The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: DCPatriot on April 23, 2014, 02:00:41 am
-
Stunner! Benghazi Was a Base for Illegal Arms Shipments to Syria
by Sara Noble
(http://www.independentsentinel.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Rand-Paul.jpg)
Sen. Rand Paul, was he prescient?
Illegal arms were shipped to Syrian rebels from Libya and this could be the reason Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton lied and claimed the attack on the consulate was the result of a video.
Seymour Hirsch published an investigative report stating that there is an addendum to the Senate Intelligence Committee report which explains what the CIA was doing in Benghazi. Our government was shipping arms from Libya through Turkey to Syrian rebels before we realized they were al-Qaida.
The reason the government lied was probably to conceal an illegal operation to arm Syrian rebels. Ambassador Stevens was the coordinator.
It wasn’t authorized by Congress and it is a blatant violation of law. The CIA claims they were only liaison’s with MI-6 and they didn’t have to get permission from the Senate Intelligence Committee. That is ludicrous. The British had left Benghazi by the time of the attack.
That needs investigating!
From the Hirsch article:
The full extent of US co-operation with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar in assisting the rebel opposition in Syria has yet to come to light. The Obama administration has never publicly admitted to its role in creating what the CIA calls a ‘rat line’, a back channel highway into Syria. The rat line, authorised in early 2012, was used to funnel weapons and ammunition from Libya via southern Turkey and across the Syrian border to the opposition. Many of those in Syria who ultimately received the weapons were jihadists, some of them affiliated with al-Qaida. (The DNI spokesperson said: ‘The idea that the United States was providing weapons from Libya to anyone is false.’)
Contemporary Ceramics Centre
In January, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report on the assault by a local militia in September 2012 on the American consulate and a nearby undercover CIA facility in Benghazi, which resulted in the death of the US ambassador, Christopher Stevens, and three others. The report’s criticism of the State Department for not providing adequate security at the consulate, and of the intelligence community for not alerting the US military to the presence of a CIA outpost in the area, received front-page coverage and revived animosities in Washington, with Republicans accusing Obama and Hillary Clinton of a cover-up. A highly classified annex to the report, not made public, described a secret agreement reached in early 2012 between the Obama and Erdoğan administrations. It pertained to the rat line. By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi’s arsenals into Syria. A number of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of Australian entities. Retired American soldiers, who didn’t always know who was really employing them, were hired to manage procurement and shipping. The operation was run by David Petraeus, the CIA director who would soon resign when it became known he was having an affair with his biographer. (A spokesperson for Petraeus denied the operation ever took place.)
The operation had not been disclosed at the time it was set up to the congressional intelligence committees and the congressional leadership, as required by law since the 1970s. The involvement of MI6 enabled the CIA to evade the law by classifying the mission as a liaison operation. The former intelligence official explained that for years there has been a recognised exception in the law that permits the CIA not to report liaison activity to Congress, which would otherwise be owed a finding. (All proposed CIA covert operations must be described in a written document, known as a ‘finding’, submitted to the senior leadership of Congress for approval.) Distribution of the annex was limited to the staff aides who wrote the report and to the eight ranking members of Congress – the Democratic and Republican leaders of the House and Senate, and the Democratic and Republicans leaders on the House and Senate intelligence committees. This hardly constituted a genuine attempt at oversight: the eight leaders are not known to gather together to raise questions or discuss the secret information they receive.
The annex didn’t tell the whole story of what happened in Benghazi before the attack, nor did it explain why the American consulate was attacked. ‘The consulate’s only mission was to provide cover for the moving of arms,’ the former intelligence official, who has read the annex, said. ‘It had no real political role.’
more at: http://www.independentsentinel.com/stunner-benghazi-was-a-base-for-illegal-arms-shipments-to-syria/ (http://www.independentsentinel.com/stunner-benghazi-was-a-base-for-illegal-arms-shipments-to-syria/)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-
A "Stunner" to whom? :whistle:
-
A "Stunner" to whom? :whistle:
Those were my exact words, DC.
-
A "Stunner" to whom? :whistle:
Exactly DCP... Sheese.
-
A "Stunner" to whom? :whistle:
Hopefully no one here because I have mentioned it several times now on these pages over the last year.
-
I am SHOCKED!
SHOCKED I tell you!
Said no one with an IQ higher than a sea cucumber about this.
-
Luis - I am totally shocked.
Someone finally reported it? :thud:
-
I believe there are two inaccuracies here: (1) that the administration did not know it was funding Al Qaeda; and (2) that congress did not authorize the operation. It would be the height of naivete, after Egypt and Libya, not to know that Muslim extremists were involved in the Syrian rebellion. The reason no one in congress is interested in aggressively pursuing this matter is probably because congressional leadership was briefed on the operation and approved of it.
-
I believe there are two inaccuracies here: (1) that the administration did not know it was funding Al Qaeda; and (2) that congress did not authorize the operation. It would be the height of naivete, after Egypt and Libya, not to know that Muslim extremists were involved in the Syrian rebellion. The reason no one in congress is interested in aggressively pursuing this matter is probably because congressional leadership was briefed on the operation and approved of it.
BINGO!!!!
-
Hopefully no one here because I have mentioned it several times now on these pages over the last year.
EXACTLY....just about everyone here came to this conclusion months ago....
-
I said it was an illegal arms depot as we all 'watched' in real time.
As Casey Stengel once said....."You can look it up!" :laugh:
-
I heard Glenn Beck say this - like the day AFTER the attack! Anyone that didn't know this is being willfully ignorant.
-
I believe there are two inaccuracies here: (1) that the administration did not know it was funding Al Qaeda; and (2) that congress did not authorize the operation. It would be the height of naivete, after Egypt and Libya, not to know that Muslim extremists were involved in the Syrian rebellion. The reason no one in congress is interested in aggressively pursuing this matter is probably because congressional leadership was briefed on the operation and approved of it.
I think you are spot on correct massadvj. That's why nothing will ever be done about it.
-
A "Stunner" to whom? :whistle:
Hopefully no one here because I have mentioned it several times now on these pages over the last year.
What's truly stunning is the number of people who are going to find this to be, well, stunning.
We are a nation of LIVs.
-
"As Casey Stengel once said....."You can look it up!" :laugh:"
I like Yogi's take also..."Déjà vu all over again".
How many times do we pull this crapola only to be bitten on the arse.
-
This makes it even more egregious (if that's possible) that the Benghazi facility defense wasn't beefed up.
-
This makes it even more egregious (if that's possible) that the Benghazi facility defense wasn't beefed up.
One more time for the record. Here's what happened:
The CIA was moving arms the Syrian rebels out of Benghazi. Putin found out about it and through back channels (No official records of such comms likely exsist) let Obozo know that they were going to roll the operation up and that if he (Obozo) knew what was good for him he would stay the hell out of the way! They did and Obozo did exactly as he was instructed.
-
One more time for the record. Here's what happened:
The CIA was moving arms the Syrian rebels out of Benghazi. Putin found out about it and through back channels (No official records of such comms likely exist) let Obozo know that they were going to roll the operation up and that if he (Obozo) knew what was good for him he would stay the hell out of the way! They did and Obozo did exactly as he was instructed.
Bigun: Maybe you can help me out with this.
Given the following:
1..The Syrian rebels were backed by al qaeda..is that right?
2..The Benghazi embassy, or whatever it was, was attacked by al qaeda..is that right?
If this is so, why did al qaeda attack the source of their supply for arms in Syria??
anyone, anyone???
-
I am SHOCKED!
SHOCKED I tell you!
Said no one with an IQ higher than a sea cucumber about this.
:thumbsup3:
-
Bigun: Maybe you can help me out with this.
Given the following:
1..The Syrian rebels were backed by al qaeda..is that right?
2..The Benghazi embassy, or whatever it was, was attacked by al qaeda..is that right?
If this is so, why did al qaeda attack the source of their supply for arms in Syria??
anyone, anyone???
SOME of the Syrian rebels were backed by Al quaedi but by no means ALL of them. The weapons in this case were not going to those forces but the Syrians and their Russian allies did not want, and refused to allow, these particular weapons to get to ANY of them!
-
Has this been verified..
-
"The weapons in this case were not going to those forces ...."
If not to Al Qaeda and the rebels, where were the weapons going?
-
"The weapons in this case were not going to those forces ...."
If not to Al Qaeda and the rebels, where were the weapons going?
There were, at the time all this occurred, many rebel groups and many of them were not affiliated with AQ in any way.
-
SOME of the Syrian rebels were backed by Al quaedi but by no means ALL of them. The weapons in this case were not going to those forces but the Syrians and their Russian allies did not want, and refused to allow, these particular weapons to get to ANY of them!
Bang on, as usual brother! :beer:
I'd say less than 25% of the rebels are AQ affiliated. The vast majority of them are something far more dangerous - pissed off people who have just had enough.
-
Bang on, as usual brother! :beer:
I'd say less than 25% of the rebels are AQ affiliated. The vast majority of them are something far more dangerous - pissed off people who have just had enough.
Interesting idea.
Pissed off people who have had enough are far more dangerous than terrorists.
Interesting.
-
Interesting idea.
Pissed off people who have had enough are far more dangerous than terrorists.
Interesting.
They are way more dangerous.
Terrorists fight for an ideology. Pissed off people fight for their homes and families. Guess who fights harder and dirtier.
Take your average grunt. He'll fight, it's what he does. Devotion to country and so on. Touch his actual family or his squad mates and he'll shred you like a V8 powered chainsaw on PCP. Like they say in retail, the personal touch makes all the difference.
-
bkmk
-
Bigun: Maybe you can help me out with this.
Given the following:
1..The Syrian rebels were backed by al qaeda..is that right?
2..The Benghazi embassy, or whatever it was, was attacked by al qaeda..is that right?
If this is so, why did al qaeda attack the source of their supply for arms in Syria??
anyone, anyone???
We simply don't know what went wrong because our own intelligence people aren't telling us. The Putin angle is speculation, and I'm not sure I believe it. There is a retired intelligence officer claiming it was a plot to kidnap Stevens and trade him for the blind sheik, but I don't lmow if I believe that, either. There has been plenty of legitimate reporting on the weapons sales to Syrian rebels, especially in the foreign press. The simple fact of the matter is when you are making deals with bad guys, things can go hinky. It happens in drug deals all the time. This is no different.