead in order to support the "insurgency" than it's really state sponsored regime change.

Once again, just because our interest align doesn't mean its a conspiracy like you want it to be. 

Also your colonialist views betray your points once again when you confine these people's identity to the western constructed states imposed on them.

I'd actually buy into what you're saying, but when the British Special Forces are rolling in, the "rebels" are pictured using some very high tech gear only found in Western military usage, and the F-15's are dropping guided munitions overhead . . . it all rings a little hollow.

[michigancat]

It is pretty hilarious that we have someone on here that is both in a position to:
1) provide more details about what actually happened
2) would probably be willing to do it

yet almost everyone would rather just spout off their own half-baked theories based on media reports that talk to sources like the one we have right here.  It is a fascinating study in epistemic closure.

I have a friend with a boring job title who was quoted in the media regarding the September protests. He had permission from the press office and gave them his full name, etc. They quoted him as "a senior Western diplomat with knowledge of the incident" or something. So we still call him variations of that sometimes.

great episode premise right there.

Tentative title: "Mormon, Mor problems"

Do any grizzly veteran types lay down profanity tirades in front of the Mormons? That would be great. If not, I'm sure you could add it for laughs.