U.S. Ambassador to Lybia Killed

[GRS 10]

That "film" was so stupid that I can't believe anyone took it seriously.

[Jastreb 69]

That "film" was so stupid that I can't believe anyone took it seriously.

I dont believe this has anything to do with the movie ( and I havent watched it neither ). But I'm not sure if plots are welcome here ;) so I hush...

[PELHAM 10]

Of relevance, I suppose,

4000 Marines Headed To Middle East As Part Of Peleliu Amphibious Group Dispatch

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/4000-marines-headed-middle-east-part-peleliu-amphibious-group-dispatch

It's a standard WESTPAC deployment, been happening every 6 months(ish) for decades, they even produce commemorative patches and books etc:

SAN DIEGO – Peleliu Amphibious Ready Group (PELARG) and 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) are scheduled to depart Naval Base San Diego on Sept. 17 for a regularly scheduled deployment to the Western Pacific and Middle East.

http://www.public.navy.mil/surfor/cpr3/Pages/PeleliuARGand15thMeuDepartForWESTPACDeployment.aspx#.UFfSeVHnmHs

Whats new is the tinfoil hat mob have started highlighting every regular deployment or unit replacement as something suspicious. I began to notice it around the Falklands anniversary when Argentina whinged about routine things claiming they were an 'escalation' blah blah, now all the crazies have started doing it routinely. Why people are suprised to hear about Marines going sailing I just dont know, I expect most people think they sit around the US in bases doing nothing and waiting for a war to start. That is not the case, MEUs have always sailed routinely so they are close to the trouble when it starts and can be deployed quickly.

Edited September 18, 2012 by PELHAM

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Whats new is the tinfoil hat mob have started highlighting every regular deployment or unit replacement as something suspicious.

Can't blame them after Vietnam, 2001 Afghan, 2003 Iraq, Libya, Syria (?), Iran (?). Zero profit for (almost) all involved.

[Jastreb 69]

Can't blame them after Vietnam, 2001 Afghan, 2003 Iraq, Libya, Syria (?), Iran (?). Zero profit for (almost) all involved.

Whee you missed plenty there, but thats OT ;)

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Whee you missed plenty there, but thats OT ;)

I meant the ones, where the masses were directly involved, indirect/covert operations is another realm. Iraq 1990-1991 was a rather quick & clean sweep, though on false pretenses.

People should be grateful there hasn't been a major war for a whole 12 years in this New Century. :) There's still time, though, there's still time...

---------- Post added at 03:32 ---------- Previous post was at 03:16 ----------

gd8SdV80AL8

CNN, Gulf War. Wag the dog. :icon_mrgreen:

Edited September 18, 2012 by Iroquois Pliskin
Date

[Jastreb 69]

Pfft....that is hilarious. If anyone believed this, God help you all...

US/Nato intervention and fake reasons? Nothing new, they fabricate anything they want. First hand news you got there.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

US/Nato intervention and fake reasons? Nothing new, they fabricate anything they want.

We call it "Accelerated colonised evolution of the planet" - helps destroy old infrastructure and build up new one in its place, in both minds & body. ; )

[Jastreb 69]

Im still standing. :dance1:

HINT

Aaand we went OT as I thought.

[PELHAM 10]

Pfft....that is hilarious. If anyone believed this, God help you all...

US/Nato intervention and fake reasons? Nothing new, they fabricate anything they want. First hand news you got there.

Nothing fake about that video, it's just reporters fooling around off camera as they always do. Perhaps you are too young to remember the 1st Gulf War but for a time Scuds were falling daily on Saudi Arabia and Israel. I watched it live. 28 soldiers were killed and other 110 injured when a scud fell on their barracks. 18 scuds were launched against Riyadh where that reporter is standing and people were killed there.

LlOi6Gl25Lg

This scud was intercepted by a patriot missile but the warhead hit a school in Riyadh killing the Janitor. The video shows the sort of thing going on at the time which is carfully edited out in the so called fake video.

Wiki page on the Al hussien missile

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Hussein_%28missile%29

Eighty-eight of these modified Scuds were fired at Saudi Arabia (46) and Israel (42) during January and February 1991.

Aftermath of the Al-Hussein strike on US barracks

The greatest tactical achievement of the Al-Hussein was the destruction of a US military barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, on 25 February 1991, when 28 soldiers were killed and other 110 injured, effectively taking out of action an entire supply company, composed mainly of reservists from Pennsylvania.[10]

Edited September 18, 2012 by PELHAM

[Hans Ludwig 0]

I dont believe this has anything to do with the movie ( and I havent watched it neither ). But I'm not sure if plots are welcome here ;) so I hush...

I'm thinking that all those that protesting and killing people didn't see it either.

[PELHAM 10]

I meant the ones, where the masses were directly involved, indirect/covert operations is another realm. Iraq 1990-1991 was a rather quick & clean sweep, though on false pretenses.

WTF! Where do you get this stuff?

In Gulf War 1 1990 the coalition had nearly 1 million troops on the ground to liberate Kuwait, the 2003 Invasion only had 265,000. That was Rumsfelds mistake, because the 1st was so quick he thought he could get away with a smaller force for the 2nd war.

Gulf War 1 on false pretences? So Iraq didn't invade Kuwait?

[ProfTournesol 956]

WTF! Where do you get this stuff?

In Gulf War 1 1990 the coalition had nearly 1 million troops on the ground to liberate Kuwait, the 2003 Invasion only had 265,000. That was Rumsfelds mistake, because the 1st was so quick he thought he could get away with a smaller force for the 2nd war.

Gulf War 1 on false pretences? So Iraq didn't invade Kuwait?

Everybody knows that Saddam invades Kuwait because he was sure that the USA will let him do. He felt into Bush's trap. But well, that's very OT.

Back on topic, why did they kill this ambassador ? Because he was popular amongst most of Lybian officials ? Because he was the contrary of a Republican cowboy ?

Edited September 18, 2012 by ProfTournesol

[vilas 473]

So Iraq didn't invade Kuwait?

so Kuwait was not part of Persia (Iraq) and was not taken by colonial politics from earlier Persia + usage of Iraqui oilfield by Kuwait ?

not always all is black-white , invader vs. invaded or terrorist vs. poor innocent civilians etc.

this was effect of previous colonial politics and taken apart part of Persia before,

history of many post-colonial regions later becomes twisted

Edited September 18, 2012 by vilas

[PELHAM 10]

so Kuwait was not part of Persia (Iraq) and was not taken by colonial politics from earlier Persia + usage of Iraqui oilfield by Kuwait ?

not always all is black-white , invader vs. invaded or terrorist vs. poor innocent civilians etc.

this was effect of previous colonial politics and taken apart part of Persia before,

history of many post-colonial regions later becomes twisted

Good grief the genius comments once again, no Kuwait was recently never part of Persia and neither was Iraq (back in 550BC it was), they were part of the Ottoman Empire. Kuwait was established as a semi independant area in 1899 and it's borders were marked long before those of Iraq in 1920, it wasn't colonial at all and was a legal process under the League of Nations. According to your logic Saddam would therfore have claim to Turkey, Lebanon, Syria, Bulgaria and Greece because they were once governed under the same empire. Utter nonsense. The slant drilling accusations were never proven. The actual reason for the argument was that Iraq owed Kuwait $65 Billion in loans and Saddam couldn't pay up. So he started this debacle as a way to get out of repaying the loans. He wanted higher oil prices and simply decided to annex Kuwait as a way of making the debt dissapear and increasing Iraq's resources.

Everybody knows that Saddam invades Kuwait because he was sure that the USA will let him do. He felt into Bush's trap. But well, that's very OT.

Yep it's OT but bollocks and this will be my last word on it.

That's all based on 1 sentence uttered by a diplomat that is often interpreted incorrectly, she by no means meant the US would tollerate an invasion, she simply meant they were not interested in getting involved in the diplomatic argument between Iraq and Kuwait. The tin foil hat mob have based an entire conspiracy theory on that 1 sentence and it's often quoted out of context. Is it reasonable to assume that Saddam Hussein would base the security of an invasion on 1 sentence? He was warned in the same conversation that the dispute should be settled peacefully and stated he would do so. Even Tariq Aziz agreed with that version of events and other Iraqis present at the meeting say no green or yellow light was given by the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie

It's certainly possible that Saddam could have misinterpreted other events at the time and given himself the illusion that he could do as he pleased. After the invasion Saddam had 6 months to realise his mistake as the international forces in Saudi Arabia were assembled. He refused to leave Kuwait and had to be pushed out. The military action was quick but the whole saga from begining to end took around 9 months, it was a big deal and was on the news every night. I watched the whole thing from beginning to end and took a great interest in it.

Edited September 18, 2012 by PELHAM

[Jastreb 69]

Pelham is the devils advocate here seems to me ;)

I was old enough to see and understand most of the shit US and Nato did in last 30 years, worry not about me.

/signing off

[PELHAM 10]

Pelham is the devils advocate here seems to me ;)

I was old enough to see and understand most of the shit US and Nato did in last 30 years, worry not about me.

/signing off

If anything I say is wrong please prove it......otherwise I can only conclude your memory is not working the way it should.

Edited September 18, 2012 by PELHAM

[Jastreb 69]

-redacted PM sent-

Edited September 18, 2012 by _MaSSive

[BobcatBob 10]

http://news.yahoo.com/libyans-storm-militia-backlash-attack-us-225317193.html some really good news, it's nice to finally see a massive effort by the people to go against these assholes.

[walker 0]

Hi all

Yes BobcatBob it turns out the all the big hu haa about the Libyan Revolutuion being for nothing was just a load of crap.

Libya: Islamist militia bases stormed in Benghazi

The militia suspected of killing the US ambassador to Libya nearly two weeks ago has been driven out of its base in the eastern city of Benghazi.

Police and protesters stormed the HQ of the Islamist group Ansar al-Sharia.

The HQ of the Sahaty Brigade, said to have official backing, was also stormed. At least nine people were killed there, another died elsewhere...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19680785

As always follow the link to the original story in full

Just like the originators of the film these Jihadis seem to have been trying to instigate a war between the West and the Muslim world.

The fact that both groups were doing it in such a co-ordinated fashion makes me suspicious.

I am just glad President Obama and the USA did not fall for the trap.

In other news:

Israelis fear PM is meddling in US politics

Published September 22, 2012

Associated Press

It is a taboo for Israeli leaders to give even the slightest hint of favoritism in politics in the United States, Israel's closest ally. So some Israelis are squirming over a perception that their prime minister is siding with Republican Mitt Romney in the U.S. presidential race, in the belief he will take a harder line on archenemy Iran if elected.

With President Barack Obama holding a narrow lead in opinion polls, Benjamin Netanyahu's perceived strategy looks risky to Israelis who fear their alliance with the U.S. could be in trouble if the incumbent wins...

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/09/22/israelis-fear-pm-is-meddling-in-us-politics/

As always follow the link to the original story in full

It Appears that MIT may have been looking for Benjamin Netanyahu's support which is both odd and ...

Originally published September 18, 2012 at 10:52 AM | Page modified September 18, 2012 at 12:42 PM

Romney comments show links to Netanyahu

By TOM RAUM

Associated Press

WASHINGTON —

Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney's comments expressing doubt about Palestinians' commitment to peace again highlight the closeness of his position to that of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney's comments expressing doubt about Palestinians' commitment to peace again highlight the closeness of his position to that of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Romney has sometimes echoed hardline Israeli positions similar to those of Netanyahu, although not always intentionally in public...

http://seattletimes.com/html/politics/2019190148_apuspresidentialcampaignnetanyahu.html

It now appears that Benjamin Netanyahu is now worried that Mit Romney may not have what it takes and is backpedaling rather quickly.

Which has kind of noticed in Israel

Did Bibi just throw Romney under the bus?

By DOUGLAS M. BLOOMFIELD

09/19/2012 22:33 Washington Watch:

It is dawning on Netanyahu that Obama is likely to be around for another four years.

It’s been no secret that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu would prefer Mitt Romney as president of America.

He’s had a very tense relationship with Barack Obama, who came to office intent on restarting a peace process the Israeli prime minister would prefer to see shelved. There has been an ongoing flow of anti-Obama leaks coming out of “sources†in Jerusalem often identified in the Israeli media as “close to the prime minister’s office.â€

Romney, who has known Netanyahu since their early days in the financial world in Boston (they tell differing versions of how well they knew each other), is closer to the prime minister in some of his views. He is much more bellicose toward Iran, although he won’t say what he would do differently than Obama, and he shows no apparent interest in reviving the peace process.

They share some neo-con advisors and, most importantly, some major financial benefactors, particularly controversial casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson...

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=285580

As always follow the link to the original story in full

Sheldon Adelson now where have I heard that name before?

Kind Regards walker

Edited September 22, 2012 by walker

[vilas 473]

i would like to know one thing about changes in Lybia ,

when Quadaffi ruled, there was here "Arabic socialism" (free education, free medical care, free electricity in flats) i wonder how it looks now ? do people pay for it ? and if yes, do they feel cheated by "freedom" ? so they act going more and more to extremism ?

i don't know how it looks in Lybia, i know how "freedom" begun in my country at the end of 1989 , huuuuge unemployment, maaaaany sucides because of economical reasons, huuuuge crime rate increase , mafia appeared with bloodsheet gangs fights (exploding cars , shootings, rapes, women kindnaped to brothels etc) and people became more and more frustrated and in parliament there were few extremist parties in early 90s, lots of skinheads on streets etc.

so how it looks in Lybia after change of gov ? do they have different economical situation or not ?

Edited September 22, 2012 by vilas

[oxmox 73]

@Vilas

Here you find papers from the ISPI about "Security Analysis in Libya", released in July 2012. (Italian institute specialised in international affairs under supervision of the Foreign Ministry).

http://www.ispionline.it/it/documents/Commentary_Pusztai_10.07.2012.pdf

By the way the petrol price is almost free...~0,08 € per liter

Edited September 22, 2012 by oxmox

[Jastreb 69]

Of course petrol is "almost free" cause Libya is petrol. Can you eat it? Can you live in gas stations or educate there? You know the answers already.

Sharia laws? Can women now go to university? Ok I can go on, but its enough.

[walker 0]

Hi all

The somewhat dubious arguments that some push, that the Libyan revolution was no good, makes me question both their ethics and their agenda.

I refer them to reality:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/middle-east-live/2012/sep/24/libya-takes-on-militia-live?newsfeed=true

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/9561294/Libyan-Islamists-accused-of-killing-US-ambassador-finished.html

http://mg.co.za/article/2012-09-24-libyan-militia

Noticable that several Militias are now disbanding.

etc. ...

Also noticable that it is now official Libyan governement policy:

LxmZ-Cw2l3E

That some question the Arab Spring and seem to want the image of a violent middle east; makes me question their purpose?

I question who it was who paid $5 million for the film to be made? And who had it edited to have new dialogue, different from what was spoken by the actors, and why it was released in a translation to arabic the day after the 9/11 aniversary? And why Mit Romney and several others had such well rehearsed speeches on the subject of Arab unrest post the Arab Spring within minutes of it causing the unrest? Oh and why were they embargoed for two hours, very odd?

I also question where this Militia that killed the US Ambasador got such astoundingly high quality intel?

I dare say the US FBI is investigating that right now.

Any way in other news Mit Romney seems to be suffering from a large number of investigation turning up all kinds of odd goings on:

Mitt Romney's Muslim-Baiting Backers

Wayne Barrett

September 14, 2012

On the opening night of the Republican National Convention, the cameras caught former UN ambassador John Bolton in the Romney family box, chatting amiably with Romney’s son Tagg. Shortly before the convention, Bolton, an unpaid foreign policy advisor to Romney, rushed to the defense of Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, whose attempts to tie Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin to the Muslim Brotherhood were widely denounced, even by Republicans like John McCain. Several weeks before the convention, Romney met in Denver with former Army lieutenant general Jerry Boykin, who was rebuked by President Bush in 2003 for his anti-Muslim, Crusade-like statements while still in uniform and subsequently found by the Pentagon Inspector General to have violated three internal rules when he delivered these speeches without clarifying that he was speaking in his private capacity. Boykin’s war cry of “no mosques in America†and rejection of First Amendment rights for statements in support of Islam led to his withdrawal as a West Point speaker this year, after protests by Iraq and Afghanistan vet groups. Boykin recently became executive vice president of the Family Research Council, a measure of how Islamophobia has become an integral part of the hard-right agenda.

The Romney campaign’s foreign policy team of advisers is flooded with neocons from the Bush era, including Robert Joseph, the National Security Council official who, as Ari Berman reported in The Nation, inserted the famous “sixteen words†in Bush’s State of the Union address in 2003 claiming that Iraq tried to buy enriched uranium from Niger. Romney’s top national security adviser since 2007 is Cofer Black, the former Blackwater executive and CIA official who ran the “extraordinary rendition†torture program. Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire Super PAC donor for Romney, says “all the terrorists are Islamists,†Gingrich’s declaration that the Palestinians are “an invented people.â€...

http://www.thenation.com/article/169956/mitt-romneys-muslim-baiting-backers

As allways follow the link to the original story in full.

That name Sheldon Adelson, I am sure I have heard it before...

The concept of wanting to start WWIII may do well in a computer game, but that would be where I prefer it stayed.

Kind Regards walker

Edited September 24, 2012 by walker

[Mr. Charles 22]

By the way the petrol price is almost free...~0,08 € per liter

1,70€ here :|