myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Windsurfing Videos Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Benghazi-gate
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 80, 81, 82  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 1859
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 11:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

keycocker wrote:
So you are saying the white house has made no such statements,nor has the press, but They are acting like that is what they want to say.
And the coverup is covering up the fact that the thing they didn't say wasn't true.
Now it is clear to me.

I hope you were able to get a wettie over this, I handed it to you, and it will be short lived.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 5966

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 12:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"I guess you've never heard about "green on blue"?
Look it up, you might learn something."


That's simply nonsense. I understand the "green on blue" issue in Afghanistan and the Middle East, but you're incorrectly trying to apply that scenario to an US Army officer here in the US. The incident at Fort Hood wasn't a terrorist attack. I think that you're getting your "news" from very questionable sources.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5471

PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2012 11:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Interesting article--especially for the fact free world:

Quote:
October 13, 2012


Libya Struggles to Curb Militias, the Only Police

By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK


BENGHAZI, Libya — A month after the killing of the American ambassador ignited a public outcry for civilian control of Libya’s fractious militias, that hope has been all but lost in a tangle of grudges, rivalries and egos.

Scores of disparate militias remain Libya’s only effective police force but have stubbornly resisted government control, a dynamic that is making it difficult for either the Libyan authorities or the United States to catch the attackers who killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.

Shocked by that assault, tens of thousands of people filled the streets last month to demand the dismantling of all the militias. But the country’s interim president, Mohamed Magariaf, warned them to back off as leaders of the largest brigades threatened to cut off the vital services they provide, like patrolling the borders and putting out fires.

“We feel hurt, we feel underappreciated,” said Ismail el-Salabi, one of several brigade leaders who warned that public security had deteriorated because their forces had pulled back.

Taming the militias has been the threshold test of Libya’s attempt to build a democracy after four decades of dictatorship under Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. But how to bring them to heel while depending on them for security has eluded the weak transitional government, trapping Libya in a state of lawlessness.

Now that problem has become entangled in the American presidential race as well, with Republicans arguing that the Obama administration’s failure to protect Mr. Stevens illustrates the breakdown of its policy in the region. Mounting pressure on the administration to act against the perpetrators carries its own risks: an American strike on Libyan soil could produce a popular and potentially violent backlash in the only Arab country whose people largely have warm feelings toward Washington.

The militias’ power is evident. In one of Tripoli’s finest hotels, the Waddan, about two dozen militiamen from the western city of Misurata continue to help themselves to rooms without paying, just as they have for more than a year; the interim interior minister, also from Misurata, protects them.

In Benghazi, independent brigades are using tapped telephones to hunt down suspected loyalists of Colonel Qaddafi, with the help of his former intelligence services. Even the huge anti-militia protest here last month became cover for a group of armed men to attack one of the largest brigades, possibly for revenge.

“Nothing changes,” shrugged Fathi al-Obeidi, the militia commander who led a contingent of fighters that helped rescue the Americans in the besieged diplomatic mission here last month.

Some Benghazi residents even say that the militia seen carrying out the attack, Ansar al-Shariah, did a better job than the paralytic government at providing security and even some social services. “They are very nice people,” said Ashraf Bujwary, 40, an administrator at a hospital where Ansar al-Shariah men had served as guards. Security has been “on shaky ground” since the militia fled, he said.

In some ways Ansar al-Shariah exemplifies the twilight world of post-Qaddafi Libya, in which residents with looted weapons have organized themselves into regional, tribal or Islamist brigades to keep the peace and defend differing visions of Libya. In Bani Walid, near Misurata, the dominant militia is made up of former Qaddafi loyalists who have embraced a local strongman and rejected the new government. Some brigades provide public security or services; others oppose democracy as contrary to Islam. Ansar al-Shariah did both.

In a Congressional hearing last week, Eric A. Nordstrom, the former chief of security at the American Embassy in Libya, said that he had tracked Ansar al-Shariah as a potential threat “for quite some time.” He characterized the brigade as both “extremist” and, in his view, an informal arm of the Libyan government.

Wissam Bin Hamid, the 35-year-old leader of a major Benghazi militia, Libya Shield, said he considered Ansar al-Shariah more of an Islamic “social club” than a fighting brigade. “Families come to them when they have a problem with a son,” he said, like drug use or bad behavior. Like other Benghazi militia leaders, he said he wanted to see evidence before blaming Ansar al-Shariah for the attack.

Organizers of the march against the militias nonetheless insisted they had achieved at least a subtle change. The big turnout showed that supporters of a civilian government were in fact “the force on the ground,” insisted Abu Janash Mohamed Abu Janash, 26, one of the organizers.

But he also acknowledged that Ansar al-Shariah was not chased from its headquarters, as had been reported. He said the protest organizers had given Ansar al-Shariah a warning to evacuate. “They were friendly,” Mr. Abu Janash said. “We had lunch together.”

Only after the fact did Mr. Abu Janash learn that armed men had led the march several miles away to attack a larger militia known for defending the government. “The march was hijacked,” said Mr. Salabi, the brigade leader, who was wounded in the attack.

The civilian government responded to the outcry by assigning military officers to help oversee the biggest militias. But the brigade leaders said that they, not the government, would choose their new officers, and that the current commanders would not yet give up control. The militia leaders say they refuse to submit to the national army or the police because so many of the officers used to work for Colonel Qaddafi.

“Some fought with us, some fought against us, some stayed in their homes,” Mr. Bin Hamid of Libya Shield said.

“The whole government is infiltrated,” Mr. Salabi said.

Others say egos are also at play. “You have militia commanders who love the prestige, who have more power than they could ever imagine,” said Zeidoun bin Hamid, the director of operations for Libya Shield. “People like the glorification, and it is hard to take it away from them.”

Even Benghazi militias that work with the government are aligned with rival power bases within it, like the defense minister, military chief of staff and the interior minister.

The interim interior minister, Fawzi Abdel Aali, formerly of the Misurata militia, organized a militia with national pretensions, the Supreme Security Committee. But in an interview at its headquarters in Tripoli, a militia spokesman criticized his ostensible boss. “I will be frank,” said the spokesman, Abdel Moneim al-Hur, “He is not doing his job.”

Mr. Hur accused the interior minister of failing to pay the militia’s fighters, who had policed Benghazi, leading them to walk out months ago. And he accused the minister of using the militia as a “pressure group” to squeeze the Parliament by asking its fighters to stop their police work.

As for the militiamen in the luxury hotel, the spokesman noted that the freeloaders and the interior minister were all from Misurata. “He turns a blind eye to what his cousins do,” Mr. Hur said.

Some militias are eagerly rounding up suspected Qaddafi loyalists. A few weeks ago, fighters from Benghazi’s Feb. 17 Brigade detained a dental student, Firas Ali el-Warfalli, whose father had been on one of Colonel Qaddafi’s revolutionary committees. When Mr. Warfalli’s family and fellow students put up billboards calling for his release, an ally of the militia posted to the Internet a recording of a telephone call on which Mr. Warfalli referred to supporters of Colonel Qaddafi’s green flag as “seaweed like us.” A brigade officer confirmed that the recording came from the Intelligence Ministry.

Telephone surveillance in the hands of independent militias suggests a lack of oversight and raises concerns about eavesdropping on political rivals, said Anwar Fekini, a prominent lawyer. “No government that is worthy of being called a government would allow this,” he said. “But we have a government that exists only on paper.”


I note particularly the changing position of rightie mrgybe, who wanted to quickly move into Libya when Obama hesitated, then wanted to avoid it, then argued that we should have been more forceful. That, unfortunately, is the difference in world views. The Arab spring has turned out to be far more chaotic than those who simple answers had expected. The forces that overthrew despotic governments were a strange mix of pro-democracy middle class folks in Egypt that turned out to be a minority, and a chaotic mixture of different tribal and religious affiliations that are now struggling for power in those countries. Some of those groups hold extreme political and religious views that rely on violence.

The Republican efforts to pin this on the Obama administration avoids any effort to understand the complexity of the situation on the ground and the conflicting instincts behind use of force and use of diplomacy. The standard right-wing response is to use more force--but the recent history of force in the Middle East is that force is often ineffective and leads to blow-back--and we don't have enough force to turn all of our embassies into armed camps. It is equally despicable that the righties have seized on this as a political football, and gone on the attack to avoid any responsibility for their own role in minimizing funding for the Department of State. The right has always favored funding the military rather than State, and that has led to some of the disastrous results in Iraq.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 1859
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2012 12:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

swchandler wrote:
"I guess you've never heard about "green on blue"?
Look it up, you might learn something."


That's simply nonsense. I understand the "green on blue" issue in Afghanistan and the Middle East, but you're incorrectly trying to apply that scenario to an US Army officer here in the US. The incident at Fort Hood wasn't a terrorist attack. I think that you're getting your "news" from very questionable sources.


Iso (from the other BHO thread):
"The White House has yet to admit, in fact constantly ignores and/or denies, the fact that radical Islamic terrorism is still a huge and dangerous force. Example: Fort Hood. Not only did the major's fiscal ties, loyalty, activities, communications, oft-stated allegiance, official documents and lectures, and threats strongly support radical Islam, but he continually screamed "Allahu Akbar" as he mowed down his fellow soldiers. Spontaneous criminal lunatic, my ass."

Which is totally correct, and the bad guys pay attention to our media, and they take notes. I truly believe that they took this as a model to expand upon by embarking on the "green on blue" attacks that have been going on lately.
The Ft. Hood attack was not just another postal worker going postal, he knew what he was doing, we knew where he was getting his inspiration from, and he seemed to have no problem being a martyr for the radical cause. He became a terrorist as soon as he pulled the trigger, and kept pulling it.

But, but, but, going postal fits the narrative of "no terrorists attacks on U.S. soil"!!!
Tough titties, it's happened twice now, since the first 9/11.
But feel free to continue to be an apologist, ignoring the big picture.

It's all about the big picture, and this administration seems to have a problem looking at the big picture, they seem to prefer to keep everything as independent events that have little in common with each other.
And that's was is at the root of this administrations foreign policy failure.
They won't connect the dots, purposely, it's inconvenient right now, there is a campaign going on.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 14470

PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2012 12:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nw30 wrote:
He became a terrorist as soon as he pulled the trigger

He was arguably a terrorist long before that, according to the multiple testimonies, documents, public statements, etc. we saw on the news. There is no excuse for the clear threat signs his military superiors and peers saw almost daily in him. A U.S. military officer bursting into loud, long Koran rants whenever he found any audience, even in formal briefings, raises a red flag; there is no excuse for the degree to which that was ignored. After all, all it takes to risk court martial is making a public statement about any U.S. political issue or candidate, and his rants were just part of a much broader, deeper involvement with radical Islam.

Yet, just as with the Taliban, the administration is continually implying and often outright saying that Al Qaeda, the Taliban, et.al. are declining, on the run, weaker, moderating, etc. I've got to say there's some truth to that if the best they can do on 9/11 is kill an ambassador and staff and take over several embassies (surely everyone understands that our embassies are in every sense U.S. soil), but there's no moral or legal excuse for lying to the nation about that or these particular terrorist attacks until after the election. Besides, that's flat stupid and insulting, given the on-scene camera records, drone and satellite video, advance and real-time telephone calls and emails for help, plus other urgent, documented, hard proof of prior and real time threats, attacks, and cries for help before the "civil unrest gone wild" these attacks are so falsely blamed on even began.

Only blind ideologues and BSNBC puppets believe these were anything but terrorist attacks.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 5966

PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2012 1:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NW30, you're quoting isobars? Like I said, it's more about where you're getting your news. There are a lot of bold opinions out there, but much of it coming from the extreme is just that. Frankly, listening, reading or watching unquestionable "news" sources isn't a credible path to understanding much about what is going on here in America and the world. The negative spin is so contrived and predictable. One only has to follow isobars' rants to see how bent and twisted things have become from some quarters.

You might want to view me as an apologist for the Obama Administration or other liberal causes, and that's your right, but the way that I see it, I'm simply more pragmatic and far less prone to believe the sensational nonsense so common from the right these days. Any and every opportunity to cast President Obama and his administration in poor light is used with a blatant disregard for any caution, balance or anything close to the truth. Rep. Issa's recent antics reveal just how stupid and careless things are becoming. You know, I expect far more from our elected representatives in government. The witch hunts ever so common these days from the right lack any real merit or worth. The fact that Romney and Ryan are making a political scene of the Libyan situation is despicable. While I can expect such crap from the extreme right, to have it coming from two guys that want to be the president and vice president of this nation show just how unqualified and poorly suited they are to lead.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 1859
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 3:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ingraham: Media "Culpable" In Libya Cover Up For Not Demanding Truth

LAURA INGRAHAM: I think about Susan Rice going out there on this show and four other shows on Sunday and I'd like to know, did Susan Rice have any direct or indirect contact with anyone from the Obama campaign? David Axelrod? Plouffe? Maybe Valerie Jarrett, she still works in the White House, but obviously very close to the President. Tom Donilon. I would like to know that. I'd like Mr. Axelrod to answer that question.

I would hope that the New York Times, as they camped outside of Scooter Libby's house during the whole Valerie Plame thing -- are you guys (facing fellow panelist Jeff Zeleny of the New York Times) camped outside of the Susan Rice residence? I mean, seriously. Whether she was put out as a sacrificial lamb or not.

We have a dead ambassador, two Navy SEALS dead, another security officer dead, the President answers this the next morning by flying to Vegas for a fundraiser. I submit that if this were a Republican president and this went down this way, you'd have reporters camped outside of Hillary's house, Rice's house and demand that the president do a full-blown press conference on what happened. Maybe it's just incompetence, maybe it's a series of innocent mistakes. But my goodness, when you have three attacks, violent attacks, inside Benghazi on the Red Cross office, the consulate and then postings on Facebook that we're coming after you on September 10. They didn't have any actionable intelligence? What? This is ridiculous. And I think that the press is partly culpable here.

For the vid~
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/14/ingraham_media_culpable_for_libya_cover_up_for_not_demanding_truth.html

She just laid it out perfectly.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pueno



Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2739

PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 4:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nw30 wrote:
Ingraham: Media "Culpable" In Libya Cover Up For Not Demanding Truth

LAURA INGRAHAM:
. . . .

We have a dead ambassador, two Navy SEALS dead, another security officer dead, the President answers this the next morning by flying to Vegas for a fundraiser. I submit that if this were a Republican president....

. . . .


Oh, a republican president like George W. Bush, who sat reading "My Baby Goat" in a grade school classroom after Andrew Card told him that a plane had flown into the WTC?

You mean a president like that?

nw30, why do you quote an idiot like Ingraham?

Never mind ----- I know why.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 1859
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 4:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pueno wrote:
nw30 wrote:
Ingraham: Media "Culpable" In Libya Cover Up For Not Demanding Truth

LAURA INGRAHAM:
. . . .

We have a dead ambassador, two Navy SEALS dead, another security officer dead, the President answers this the next morning by flying to Vegas for a fundraiser. I submit that if this were a Republican president....

. . . .


Oh, a republican president like George W. Bush, who sat reading "My Baby Goat" in a grade school classroom after Andrew Card told him that a plane had flown into the WTC?

You mean a president like that?

nw30, why do you quote an idiot like Ingraham?

Never mind ----- I know why.


Why would you think someone like Laura Ingraham is an idiot?

"Never mind ----- I know why."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pueno



Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2739

PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 5:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nw30 wrote:

Why would you think someone like Laura Ingraham is an idiot?


Well, to start.......... she works for Fox "News"........

But, then, you know that.

And there's no need to look any farther for a reason.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 80, 81, 82  Next
Page 4 of 82

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group