- Joined
- Jun 13, 2005
- Messages
- 61,578
- Reaction score
- 25,597
Baloney. That's why we're talking about something that happened 4 years ago now.
I don't even.......Shame Israel!!!!
- Thread starter VivaRevolution
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2005
- Messages
- 61,578
- Reaction score
- 25,597
How willfully dumb and blind do you have to be to believe such a thing in 2018?
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2016
- Messages
- 34,002
- Reaction score
- 0
Because I actually did the research, and saw the fake evidence months after the attacks, not the unconfirmed news blurb reported 72 hours after the events.
Hey madmick, how did all those US weapons get into ISIS bunkers in Syria?
Crazy how those white helmet building had tunnels going to the ISIS buildings huh?
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2006
- Messages
- 7,422
- Reaction score
- 3,160
Or the Jew believes that Palestinians are worthless creatures and should be killed. This explains what happened and why he didn't wait for orders.
This is the same as any terrorist who see those outside his group as worthless and inferior. Just because he is an Israeli or a Jew doesn't mean he is morally perfect.
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2005
- Messages
- 61,578
- Reaction score
- 25,597
No, you didn't do any research. You were a gullible idiot who shilled Russian propaganda on the reputation of a single journalist who wouldn't substantiate or cite his anonymous sources. You made up your mind having done almost no reading whatsoever, and you have maintained that confirmation bias ever since. I educated you, at extraordinary length, on these lies:
- Evidence That Assad Was Behind Recent Chemical Attacks?
- Updated: Seymore Hersh, Red line, Rat line, China/Russia call for Chemical Weapons investigation
- New Gas Hoax Incoming [Syria] ["intelligence"]
- Actors used in 'terrorist attack' in Iraq
- Syria Conflict: Bombs away boys. (Israel openly admits to bombing Iranian bases in Syria)
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2016
- Messages
- 34,002
- Reaction score
- 0
Nope. The canister from the attack in Douhma was fake as shit.
You think this starts with Hersh with me. This is what happened in Benghazi. The CIA annex that was attacked, was arming rebels with chemical weapons. Call me a CT'er all you want, but when you hear the theory 6 years ago, and everything after that happens to line up with that theory, it isn't a theory anymore.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2005
- Messages
- 61,578
- Reaction score
- 25,597
Just like the kid, amirite?
Nothing was fake. You need to come to grips with reality. You were bamboozled. You were ignorant and gullible. You continue to refuse to correct this.One, you say, @VivaRevolution. Just one, my boy? Okay, let's bring a key footnote this time, one with a face on it, to add to the four different sources I've already cited (each which is itself citing multiple instances of debunked social media and photos indicating a "staged" attack):
Assad claims iconic photo of bloodied Syrian boy is fake
Yeah. This is the guy you're in bed with. This is the narrative Russia is slinging.
This poor kid was just one more "staged" Western puppet.
*Edit*
You need to add this website to your bookmarks, ASAP:
https://dashboard.securingdemocracy.org/
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2016
- Messages
- 34,002
- Reaction score
- 0
Nope. You want to set the narrative. As long as we talk about the evidence that wasn't debunked, and shown to be fraudulent without ever explaining who was behind that fraud, then you can bury me in manufactured evidence and ignore the debunked evidence that was once presented as fact.
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2005
- Messages
- 61,578
- Reaction score
- 25,597
That evidence was never debunked. If you read through our exchanges in those threads, on more than half a dozen occasions I demonstrated to you how what you believed were "debunkings" (often social media jpegs with red circles and lines) were themselves fabricated lies staged by the Russians.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2016
- Messages
- 34,002
- Reaction score
- 0
Yeah, just like the white helmets right mick?
The Russians digging those tunnels, and manufacturing all those witnesses accussing the white helmets of being Al-Ciada.
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2005
- Messages
- 61,578
- Reaction score
- 25,597
Most of the White Helmets were not radicalized, and the instances of those who adorned the helmets did so to avoid bombing, similar to how radical Muslims have a strong affection for the "human shield" tactic, where they deliberately occupy buildings rich with civilians, or build their outposts below, near to, or inside of hospitals. Of course, this is a separate matter, and doesn't address all of your mistakes of gullible ignorance, and your childish howls about fake evidence that you cannot substantiate. You consistently refuse to accept the indications of material evidence that contradict your own-- on the rare occasion you produce any-- on the basis that the source is compromised, and yet you don't apply this same logic to the sources you favor.
If you did, you would have no one, while I will still have most of my sources, and their conclusions.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2016
- Messages
- 34,002
- Reaction score
- 0
Here is what I have. A crazy conspiracy theory from 6 years ago, that said we were arming rebels in Benghazi at a CIA annex, with chemical weapons a year into the Syrian civil war, and being told then, that this would be their use.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2016
- Messages
- 34,002
- Reaction score
- 0
The Mosaic of lies, deceits and state-sponsored terrorism:
The hidden real truth about Benghazi
By Doug Hagmann —
October 28, 2012
A mosaic of lies
According to the U.S. government, Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed during a spontaneous protest at the consulate office in Benghazi by a frenzied crowd of Muslims outraged over an obscure internet video. Recently released “sensitive but not classified e-mails” from Stevens to the U.S. Department of State painted a picture of poor security for U.S. personnel and the embassy, which was obviously true but had little to do with the events of September 11, 2012. The failure to dispatch an extraction team or otherwise rescue the men during a firefight that lasted upwards of nine grueling and tortuous hours was not the result of any intelligence failure, but caused by our unwillingness to widen the conflict and expose the nature and scale of our true mission in Benghazi.
Based on information provided by my source and corroborated elsewhere, the official account by administration officials is a mosaic of lies that were necessary to cover the unpalatable truth of covert actions taking place in Libya, Syria, Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. The primary objective of our covert actions was to secretly arm anti-Assad “rebels” in Syria by funneling arms from Libya to Syria via Turkey, with other destinations that included Jordan and Lebanon. Regarding the threat to Stevens and the other murdered Americans, the truth will reformat the persistent question posed to government officials, from UN Ambassador Susan Rice to White House Spokesman Jay Carney and others from “how could you not have known” to “how could you have done these things?”
First, it is important to understand that Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Dougherty and Tyrone Woods were not killed at a consulate office in Benghazi—as there is not such office there. They died at one of the largest CIA operations centers in the Middle East, which was located in Benghazi and served as the logistics headquarters for arms and weapons being shipped out of the post-Qaddafi Libya.
Although the U.S. government insisted that Stevens was involved in securing and destroying the numerous caches of arms and weapons once under the control of Qaddafi, the operation was more complex than that. The visual accounts of weapons being destroyed were indeed real, but those weapons were not operational. The working weapons were actually separated and transported to holding facilities for their eventual use in Syria. Russia was fully aware of this operation and warned the U.S. not to engage in the destabilization of Syria, as doing so would endanger their national security interests. Deposing Assad, as despotic as he might be, and replacing him with a Muslim Brotherhood-led regime would likely lead to unrestrained Islamic chaos across the region.
The Turkish warning
According to my source, Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 to meet with his Turkish counterpart, who reportedly warned Stevens that the operation was compromised. They met in person so that Stevens could be shown overhead satellite images, taken by the Russians, of nefarious activities taking place in Turkey. But just what were these nefarious activities?
It is reasonable to suspect that these activities were more dire than just your average “gun running” operation. Since the overthrow of Qaddafi, it is estimated that upwards of 40 million tons of weapons and arms were shipped out of Libya to Syria. But it was also known inside intelligence circles that Qaddafi possessed chemical weapons in addition to numerous surface-to-air missiles. Could it be that Russia obtained unmistakable surveillance footage of the anti-Assad “rebels” being shown how to load chemical payloads onto missiles inside Turkey near the border of Syria? Weapons, of course, that were shipped from Libya by the CIA in conjunction with various Muslim Brotherhood rebel groups. If so, such weapons could be used as a “false flag” type of operation—one that would be implemented to “set-up” Assad by making it appear that he was using these weapons on forces dedicated to his overthrow.
The blowback by the international community would be swift and punishing, and the entirety of the civilized world would be demanding his overthrow. NATO would then be used to expedite his ouster, and Russia’s moral position within the international community would be weakened. Was the meeting held to show Stevens that the operation was compromised and that they had to stop?
A Nation/State sponsored attack?
While the administration asserts that the attack in Benghazi was conducted by a group of rebels acting alone, the facts seem to indicate otherwise. The level of coordination was such that we did not deploy military assets, located just an hour or two away by air, to rescue Stevens and the others at the CIA operations center in their time of need. If, as the administration contends, that the attack was perpetuated by a group of frenzied rebels, our military could have easily handled them in short order. So why was there no rescue operation?
Perhaps the statements made yesterday by Leon Panetta, U.S. Secretary of Defense provides some insight if one analyzes the essence of those statements. Among other things, Panetta said that “...the basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on…” Well, it has been confirmed we did know what was taking place on the ground in Benghazi, so exactly what did Panetta mean by this statement?
Against the backdrop of the official story, it makes little sense. If, however, one considers the alternative, that the attack was coordinated and was a nation/state sponsored attack, then it becomes clearer. Panetta and the highest levels of this administration likely knew exactly what we were doing, and knew that the operation was compromised. They knew, or had reason to believe, that the attack was being conducted at a nation/state level in response to our covert operation in Libya and arming the anti-Assad Syrian opposition.
Although Russia figures prominently here, Iran now comes into focus as Russia is not likely to directly engage U.S. forces. They must, however, protect their interests. Much like we were using anti-Assad forces to advance our objectives in Syria, Russia was using Iranian-backed forces to protect theirs. It appears that the attacks were conducted or facilitated by Iranian assets—perhaps as many as three teams of assets in Benghazi.
As the White House and other agencies monitored intelligence in real-time, they faced a dilemma. They knew that the nation/state sponsored attack teams were lying in wait for U.S. rescue forces to arrive, which is the reason the fight did not conclusively end sooner. They did not know exactly where all of the attack teams were, but knew they were present based on signal communication intercepts. Could they risk such exposure by deploying a rescue team to Benghazi, only to end up with another Black Hawk down type scenario? In addition to that scenario, the entire operation now becomes exposed for what it is. Take another look at Panetta’s statement in that context. Does it now make more sense? Bad PR in an election year, no?
As daylight approached with no response from the U.S. and no aid to the Americans under fire, the attack teams had to disperse into the cover of the remaining darkness, but not before their mission was accomplished. And sadly, it was.
Fallout
From the day of attack in Benghazi, Iran has been engaged in a full spectrum attack on the U.S. and NATO across the board involving embassies, bombing and even cyber attacks. All of this is the fallout from the arms and weapons smuggling operation, which was far greater than understood by the Western media.
Russia has now moved their contingent of S-400 missiles into much of Syria in anticipation of NATO establishing an “air cap” over Syria. A ten-mile “buffer zone” along Syria’s border has been created for Syrian refugees, but it also acts as a catalyst for the encroachment into Syrian territory. It sets the stage for further advancement and erosion of Syrian land, incrementally, of course.
It is also of critical importance to note that last weekend, Russia completed large-scale exercises of their Strategic Nuclear Forces under the watchful command of President Vladimir Putin. These were the first such nuclear exercises conducted since the fall of the Soviet Union.
To those with discernment, it is obvious that we are at the precipice of World War III. Putin himself stated as much, noting that WW III will not start in Iran but Syria, his own “red line in the sand.
https://canadafreepress.com/article/the-hidden-real-truth-about-benghazi
The hidden real truth about Benghazi
By Doug Hagmann —
October 28, 2012
A mosaic of lies
According to the U.S. government, Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed during a spontaneous protest at the consulate office in Benghazi by a frenzied crowd of Muslims outraged over an obscure internet video. Recently released “sensitive but not classified e-mails” from Stevens to the U.S. Department of State painted a picture of poor security for U.S. personnel and the embassy, which was obviously true but had little to do with the events of September 11, 2012. The failure to dispatch an extraction team or otherwise rescue the men during a firefight that lasted upwards of nine grueling and tortuous hours was not the result of any intelligence failure, but caused by our unwillingness to widen the conflict and expose the nature and scale of our true mission in Benghazi.
Based on information provided by my source and corroborated elsewhere, the official account by administration officials is a mosaic of lies that were necessary to cover the unpalatable truth of covert actions taking place in Libya, Syria, Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. The primary objective of our covert actions was to secretly arm anti-Assad “rebels” in Syria by funneling arms from Libya to Syria via Turkey, with other destinations that included Jordan and Lebanon. Regarding the threat to Stevens and the other murdered Americans, the truth will reformat the persistent question posed to government officials, from UN Ambassador Susan Rice to White House Spokesman Jay Carney and others from “how could you not have known” to “how could you have done these things?”
First, it is important to understand that Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Dougherty and Tyrone Woods were not killed at a consulate office in Benghazi—as there is not such office there. They died at one of the largest CIA operations centers in the Middle East, which was located in Benghazi and served as the logistics headquarters for arms and weapons being shipped out of the post-Qaddafi Libya.
Although the U.S. government insisted that Stevens was involved in securing and destroying the numerous caches of arms and weapons once under the control of Qaddafi, the operation was more complex than that. The visual accounts of weapons being destroyed were indeed real, but those weapons were not operational. The working weapons were actually separated and transported to holding facilities for their eventual use in Syria. Russia was fully aware of this operation and warned the U.S. not to engage in the destabilization of Syria, as doing so would endanger their national security interests. Deposing Assad, as despotic as he might be, and replacing him with a Muslim Brotherhood-led regime would likely lead to unrestrained Islamic chaos across the region.
The Turkish warning
According to my source, Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 to meet with his Turkish counterpart, who reportedly warned Stevens that the operation was compromised. They met in person so that Stevens could be shown overhead satellite images, taken by the Russians, of nefarious activities taking place in Turkey. But just what were these nefarious activities?
It is reasonable to suspect that these activities were more dire than just your average “gun running” operation. Since the overthrow of Qaddafi, it is estimated that upwards of 40 million tons of weapons and arms were shipped out of Libya to Syria. But it was also known inside intelligence circles that Qaddafi possessed chemical weapons in addition to numerous surface-to-air missiles. Could it be that Russia obtained unmistakable surveillance footage of the anti-Assad “rebels” being shown how to load chemical payloads onto missiles inside Turkey near the border of Syria? Weapons, of course, that were shipped from Libya by the CIA in conjunction with various Muslim Brotherhood rebel groups. If so, such weapons could be used as a “false flag” type of operation—one that would be implemented to “set-up” Assad by making it appear that he was using these weapons on forces dedicated to his overthrow.
The blowback by the international community would be swift and punishing, and the entirety of the civilized world would be demanding his overthrow. NATO would then be used to expedite his ouster, and Russia’s moral position within the international community would be weakened. Was the meeting held to show Stevens that the operation was compromised and that they had to stop?
A Nation/State sponsored attack?
While the administration asserts that the attack in Benghazi was conducted by a group of rebels acting alone, the facts seem to indicate otherwise. The level of coordination was such that we did not deploy military assets, located just an hour or two away by air, to rescue Stevens and the others at the CIA operations center in their time of need. If, as the administration contends, that the attack was perpetuated by a group of frenzied rebels, our military could have easily handled them in short order. So why was there no rescue operation?
Perhaps the statements made yesterday by Leon Panetta, U.S. Secretary of Defense provides some insight if one analyzes the essence of those statements. Among other things, Panetta said that “...the basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on…” Well, it has been confirmed we did know what was taking place on the ground in Benghazi, so exactly what did Panetta mean by this statement?
Against the backdrop of the official story, it makes little sense. If, however, one considers the alternative, that the attack was coordinated and was a nation/state sponsored attack, then it becomes clearer. Panetta and the highest levels of this administration likely knew exactly what we were doing, and knew that the operation was compromised. They knew, or had reason to believe, that the attack was being conducted at a nation/state level in response to our covert operation in Libya and arming the anti-Assad Syrian opposition.
Although Russia figures prominently here, Iran now comes into focus as Russia is not likely to directly engage U.S. forces. They must, however, protect their interests. Much like we were using anti-Assad forces to advance our objectives in Syria, Russia was using Iranian-backed forces to protect theirs. It appears that the attacks were conducted or facilitated by Iranian assets—perhaps as many as three teams of assets in Benghazi.
As the White House and other agencies monitored intelligence in real-time, they faced a dilemma. They knew that the nation/state sponsored attack teams were lying in wait for U.S. rescue forces to arrive, which is the reason the fight did not conclusively end sooner. They did not know exactly where all of the attack teams were, but knew they were present based on signal communication intercepts. Could they risk such exposure by deploying a rescue team to Benghazi, only to end up with another Black Hawk down type scenario? In addition to that scenario, the entire operation now becomes exposed for what it is. Take another look at Panetta’s statement in that context. Does it now make more sense? Bad PR in an election year, no?
As daylight approached with no response from the U.S. and no aid to the Americans under fire, the attack teams had to disperse into the cover of the remaining darkness, but not before their mission was accomplished. And sadly, it was.
Fallout
From the day of attack in Benghazi, Iran has been engaged in a full spectrum attack on the U.S. and NATO across the board involving embassies, bombing and even cyber attacks. All of this is the fallout from the arms and weapons smuggling operation, which was far greater than understood by the Western media.
Russia has now moved their contingent of S-400 missiles into much of Syria in anticipation of NATO establishing an “air cap” over Syria. A ten-mile “buffer zone” along Syria’s border has been created for Syrian refugees, but it also acts as a catalyst for the encroachment into Syrian territory. It sets the stage for further advancement and erosion of Syrian land, incrementally, of course.
It is also of critical importance to note that last weekend, Russia completed large-scale exercises of their Strategic Nuclear Forces under the watchful command of President Vladimir Putin. These were the first such nuclear exercises conducted since the fall of the Soviet Union.
To those with discernment, it is obvious that we are at the precipice of World War III. Putin himself stated as much, noting that WW III will not start in Iran but Syria, his own “red line in the sand.
https://canadafreepress.com/article/the-hidden-real-truth-about-benghazi
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2005
- Messages
- 61,578
- Reaction score
- 25,597
That's exactly what it is. A conspiracy theory. His speculation about the CIA shuttling chemical weapons to rebels to conduct a false flag is pure speculation, and unfounded. His conclusive prediction that we are "on the precipice of World War III" and that it will be initiated in Syria hasn't aged well, either.
There was a "covert" CIA operation to arm anti-Assad rebels, initiated by Obama in 2013, at Clinton's behest, but it sure as hell didn't involve chemical weapons intended to stage a "false flag". We wouldn't even give them anti-aircraft artillery or armament because Obama was aware that it might get into radical hands, and didn't want to risk empowering them against our air dominance if we ever returned to combat there in the future. These honest rebels were exasperated with the petty substance of our aid. It's impossible to keep programs like that under wraps. FRONTLINE was already covering it in depth in May 2014.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timber_Sycamore
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/syria-arming-the-rebels/
https://www.pbs.org/video/frontline-syria-arming-rebels/
The program had only been proposed by Petraeus in the summer of 2012 several months before that article was penned. Obama didn't change his mind and sign the program into effect until the following year (after that article was written). At the point his article was written we were merely participating in weapons buyback programs (such as the exchange seen in the film 13 Hours) in our best effort to control the weapons flooding the market following the collapse of Gaddafi's regime in 2011:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/world/middleeast/cia-syria-rebel-arm-train-trump.html
From that article concerning the power of weapons distributed:New York Times said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/19/world/middleeast/cia-arming-syrian-rebels.html
New York Times said:
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2016
- Messages
- 34,002
- Reaction score
- 0
Let me be clear. I am not accussing Obama or Clinton of ordering Syrian rebels be armed with chemical weapons.
The CIA is a rogue organization.
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2005
- Messages
- 61,578
- Reaction score
- 25,597
You're unreachable. The CIA didn't conduct a false flag. Panetta didn't orchestrate a chemical weapon attack to set up WW3.
The Syrians did it, and the Russians ran counterintelligence to divide westerners by casting their nets out there to troll for tinfoil fishies. Clearly the latter achieved some success.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2016
- Messages
- 34,002
- Reaction score
- 0
You're unreachable. The CIA didn't conduct a false flag. Panetta didn't orchestrate a chemical weapon attack to set up WW3.
The Syrians did it, and the Russians ran counterintelligence to divide westerners by casting their nets out there to troll for tinfoil fishies. Clearly the latter achieved some success.
You haven't even attempted to explain why this article is talking about a chemical weapons attacks in Syria a year before a chemical weapon attack ever occurred.
Is that part of the Russian disinformation conspiracy? Did the Russians know Assad was going to use chemical weapons in Douma a year before it happened?
See you don't just ask me to ignore how stupid of a military decision the use of chemical weapons is, you also ask me to ignore that people were making this accusation before chemical weapons were ever used. Finally you ask me to treat a giant of journalism named Seymore Herch as a blogger. See how you are just as much of a CT'er as I am?
Is Genie energy a CT Mick? Is a Rothchild, Cheney, former CIA director Woolsey, and one of the architects of financial deregulation named Larry summers, members of a board that was awarded energy contracts in Syria by Israel?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2010
- Messages
- 6,220
- Reaction score
- 721
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2006
- Messages
- 29,380
- Reaction score
- 7,061
I remember this from when it was reported right after it happened. It was a tragic mistake on the part of the IDF. But my question has to be "why would you let your kids play on the beach when there is active combat in the area?" Hamas is known to put civilians in harms way. Another way they did this was by installing rocket launchers next to civilian apartments. It would not surprise me to find out that these boys were deliberately put at that beach to create an incident.
I can't promise that there are no sociopaths in the IDF, or that mistakes won't happen in the heat of battle, but as an organization they go out of their way to avoid civilian casualties while still stopping militants. For example when they felt like they needed to hit a target that was close to a civilian building they would drop fliers and make phone calls to tell people to evacuate. This is not the act of an organization that deliberately targets innocents or is callous to the lives of non-combatants.
The Jews are well aware of the history of people blaming them and blood libeling them. They are well aware that there is an army of organizations devoted to discrediting the Jewish state, including the so called Human Rights Council at the UN which damns Israel non-stop while ignoring the acts of true monsters like Syria, North Korea, etc. They know the world is watching, and while they cannot afford to not defend themselves militarily, they also have to be the most ethical they can be under difficult circumstances.
I can't promise that there are no sociopaths in the IDF, or that mistakes won't happen in the heat of battle, but as an organization they go out of their way to avoid civilian casualties while still stopping militants. For example when they felt like they needed to hit a target that was close to a civilian building they would drop fliers and make phone calls to tell people to evacuate. This is not the act of an organization that deliberately targets innocents or is callous to the lives of non-combatants.
The Jews are well aware of the history of people blaming them and blood libeling them. They are well aware that there is an army of organizations devoted to discrediting the Jewish state, including the so called Human Rights Council at the UN which damns Israel non-stop while ignoring the acts of true monsters like Syria, North Korea, etc. They know the world is watching, and while they cannot afford to not defend themselves militarily, they also have to be the most ethical they can be under difficult circumstances.
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2006
- Messages
- 29,380
- Reaction score
- 7,061
Hamas used hotels, a church, a UN school, all to create an incident so Israel could be blamed. And don't think Israel could just sit back and do nothing. They can't have rocket after rocket launched at civilian targets in Israel unanswered. They can't have Hamas digging tunnels into Israel to attack people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_tunnel_warfare_in_the_Gaza_Strip
