Posted on 10/24/2012 12:17:19 AM PDT by PieterCasparzen
Instead of trying to take action when there might have been half a chance, they started concocting stories even as they watched the carnage live....
Where did that come from? I didn’t know this. Can you point me to an article or whatever so I can find out? Thank you.
Thank you very much for your response. I have yet to find a credible explanation why that video was Obama and Clinton's, weapon of choice for mass deception.
IMHO, the ultimate source of the whole array of attacks/protests for the 9/11 anniversary is the Soros-backed regime-change machine.
Hillary is best buds with Soros. This is from www.discoverthenetworks.org:
“Soros and Mrs. Clinton in particular held one another in the highest esteem. In November 1997, when Hillary was in Central Asia for a ribbon-cutting ceremony at the newly built American University of Kyrgyzstan, she delivered a speech in which she lavished praise on Soros’s Open Society Institute, which had financed the school’s construction.160 One source close to Mrs. Clinton’s inner circle, Center for American Democracy director Rachel Ehrenfeld, reports that Soros visited Hillary at the White House during the Bill Clinton impeachment proceedings of 1998-99, when the First Lady was receiving only her most trusted confidantes.”
So this these 9/11 anniversary attacks were part of his ongoing effort.
Jumper tells us that the State Department / CIA (from their point of view, offficially, not from Soros’ point of view) is on a mission to reach out to muslim revolutionaries.
However, these are the same revolutionaries that Soros groups are working with.
And the State Department is connected to Soros via Hillary and all her minions and cohorts (many) and Soros’ minions (many).
This explains why the State Department and CIA could very plausibly have known about the protests ahead of time, because they are officially teamed up with the protestors. IMHO, it was a case of:
1) Soros orgs and muslim leadership plan attacks
2) Soros orgs notify State of upcoming protests (notice that it does not come from Libyan or muslim sources that Ambassador Stevens would know well - he was not in the loop)
3) Top echelon of CIA may know of the extent of the Soros-Hillary connection, but dutifully they keep their secrets.
4) no State / CIA in Libya are told. This would evidence the extent of the Soros-Hillary connection, that the top levels of State are indirectly working with embassy attackers. Even for CIA, where one must have the “ability to work in ambiguous situations”, this is perhaps a stretch. “Get out now, we’re working with the attackers who will attack the consulate on 9/11/2012” does not sound like it would go over well if many people knew about it.
5) People at State in the know (very few) know about Soros’ long-term plan of reducing American power (this whole operation is treasonous)
6) People at State who are not in the loop (many) think this is legitimate American democracy-building, where we must work with “unsavory characters” for the long-term greater good.
7) Democracy-building is the only official storyline in the deep dark secrets of State / CIA; work with those rebels you can work with to “further American interests”. Sounds deep and dark, but that’s only the top layer.
8) The bottom (real) layer is that Soros is the puppetmaster of both Hillery & Co. as well as the muslim caliphate/brohood, since he deals directly with the leadership of both and provides critical funding and strategic management to both, as well as providing a private communication link between the two that could bypass CIA leadership if CIA’s operatives within State that are actually aware of Hillary-Soros (few ?) have more allegiance to the goals of Soros’ Open Society Institute than to America. Perhaps most just stick their head in the sand and keep doing their job and try not to think about it. I think we see this allegience pattern throughout the Democrat party (i.e., the shadow party) and liberals in government and society in general at every level in the U.S.
9) The muslims perceive a benefit for their “cause” in the PR success of waging all these 9/11 attacks and being able to continue to undermine America
10) The administration has the U.S. news media at their disposal, so they simply have to wash some mud off Hillary and Obama; all in a day’s work for them. Remember the true long-range goals of Obama and Hillary, as New Left minions, is the long-term conversion of America into the vision of the New Left, so anything that harms America’s reputation is a win for them.
11) Perhaps Stevens made his own 9/11 appointments for that fateful day, and Hilster & Co. did not know until too late ? Methinks if Hilster & Co. at State knew ahead of time, they would have called everyone back and emptied the consulate prior to the attack if they wanted to. Perhaps Soros had the plan of the hostage crisis just prior to the election but did not tell Hilster about this. She could be on a need to know basis. So she either knew or didn’t know about Stevens being the target. IMHO, the appointments he had that day were part of the plan. This was the bait that brought him to the Consulate. Bret Bair’s report last Friday told a few bits about that day.
12) It does seem very plausible that if Stevens was taken hostage, the scene would have been set for Obama to have brokered his release just before election day. The foreknowledge hypothesis fits in with the utter lack of emergency response to the emergency emails. A tactical response that saved Stevens would have ended such a scheme much the same as his death did, with no opportunity to save him. This also fits in with the apparent happiness of the attackers at finding Stevens barely alive, if they had been ordered to take him alive. The “smoke-out” tactic was also aimed at bringing Stevens out alive; Stevens just did not cooperate and come running out right away. They apparently did not know that he needed immediate medical attention, perhaps their reported fun and games with him went a bit too far. In any case, once Stevens was confirmed dead, Hillery and Obama would have known that the operation failed. Once the operation started, the “command communication” from Soros would probably have to go quiet for a bit to be safe. After it failed, they would only have the planned cover story, the video, along with orders from the boss to stick to that story. This would exlain why this story persisted for so long. While advanced planning would be fairly easy, as it uses a distributed operational model, Soros’ network probably does not give him the capability to pick up the phone and instantly rescind prior orders. Editors of individual newspapers, talking heads, politicians, etc., would all operate on their own on a need to know basis. Hundreds or thousands of cancel messages can’t go out at the same time without it being noticed that everyone changed their tune at the same time. Hillary and Obama, not being very smart or creative, simply dutifully followed orders and kept trotting out the original video cover story. They were even so dumb as to say in the same sentence that a) they can’t jump to conclusions and b) it was the video and c) it was not terrorism. “It was the video but we’re still investigating”. They all knew they sounded nuts, but obviously they dare not go off script.
IMHO.
Transmit to Vladimr at once !
Thank you very much, haywoodwebb!
When they got inside and couldn't break into the safe room they set the place on fire. If you're there to kidnap someone you don't try to burn them to death. You don't fire mortars and RPGs towards your kidnap target unless you know exactly where that target is and you can shoot at his security with confidence that you won't hit him.
I think the jihadis had two goals both of which fit with the kind of attack that occurred. One, they simply wanted to drive us out of Libya. They had been working on it steadily for over a year getting bolder and bolder every day. Two, there was a lot of intel on our people and operations there and the only way to get it was to completely overrun both compounds and thoroughly search them.
US Intelligence Suffers Major Compromise in Libya ("catastrophic intelligence loss" US official)
It’s horrible to imagine that but it seems to be the case.
Well, Huma Abedin just bought a $3.3 MILLION dollar home with her loser husband Anthony Weiner. Makes you wonder WHERE HUMA IS GETTING ALL THIS MONEY!!!! She is probably being funded by the Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR, etc TO SABOTAGE OUR FOREIGN POLICY AND IMPLEMENT SHARIA LAW WHEREVER AND WHENEVER POSSIBLE.
That would have been wacky because Stevens was at the main compound, where he had a residence, and the mortar attacks were on the "annex" compound. The risk wouldn't have been that they might destroy a whole building but that a rocket or mortar round could easily kill someone they didn't intend it to.
That's for sure. I never even entertained that idea.
Laugh all you want. If you intend to kidnap someone you would care whether they were killed or not.
This is why I think the fingerprints of Hillary are there:
No argument there.
No, not laughing at that, I didn’t mean Stevens, but the protection force. The muzz would see them as collateral and would have no desire to avoid killing them. In fact, that was part of the battle plan, kill as many protectors / others as possible.
In Bret Bair’s report, he said the first thing they did was come up to the Libyan guards at the gate and ask where Stevens was and they told them in the main residence.
Then it was all clear to attack the other buildings to keep them pinned down - which was exactly what was done.
It sounded like an inside job. The attackers did not have equipment to get through the safe haven door, they simply tried to smoke Stevens out. If someone sets a house on fire - everybody comes out.
I thought about this: not telling Stevens anything ensured that he would never give up the ruse. If he had been taken hostage and then “rescued”, he would always believe that it was real.
If that's what you meant then it bears no relationship to what I was saying.
I have heard it said that the two Seals weren’t assigned there but came to help defend the consulate. If that is the case, and there was only supposed to be Stevens and two others (one escaped through a window, I understand), then the betrayal of encountering opposition may have played a part in the death of Stevens.
Stevens was dead (or at least trapped and unconscious) in the residence of the main compound two or three hours before the former SEALs were killed at the second “annex” compound.
The day that the video was announced to be the cause, I went to view it on YouTube. It had fewer than 300 view in two months! VIRTUALLY NO ONE HAD VIEWED THIS EXTREMELY OBSCURE VIDEO!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.