|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> If this is true........ /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1402527103 Message started by raydawg on 06/11/14 at 15:51:43 |
|
Title: If this is true........ Post by raydawg on 06/11/14 at 15:51:43 I hope heads roll, period! Excerpt: Sept. 11, 2012: The U.S. Consulate in Benghazi is seen in flames during a terrorist attack.Reuters The terrorists who attacked the U.S. consulate and CIA annex in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 used cell phones, seized from State Department personnel during the attacks, and U.S. spy agencies overheard them contacting more senior terrorist leaders to report on the success of the operation, multiple sources confirmed to Fox News. The disclosure is important because it adds to the body of evidence establishing that senior U.S. officials in the Obama administration knew early on that Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and not a spontaneous protest over an anti-Islam video that had gone awry, as the administration claimed for several weeks after the attacks. Eric Stahl, who recently retired as a major in the U.S. Air Force, served as commander and pilot of the C-17 aircraft that was used to transport the corpses of the four casualties from the Benghazi attacks – then-U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, information officer Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods – as well as the assault’s survivors from Tripoli to the safety of an American military base in Ramstein, Germany. In an exclusive interview on Fox News’ “Special Report,” Stahl said members of a CIA-trained Global Response Staff who raced to the scene of the attacks were “confused” by the administration’s repeated implication of the video as a trigger for the attacks, because “they knew during the attack…who was doing the attacking.” Asked how, Stahl told anchor Bret Baier: “Right after they left the consulate in Benghazi and went to the [CIA] safehouse, they were getting reports that cell phones, consulate cell phones, were being used to make calls to the attackers' higher ups.” A separate U.S. official, one with intimate details of the bloody events of that night, confirmed the major’s assertion. The second source, who requested anonymity to discuss classified data, told Fox News he had personally read the intelligence reports at the time that contained references to calls by terrorists – using State Department cell phones captured at the consulate during the battle – to their terrorist leaders. The second source also confirmed that the security teams on the ground received this intelligence in real time. Major Stahl was never interviewed by the Accountability Review Board, the investigative panel convened, pursuant to statute, by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as the official body reviewing all the circumstances surrounding the attacks and their aftermath. Many lawmakers and independent experts have criticized the thoroughness of the ARB, which also never interviewed Clinton nor the under secretary of State for management, Patrick Kennedy, a key figure in the decisions about security at the consulate in the period preceding the attack there. In his interview on “Special Report,” Stahl made still other disclosures that add to the vast body of literature on Benghazi – sure to grow in the months ahead, as a select House committee prepares for a comprehensive probe of the affair, complete with subpoena power. Stahl said that when he deposited the traumatized passengers at Ramstein, the first individual to question the CIA security officers was not an FBI officer but by the senior State Department diplomat on the ground. “They were taken away from the airplane,” Stahl said. “The U.S. ambassador to Germany [Philip D. Murphy] met us when we landed and he took them away because he wanted to debfrief them that night.” Murphy stepped down as ambassador last year. A message left with Sky Blue FC, a private company in New Jersey with which Murphy is listed online as an executive officer, was not immediately returned. Stahl also contended that given his crew’s alert status and location, they could have reached Benghazi in time to have played a role in rescuing the victims of the assault, and ferrying them to safety in Germany, had they been asked to do so. “We were on a 45-day deployment to Ramstein air base,” he told Fox News. “And we were there basically to pick up priority missions, last-minute missions that needed to be accomplished.” “You would've thought that we would have had a little bit more of an alert posture on 9/11,” Stahl added. “A hurried-up timeline probably would take us [an] hour-and-a-half to get off the ground and three hours and fifteen minutes to get down there. So we could've gone down there and gotten them easily.” |
|
Title: Re: If this is true........ Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/11/14 at 18:54:09 So we could've gone down there and gotten them easily. There were no mistakes made. Stevens knew too much,, & was unhappy. Pat Tillman type murder, made to look like a turrist attack,, Gun running had to happen, & Stevens was not diggin it one bit,, Thats my guess.. |
|
Title: Re: If this is true........ Post by mpescatori on 06/11/14 at 23:32:30 With all due respect, gentlemen, it is an old and trusted tradition, that when things aren't working out the way you thought, either you put the blame on somebody, or you produce a martyr with a clever hat trick. http://https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQf8uM3vQfdaNU52mxK6sozOW9_ONQyl8dltNxynPBqNEkB7Je0 http://www.wimbledonstudios.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Hat-Trick-Logo.jpg |
|
Title: Re: If this is true........ Post by raydawg on 06/12/14 at 04:24:22 Well some strong accusations are made in this report, to me a true line in the sand is quite visible..... Seems it would be easy to debunk it if they are lies, fry the rabbit for dinner wearing a new t-shirt then :-* |
|
Title: Re: If this is true........ Post by shorty on 06/12/14 at 07:54:46 clearly this administration has no clue regarding security.. just add it to the list of ineptitude |
|
Title: Re: If this is true........ Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/12/14 at 07:57:29 Again,, it wasnt a failure. They got exactly the security someone wanted them to have. If it was desired that they have the security, HOW to accomplish that is well known,, Kinda like pulling the Secret Service guys off of Kennedy's limo seconds before he was shot,, OHH What a Co Inkee Dink THAT was.. |
|
Title: Re: If this is true........ Post by shorty on 06/12/14 at 08:34:34 I see the lack of response as more of ineptitude than deliberate murder.. Now the cover-up was deliberate and clearly to stop the public from seeing the ineptitude of this administration, including an ex-president's wife who refused to talk to congress |
|
Title: Re: If this is true........ Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/12/14 at 08:45:10 Criminal in either case, determining the truth to know the degree of criminality is what we need. |
|
Title: Re: If this is true........ Post by Serowbot on 06/12/14 at 09:14:50 Here is a chronology of the deadly terrorist attacks on United States embassies, consulates and traveling U.S. personnel during the presidency of George W. Bush. The list below does not include foiled attacks or those that did not result in fatalities (other than those of the attackers). The descriptions for each incident are excerpted from the University of Maryland's Global Terrorism Database. Dec. 15, 2001: Unidentified assailants gunned down a Nepalese security guard of the U.S. Embassy in Kathmandu, Nepal. Jan. 22, 2002: Two assailants attacked the American Center in Calcutta, India. Five policemen died, and 15 others were injured in the attack. March 20, 2002: A car bomb exploded near the U.S. Embassy in Lima, Peru, killing nine people and injuring 32. The U.S. State Department reported no American casualties, injuries, or damage. June 14, 2002: A suicide bombing in front of the U.S. Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, left 12 dead and 51 injured. Nov. 9, 2002: The security supervisor for the U.S. embassy in Nepal was shot dead at his house in Kathmandu. Maoist rebels claimed responsibility for the incident. May 12, 2003: In a series of attacks, suicide bombers blew themselves up in a truck loaded with explosives in a complex that housed staff working for U.S. defense firm Vinnell in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. (The contractors worked out of the U.S. embassy.) At least eight Americans were killed in the incident. Al-Qaida was suspected responsible for the incident. This was one of three attacks, involving at least nine suicide bombers and suspected to have involved 19 perpetrators overall. July 30, 2004: Two people, including a suicide bomber, were killed and one person was injured as a suicide bomber set off an explosion at the U.S. Embassy in Tashkent, Uzbekistan. The Israeli Embassy and the Uzbekistan Prosecutor General’s Office in Tashkent were also attacked in related incidents. Oct. 24, 2004: Edward Seitz, the assistant regional security officer at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq, died in a mortar or possible rocket attack at Camp Victory near the Baghdad airport. An American soldier was also injured. He was believed to be the first U.S. diplomat killed following the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion. Nov 25, 2004: Jim Mollen, the U.S. Embassy’s senior consultant to the Iraqi Ministers of Education and Higher Education, was killed just outside the Green Zone in Baghdad. Dec. 7, 2004: Gunmen belonging to al-Qaida in the Arabian Penninsula stormed the U.S. Consulate in Jedda, Saudi Arabia, triggering a bloody four-hour siege that left nine dead. One American was slightly injured in the assault. Jan. 29, 2005: Unknown attackers fired either a rocket or a mortar round at the U.S. Embassy compound in Baghdad. The strike killed two U.S. citizens and left four others injured. Sept. 7, 2005: Four American contractors employed with a private security firm supporting the regional U.S. embassy office in Basra, Iraq, were killed when a roadside bomb exploded near their convoy. Three of the contractors died instantly, and the fourth died in a military hospital after the bombing. March 2, 2006: An unidentified driver detonated a car bomb while driving past the U.S. Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing a himself, a U.S. Consulate worker and at least three others. Sept. 12, 2006: Islamic militants attacked the U.S. embassy in Damascus, Syria, with hand grenades, rifles, and a vehicle rigged with explosives. One guard and the four attackers died. July 8, 2007: Two Iraqi U.S. Embassy workers were killed when the wife went to deliver a ransom for her husband who had been kidnapped in Baghdad. One of the couple's bodyguards was killed in the failed ransoming. Jan. 14, 2008: A bomb hidden on a north Beirut highway hit a U.S. Embassy vehicle, killing at least three Lebanese bystanders. The car's Lebanese driver and an American at a nearby school were wounded. March 18, 2008: Al-Qaida's wing in Yemen, Jund Al-Yemen Brigades, fired between three and five mortar rounds toward the U.S. embassy, but instead they hit a girls’ school nearby, killing a guard and a schoolgirl and injuring 19 others in Sanaa, Yemen. July 9, 2008: Four unknown gunmen killed three Turkish police at the U.S. consulate in Istanbul, Turkey. Sept. 17, 2008: Suspected al-Qaida militants disguised as security forces detonated vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices, fired rocket propelled grenades, rockets and firearms on the U.S. Embassy in Sanaa, Yemen. A suicide bomber also blew himself up at the embassy. Six Yemeni police, four civilians (including an American civilian), and six attackers were killed while six others were wounded in the attack. Nov. 27, 2008: A Taliban suicide car bomber targeted the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, killing four civilians in addition to the suicide bomber and wounding 18 others. The embassy was hosting a Thanksgiving Day event as Americans and other foreigners were arriving at the venue at the time of the attack. |
|
Title: Re: If this is true........ Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/12/14 at 09:52:45 How many of those targets had asked for additional security? On 9/11, we had no idea there mite be a bit of action? On the anniversary of 9/11? Did we learn nothing from those earlier failures? Are you suggesting there was no coverup? Blaming a video? REally? & what of the reports from people who were over there that we WERE in a position to offer support? |
|
Title: Re: If this is true........ Post by Pine on 06/12/14 at 10:16:41 Bot I can understand your desire to show ( and probably correctly) that administrations can be "undone" by acts of terror, but your just playing into party antics. I do not think that Obama would wish to have an attack be successful, nor Hilary for that matter. So I tend to go with the fault being with the underlings at the loss. However, the cover up, DOES go all the way up. And yes, any and all parties are prone to cover ups. As to THIS event and this story, if this can be proven credible then Washington has a lot of 'splaining to do. To show how bad others were does not excuse the current mis-deeds. If Jog is correct from earlier posts, then the above may make sense in that whole thing was a cover for arms smuggling by the US. In which teh CIA or who-ever was doing it, probably figured that a few deaths was worth keeping the secret ( of the smuggling). Once the CIA does this, administration can either go along, or have international egg on its face and the ire of the CIA. The CIA seems to be pretty powerful .. they got thier man elected president.. then got his inept son elected! |
|
Title: Re: If this is true........ Post by Serowbot on 06/12/14 at 10:34:53 My point is,.. the cover-up is a manifestation of the media hoopla over this particular event... The same sensation could have been made over many attacks, but it didn't happen.. 4 people did die,.. but that result could not be predicted before the event. Each incident listed could have been much worse and was not prevented... If this amount of media focus had come up on any of them... excuses and buck passing would have occurred... Why is this one so different than any other?... I say it's media focus... It is the unprecedented hate media... (which grows every year)... The interesting thing, will be... once Obama is out of office, will this hate continue to increase with a new president?... or is it unique to Obama?... I know,... Bush was equally hated by Libs... but, none of the emassy attacks during him admin were so scrutinized... Jes' my 2 cents... :-?... |
|
Title: Re: If this is true........ Post by oldNslow on 06/12/14 at 10:49:20 Quote:
Because in the incidents you cite the official and the initial media reports were for the most part accurate. With respect to Benghazi on the other hand the admin started the lying and the cover-up practically before the bodies were cold, with the ridiculous assertion that the attack was a "spontaneous demonstration" triggered by some obscure internet video. Even the admins most ardent defenders don't try to pretend that that's true any more. Sh*t happens. In this case sh*t happened and the regime shifted the bullsh*t machine into high gear while it was still happening. And they got caught. |
|
Title: Re: If this is true........ Post by Paraquat on 06/12/14 at 11:05:41 4B5D4A574F5A574C380 wrote:
I think... rather, hope, people started getting fed up with Bush. Now they are at a point where they don't want to tolerate this behavior. A little horseplay is good for kids but you have to stop them when it starts getting rough. Depends what the next president does about it, I guess. --Steve |
|
Title: Re: If this is true........ Post by Serowbot on 06/12/14 at 11:18:55 625C5D51435F5E300 wrote:
Initial reports on almost any fast unfolding event are notoriously inaccurate... This is where much of the conspiracy media gets their ammo... 9/11... some British newsy reports a building down before it fell... and it becomes evidence.. It's just "fog of war" reporting... nothing new, except the scrutiny... The very expression..."Fog of War"... comes from this... "Early reports in Troy was,.. "Look,.. we have a gift"... Oooops@!... ;D... Look at early reports of that recent plane gone missing... or any of the weekly shootings we have now... of the BP oil spill,.. Japans nuke meltdown, Iraq's WMD's, or even next years Suzuki Savage... (fuel injected?... not!)... I can't really argue in a 4 or 5 against one duel here... I'm making a point... This is media driven... Those who think they aren't manipulated by the media are the most manipulated... Information doesn't fall out of the sky... The information you have, positive or negative... is media... |
|
Title: Re: If this is true........ Post by oldNslow on 06/12/14 at 11:46:43 [quote]nitial reports on almost any fast unfolding event are notoriously inaccurate... This is where much of the conspiracy media gets their ammo... 9/11... some British newsy reports a building down before it fell... and it becomes evidence.. It's just "fog of war" reporting... nothing new, except the scrutiny... The very expression..."Fog of War"... comes from this... "Early reports in Troy was,.. "Look,.. we have a gift"... Oooops@!... Grin... Look at early reports of that recent plane gone missing... or any of the weekly shootings we have now... /[quote] Utterly irrelevant to the question of the regimes disinformation campaign about Benghazi. And you totally ignore the rest of my post. I don't understand why you are trying so hard to defend the indefensible. You asked why this incident is generating so much controversy. It's because of the cover-up. If the official reports had been at least truthful, even if not at first totally correct, this would have gone away in a few days or weeks, just like all the incidents on your list. Instead, for reasons that I don't think are completely clear, Obama and his minions lied their as*es off about it and got caught in those lies. They brought this on themselves. The media is only doing what the media has always done. |
|
Title: Re: If this is true........ Post by shorty on 06/12/14 at 12:41:08 hello.. the cover-up was intentional, it IS criminal.. refusing to answer questions by congress IS criminal.. remember Nixon? what he did was less substantial and if he hadn't resigned we were looking to impeach him. the past cases pointed out (prior post) are irrelevant, the two party system is failing, we're becoming polarized with both sides covering their eyes, ears, mouth. Blindly defending one's team is small minded the centralized govt was never intended to achieve the current level of power. The States were always supposed to deal with their own problems. Halting the pipeline won't help our energy crisis yet there we go, and for what? moving oil by rail, ship or truck is more risky than a pipe. It's painfully obvious one side is going to break America's back, I hate both parties but one is putting us on the fast track to economic ruin. |
|
Title: Re: If this is true........ Post by Serowbot on 06/12/14 at 13:26:03 Chronological sequence of events to present... http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/10/world/benghazi-consulate-attack-fast-facts/ At what point in these events did this become something more than an attack on an embassy?... Time, Date?... I'll tell you when it became a media circus,... Sept,11, 2012 at about 10:30 p.m. ET,... When Presidential candidate Mitt Romney stated... "I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It's disgraceful that the Obama administration's first response was not to condemn the attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks." If it was about the cover-up after the fact... what's up with Mitt on the very eve of the attacks... He saw the fire before there was any smoke... Political tempest in a teapot for campaign purposes... ... and the ball rolled from there... I remember the reporting... Right-wing spin machine was on it like white on rice from the instant it began... I don't know where hell you guys were that you all missed it... This was a media event, from the first second,...not a real issue... |
|
Title: Re: If this is true........ Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/12/14 at 13:55:16 I disagree. REgardless of what Mit said, we were lied to. It was blamed on a video when they knew otherwise,, It was an attack from the git-go,, not a buncha angry guys who were ticked off over a video,, & thats the lie we were told over & over, till it became clear everyone was well past buying that line of crap.,.Then people started wondering WHY the lies,, & people are well aware that when theyre being lied to, theres a reason,, & people stopped believing what they were being told & they went to Other "news outlets" to see what they thot,, Well,, I didnt get told, I was ahead of it,, & mostly right, if I do say so myself, Maybe one day we will know,, but I doubt it, & the post about Nixon is spot on,, All he had were IRS records. What we have seen is the IRS used as a weapon,, & NOTHING,, Nobody goes to jail.. I WISH Bush had done this,, so there would be sufficient outcry to do something, |
|
Title: Re: If this is true........ Post by shorty on 06/12/14 at 15:57:57 the date was 9/11 for goodness sake, I'm a moron and knew instantly the attack had nothing to do with that stupid internet video.. at the time I wondered why the administration was going so far convincing us it was about the vid.. Then I heard about requests for more security being denied and state dept folks started dancing like roaches on a hot plate.. heads should be rolling, including the ex-president's wife |
|
Title: Re: If this is true........ Post by raydawg on 06/12/14 at 16:49:27 C'mon bot..... I fear you will drown on the Kool-Aid :P Of course things at first can be confusing and stuff gets reported wrongly, but geezuz, they held a pow wow, hit the Sunday talk shows with that story. They accused a man and his video wrongly and used him as a scapegoat. Doesn't the story claim Hillary or the under-secretary were not interviewed......why? How can you have an investigation with interviewing them? The information about the cell phones is very disturbing if true. To claim the opposition will use this event to discredit Obama is true, just as the left use hurricanes, etc, on Bush.... But please tell me how that changes the truth or makes it OK to lie and cover-up? Dude, you defend Obama on bringing back one dude while letting some bad cats go, as we "owe" it to him, yet, these service guys got killed and can't come home and you're cool with that cause it might make Obama look bad, is that it? :o |
|
Title: Re: If this is true........ Post by Serowbot on 06/12/14 at 17:45:00 71627A67627464030 wrote:
Never said that, Dawg... I criticized it... 6670677A62777A61150 wrote:
That's me 10 days ago, saying it was a bad deal... I do care about vets,.. even ones that may have strayed or had a breakdown... So I do believe in "No man left behind"... ..but, that seems like a bad trade... Unless,.. we have a plan beyond the surface facts... Possibly,.. tracking these fellers, and letting them lead us to new intel... I don't know... :-?... |
|
Title: Re: If this is true........ Post by oldNslow on 06/12/14 at 19:16:54 https://www.billwhittle.com/firewall/why-benghazi-matters |
|
Title: Re: If this is true........ Post by Paraquat on 06/13/14 at 06:15:50 Inaccurate... or more accurate? Sometimes facts come out in the hurry and, yes, sometimes corrections are made. Sometimes there are retractions. Sometimes the government will ask that an article not be published because it counters their own statements. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/12/associated-press-cia-story-_n_4435823.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/12/13/sen-bill-nelson-i-told-ap-not-to-run-robert-levinson-story/ http://www.businessinsider.com/why-ap-phone-records-seized-yemen-story-cia-al-qaeda-2013-5 --Steve |
|
Title: Re: If this is true........ Post by North Country Girl on 06/13/14 at 22:01:49 Mr. Sero, you are an oasis of intelligence and reason in a sea of __________and__________ (fill in the blanks yourself) as I do not wish to offend. NCG 8-) |
|
Title: Re: If this is true........ Post by shorty on 06/14/14 at 05:37:48 typical "my team" right or wrong ::) |
|
Title: Re: If this is true........ Post by Serowbot on 06/14/14 at 07:24:24 Shorty,.. Feel free to be untypical, break ranks, and agree with me, too... Any time, bud.... ;D ;D ;D... |
|
Title: Re: If this is true........ Post by raydawg on 06/14/14 at 08:07:16 5F495E435B4E43582C0 wrote:
Never said that, Dawg... I criticized it... 6670677A62777A61150 wrote:
That's me 10 days ago, saying it was a bad deal... I do care about vets,.. even ones that may have strayed or had a breakdown... So I do believe in "No man left behind"... ..but, that seems like a bad trade... Unless,.. we have a plan beyond the surface facts... Possibly,.. tracking these fellers, and letting them lead us to new intel... I don't know... :-?...[/quote] Sorry buddy, I stand corrected on that matter, but your reply is interesting..... You said, not negotiating with terrorists... Obama got away on a technicality with that one... because "the negotiation was with Qatar govn't, not terrorists".. the result is the same.. Would it be right to say he circumvented the intent of the process? Why? Chuck Hagel said they should have enlightened the membership, and that it was Obama's call. Obama has said he will apologize to no one..... If you find that this is not a breech of power, then I really have nothing else to say about it to you..... other than its scary. To buck the system over a matter as small as this (in scope) and then dig in with such bunker mentality, makes me wonder of his mental stability and paranoia tendencies. |
|
Title: Re: If this is true........ Post by Serowbot on 06/14/14 at 08:46:59 Technicalities are technicalities... politicians use them to get away with things all the time... Technically,.... he was only required to consult anyway... not ask permission... A technicality?,... a formality?... Sometimes it's easier to ask forgiveness that permission... :-/... The other "technicality" is,.. that this has been referred to as a "War on Terror"... and the "War in Afghanistan"... If this is a war,...as it has been defined,... this is not "technically" negotiating with terrorists... It is a prisoner exchange as part of our deescalation... I don't know,.. and the politicians don't either... They consider it to be whatever type of conflict suits their purpose at any one time... It's all semantics, and technicalities... ...and that's on both sides, and everywhere in between... :-/... What a mess... The thing is,... at some point, somebody has to end this, and it will be ugly and messy, and ultimately, won't have made any difference... Whoever does it, will be subject to blame... It takes guts to face that... Obama could stall it out and pass the buck on to the next president... More men would die,...families hurt, and money wasted... This is ugly, but it's better... Peace, Serow |
|
Title: Re: If this is true........ Post by raydawg on 06/14/14 at 09:36:01 I can agree with what you said, its a mess, and will continue to be so.... What I find disturbing I reckon is this guy promised (as many do) to be open and transparent yet has been anything but, and our "supposedly" advocate, the press, the "fourth" check and balance appear to have abandoned all responsibility in that regard. Folk are sick and tied of the games of schematics by the politicians and the press, and I believe change is a coming..... Sad we have to let thing deteriorate to such a grand scale before we react, but complacency is, well heck, its easy to fall into that grove :P |
|
Title: Re: If this is true........ Post by Serowbot on 06/14/14 at 09:46:04 Coming soon,... the collapse of Iraq... How involved should we be in that?... We spend a decade making this mess,... and can we turn our back?... Can we do any good if we do?... Can we send Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz over there to fix it?... Please say yes... ;D ;D ;D... |
|
Title: Re: If this is true........ Post by shorty on 06/14/14 at 10:14:30 I feel we did more than our fair share in Iraq already, let them kill each other, there just isn't enough respect for human life or collective intelligence in that entire region |
|
Title: Re: If this is true........ Post by Serowbot on 06/14/14 at 10:34:15 We spent 10 years turning something unpleasant, into something horrific... This is the result of the "no exit strategy"... that was talked about many years back... ... a few classic Iraq War quotes... Quote:
|
|
Title: Re: If this is true........ Post by raydawg on 06/14/14 at 10:46:27 Made.....? No. Delayed...... Yes. Let what has been scripted complete its course. Can man hold back the tide....? No. It's been foretold, as the tides have been predicted. It is nothing but folly and mans over self absorption of himself that believes otherwise. The driving factor is ingrained so deeply only one outcome is possible I am afraid. I pray we don't delay the inevitable. Try to think of it this way, perhaps an understanding is more forthcoming. You have a dear one, someone very close to you. They are bent on destruction to themselves through an addiction. They can not grasp the truth or gravity of what you tell them. You try and try to the point of enabling them.... What can you do? You let them go. You give them an ultimatum and draw the line. It's up to them now. They change or they die, the choice is not yours to make. It is harsh, it hurts, and all the wishing otherwise won't ever change that. You hope and pray, and you must go on. Anything less is surrendering to an evilness that has entered our world. It will destroy all it can in your life if you let it.... Now that is your choice. Let the middle east go on its own. It is something only they can settle. It is akin to what Malcolm X remarked about the problems the Black community experience....... They have to fix it themselves, ain't nothing the white man can do (to appease his/the guilt). |
|
Title: Re: If this is true........ Post by shorty on 06/14/14 at 12:09:24 good post dawg, thanks |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |