- This topic has 88 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 1 month ago by
ucodegen.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 7, 2012 at 12:20 AM #753874November 7, 2012 at 12:22 AM #753872
ucodegen
Participant[quote=SK in CV]Did you find that political term dictionary that explains the difference? Or did you just make it up because it suits your purpose?[/quote]
I use law dictionaries.. not ‘political’ or ‘wish’ dictionaries. The US Code also defines it…
http://terrorism.about.com/od/whatisterroris1/ss/DefineTerrorism_5.htmsection d of full segment below.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/2656fNovember 7, 2012 at 12:54 AM #753880CA renter
Participant[quote=ucodegen][quote=CA renter]Also, like him or not, Gadaffi was very well respected and loved my many Libyans, largely because he drastically improved the quality of life of the Libyan people.[/quote] True.. but most of these people lived near/around Tripoli or Gaddafi’s home town of Sirte. Gaddafi lavished special attention on those locations.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-16961376
Outside those areas, he was not so well respected.[/quote]
I like this, from Stratfor:
The alternative to one thug may simply be another thug. This is a matter of power and will, not of political philosophy. Utter chaos, an ongoing struggle that leads nowhere but to misery, also could ensue. But the most important reason Western human rights activists might see their hopes dashed is due to a principled rejection of Western liberal democracy on the part of the newly liberated. To be more precise, the opposition might embrace the doctrine of national self-determination, and even of democracy, but go on to select a regime that is in principle seriously opposed to Western notions of individual rights and freedom.
While some tyrants simply seek power, other regimes that appear to Westerners to be tyrannies actually are rather carefully considered moral systems that see themselves as superior ways of life. There is a paradox in the principle of respect for foreign cultures followed by demands that foreigners adhere to basic Western principles. It is necessary to pick one approach or the other. At the same time, it is necessary to understand that someone can have very distinct moral principles, be respected, and yet be an enemy of liberal democracy. Respecting another moral system does not mean simply abdicating your own interests. The Japanese had a complex moral system that was very different from Western principles. The two did not have to be enemies, but circumstances caused them to collide.
Read more: From Gadhafi to Benghazi | Stratfor
November 7, 2012 at 12:58 AM #753881ParticipantIt’s important to understand what many Libyans thought of Gaddafi, too:
When analysing the standard of living in Libya it is important to put the achievements into context. During the 1950’s under the leadership of King Idris, Libya was amongst the poorest nations in the world with some of the lowest living standards. From the early 1980’s until 2003 Libya were placed under heavy sanctions by the US and UN which had the result of strangling Libya’s growing economy leading to an inevitable smothering of development projects and social welfare schemes. Despite this The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya achieved the highest living standard in Africa. Libya has also invested heavily in African development initiatives. The funding of infrastructure projects as well as African political and financial institutions was aimed at developing Africa independently and combating the economic exploitation of African resources and labour by outside powers.
November 7, 2012 at 8:59 AM #753950Allan from Fallbrook
Participant[quote=craptcha]
The Benghazi outpost was not an Embassy. And if we are to believe Allan the ambassador was not just a diplomat, but also a facilitator in weapons proliferation scheme.[/quote]
Um, yeah, I don’t report the news, chief. Hence my link to the actual news article reporting on the Libya to Syria heavy weapons program.
Nice try, though.
November 7, 2012 at 9:01 AM #753952Participant[quote=CA renter]loved my many Libyans[/quote]
CAR: So my takeaway here is that you have many Libyans and Gaddafi loved them?
November 7, 2012 at 9:39 AM #753972UCGal
Participant[quote=Blogstar]Genies out of bottles don’t give a shit about who is a diplomat and who isn’t. Our system can not successfully deal with all the shit. Get over it. People died people lie all the time…it’s war. There is nothing worth hanging the Commander-in-Chief for on this particular detail.[/quote]
ITA.November 7, 2012 at 10:29 AM #753995all
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=craptcha]
The Benghazi outpost was not an Embassy. And if we are to believe Allan the ambassador was not just a diplomat, but also a facilitator in weapons proliferation scheme.[/quote]
Um, yeah, I don’t report the news, chief. Hence my link to the actual news article reporting on the Libya to Syria heavy weapons program.
Nice try, though.[/quote]
I did not try to imply that you have shared some big secret. You are the resident expert on all things military and geopolitical. To me the article you referenced looks just like the next one. I assumed you can filter out the noise better than most and took your interpretation as more likely to be correct than what others were posting in the thread.
November 7, 2012 at 2:50 PM #754045Participant[quote=craptcha][quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=craptcha]
The Benghazi outpost was not an Embassy. And if we are to believe Allan the ambassador was not just a diplomat, but also a facilitator in weapons proliferation scheme.[/quote]
Um, yeah, I don’t report the news, chief. Hence my link to the actual news article reporting on the Libya to Syria heavy weapons program.
Nice try, though.[/quote]
I did not try to imply that you have shared some big secret. You are the resident expert on all things military and geopolitical. To me the article you referenced looks just like the next one. I assumed you can filter out the noise better than most and took your interpretation as more likely to be correct than what others were posting in the thread.[/quote]
My bad, and sorry for the reflexive pissy response there.
I actually have no idea what actually happened and I doubt very much anyone else does, either.
We will never know, but I’d surmise from the responses of the various involved groups and agencies, like CIA and DepState, that there’s a CYA of epic proportions going on.
What I do feel comfortable on opining on is this, though:
– Based on the evidence, it appears the ambassador was attempting to gather intel, along with securing anti-aircraft weapons that might imperil US/NATO aircraft, along with possible civil air targets, as well as providing diplomatic cover for a Libya – Syria heavy weapons pipeline aimed at providing material support for US/UK anti-Assad operations within Syria.
– The situation in Benghazi (and Tripoli) was very fluid and dynamic, with no stable government in place and many different groups jockeying for power and influence, some of them pro-US and others anti-US. Stevens knew he was a target, as he’d been warned previously, and CIA knew that al-Qaeda was now present in Libya and that the US ambassador was a “soft” target (meaning he wasn’t behind embassy walls with a Marine security contingent).
– Stevens did ask for help and this is confirmed by multiple sources and independently confirmed through reportage as well. However, given the large numbers of heavy weapons in the hands of anti-US forces (al-Qaeda and Salafists), Stevens could not decamp the US facilities and attempt to make for Tripoli (approx 400mi and a 14hr ride). None of the available vehicles were capable of withstanding 12.7mm (.50cal) machine gun fire or 23mm cannon fire, let alone a direct hit from an RPG. As various pictures from the area attest, these type weapons were in abundance and safe ingress/egress in/out of Benghazi was very much in doubt.
– A drone was on-station filming the scene and this provides one likely scenario as to why the former SEAL on the roof pointed his laser, in that he believed the drone was armed (it wasn’t). Another likely scenario and one confirmed by CBS News is that there was an AC-130 gunship circling above, but did not receive confirmation/permission to fire. There is no other likely explanation as to why a skilled, combat-trained operator would be using a laser designator, other than that. These lasers are not visible to the human eye, thus they provide no deterrent effect (convincing your enemy that you’re targeting heavy ordnance/fire support when you don’t have any).
– There was a group of Delta shooters at NAS Sigonella, but they never received the “go” call, even though Sigonella is only 480mi away. One can assert, thinly, that the Delta contingent was unaware of the situation on the ground and thus didn’t know what they might be jumping into, but the drone above continuously monitoring the situation through a real-time video/camera feed would tend to give lie to that assertion.
Call it “fog of war” if you want, but it sure looks shitty, given that nearly all of this transpired in real-time and on the Situation Room big screen(s). Does it rise to the level of cover-up? Fuck if I know, but it sure looks shitty, and we have a dead US ambassador for the first time since 1979 and those two former SEALs had their cheese hung out in the breeze. They did wax over 60 bad guys, though, so they went out hard while protecting/saving other Americans.
November 7, 2012 at 7:25 PM #754058Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=CA renter]loved my many Libyans[/quote]
CAR: So my takeaway here is that you have many Libyans and Gaddafi loved them?[/quote]
Nice catch, Allan. 😉
November 7, 2012 at 8:47 PM #754066Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=CA renter]loved my many Libyans[/quote]
CAR: So my takeaway here is that you have many Libyans and Gaddafi loved them?[/quote]
Nice catch, Allan. ;)[/quote]
CAR: Even a blind Pigg finds an acorn…
That one was too fun to pass up.
November 9, 2012 at 2:19 PM #754266ParticipantSo General Petraeus, Director of Central Intelligence, who was scheduled to testify on the Benghazi affair next week, has abruptly resigned over an extramarital affair.
Hmmm.
November 9, 2012 at 2:56 PM #754268SK in CV
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]So General Petraeus, Director of Central Intelligence, who was scheduled to testify on the Benghazi affair next week, has abruptly resigned over an extramarital affair.
Hmmm.[/quote]
Yeah. I’m pretty sure I read somewhere that testimony has been cancelled. Hmmm indeed.
November 9, 2012 at 3:39 PM #754273Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]So General Petraeus, Director of Central Intelligence, who was scheduled to testify on the Benghazi affair next week, has abruptly resigned over an extramarital affair.
Hmmm.[/quote](snark)A good Machiavellian leader holds tactical information until it is truly useful. The extramarital affair was probably known for many years…(/snark) That said, it shouldn’t really affect his testimony, though it might point to character.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.