“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Saturday, May 11, 2013

Need a little black humor this morning? Contemplating your next move in Syria as you wonder how long it takes for a Cheerio to sink? Read on: On Thursday, the US State Department issued a travel warning, saying it "strongly advises against all but essential travel" to Tripoli and all travel to Benghazi, Bani Walid and southern Libya, including border areas and the regions of Sabha and Kufra.


US and UK withdraw Libya diplomatic staff

Some workers removed amid rising tension after fighters besieged ministries over ban on Gaddafi officials taking office.

Last Modified: 11 May 2013 09:54

The US and Britain have both announced that they are withdrawing some diplomatic staff from Libya, amid security concerns over a recent flare-up in political unrest.
Tensions have risen in Libya since former rebels besieged two ministries at the end of last month in a row over a law that would ban officials who served under Muammar Gaddafi, the country's former leader, from holding office.
"In light of the current unsettled conditions around major anti-government demonstrations in Tripoli, the under secretary for management has approved the ordered departure of non-emergency personnel from Libya," said US State Department deputy spokesman Patrick Ventrell.
"A handful of our staff members have, indeed, departed Libya. Our embassy in Tripoli is still open and still functioning."
Earlier, a spokesman for the British Foreign Office said that the UK's embassy in the Libyan capital was "temporarily withdrawing a small number of staff, mainly those who work in support of government ministries which have been affected by recent developments".
British Ambassador Michael Aron tweeted that "despite rumours the British embassy in Tripoli is open for business".
But the British Council cultural agency said separately that it was closing its Libya office until next week for the same reasons.
It promised to make up any of the English language classes that students have missed.
Gunmen surrounded the Libyan foreign ministry on April 28 and the justice ministry two days later to demand the passing of a law excluding Gaddafi collaborators from office.
Benghazi violence
There has also been violence in Libya's second city Benghazi, the cradle of the 2011 uprising that toppled Gaddafi, with bomb attacks on Friday damaging two police stations, although there were no casualties.
In September, an attack on the US consulate in the city left Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead.
Britain, France and the US issued a joint statement on Wednesday calling on "all Libyans to refrain from armed protest and violence during this difficult time in the democratic transition".
On Thursday, the US State Department issued a travel warning, saying it "strongly advises against all but essential travel" to Tripoli and all travel to Benghazi, Bani Walid and southern Libya, including border areas and the regions of Sabha and Kufra.
On April 23, a car bomb exploded outside the French embassy, wounding two French guards and causing extensive damage.
The French government reduced the number of personnel at the mission, which continues to function despite the damages.
Meanwhile, the French school in Tripoli planned to stay closed until security around its building can be guaranteed, its directors said.
The German embassy has closed its doors, and its staff have been moved to secure quarters elsewhere in Tripoli.
As far back as January, the UK referred to a potential threat on its embassy in Tripoli and called on its citizens to leave Benghazi after identifying a specific and imminent threat to Westerners".

__________________________________________


Matt Welch|May. 9, 2013 10:15 am
Yesterday's dramatic congressional testimony about the deadly Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attacks on U.S. interests in Benghazi, Libya convincingly corroborated what was widely reported within days of the attack: that senior American officials on the ground knew immediately, despite the Obama administration's storyline to the contrary, that the assault did not arise out of a "spontaneous" demonstration outside the U.S. Consulate in protest of an obscure YouTube trailer of a homemade anti-Islam movie called Innocence of Muslims.
Falsely assessing partial blame for the violence on a piece of artistic expression inflicted damage not just on the California resident who made it—Nakoula Basseley Nakoula is currently serving out a one-year sentence for parole violations committed in the process of producing Innocence—but also on the entire American culture of free speech. In the days and weeks after the attacks, academics and foreign policy thinkers fell over themselves dreaming up new ways to either disproportionately punish Nakoula or scale back the very notion of constitutionally protected expression.
Fourteen days after Ambassador Chris Stevens was murdered by Islamists, President Barack Obama stood up in front of the United Nations and declared that the "message" of a movie virtually no one will ever see "must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity," that "the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," and that we all should "condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims, and Shiite pilgrims."
It should give even Obama's strongest supporters pause that the same administration so wary about characterizing Benghazi as a "terrorist attack" was simultaneously so eager to characterize an artistic provocation as a (potentially criminal) incitement.
What follows is a partial timeline of statements made in the first two weeks after the attack, from government officials and media commentators who lent credence to the now-discredited notion that Ambassador Stevens and three other U.S. personnel died because of a YouTube video. If we are to robustly defend the American culture of free speech, it's important to remember those who so quickly chose to throw the First Amendment under a bus.
Sept. 11, 2012: U.S. Embassy in Cairo:
U.S. Embassy Condemns Religious Incitement
The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.
Sept. 12, 2012: Anthea Butler, associate professor of religious studies at the University of Pennsylvania:
How soon is Sam Bacile going to be in jail folks? I need him to go now.When Americans die because you are stupid...
Sept. 12, 2012: Rev. Steven D. Martin, CEO of the New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good:
I have no sympathy for anyone who would assassinate a U.S. ambassador. But I have even less sympathy for filmmakers who spread hatred and for pastors who knowingly incite violence.
Sept. 13, 2012: Hillary Clinton, secretary of state:
I also want to take a moment to address the video circulating on the Internet that has led to these protests in a number of countries. Let me state very clearly – and I hope it is obvious – that the United States Government had absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its content and message. America's commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. And as you know, we are home to people of all religions, many of whom came to this country seeking the right to exercise their own religion, including, of course, millions of Muslims. And we have the greatest respect for people of faith.
To us, to me personally, this video is disgusting and reprehensible. It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose: to denigrate a great religion and to provoke rage. 
Sept. 14, 2012: Jay Carney, White House press spokesman:
We also need to understand that this is a fairly volatile situation and it is in response not to United States policy, not to obviously the administration, not to the American people.  It is in response to a video, a film that we have judged to be reprehensible and disgusting.  That in no way justifies any violent reaction to it, but this is not a case of protests directed at the United States writ large or at U.S. policy.  This is in response to a video that is offensive to Muslims.
Sept. 14, 2012: Bill Press, radio host:
What, if anything, should happen to the people who made this video? I gotta tell you, I think they are as guilty, that's my opinion, I think they are as guilty as the terrorists who carried out those attacks against our embassy in Libya. Look, we don't know everybody who was involved, but we've seen, I've seen some of them on television. This is a group of extremist, Muslim-hating, so-called Christians in southern California who are using their religion to stir up hatred against Islam. They're basing this on their Christian beliefs. They are, I believe, every bit as guilty as al Qaeda members who, think about it, who use the Koran and abuse their religion to stir up hatred against the United States. [...]
I think we...ought to be identifying the people who made this video and go after them with the full force of the law and lock their ass up.
Sept. 14, 2012: Anthea Butler:
The "free speech" in Bacile's film is not about expressing a personal opinion about Islam. It denigrates the religion by depicting the faith's founder in several ludicrous and historically inaccurate scenes to incite and inflame viewers. [...]
Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called Jones on Wednesday to ask him to stop promoting Bacile's film. Clearly, the military considers the film a serious threat to national security. If the military takes it seriously, there should be consequences for putting American lives at risk.
While the First Amendment right to free expression is important, it is also important to remember that other countries and cultures do not have to understand or respect our right.
Sept. 16, 2012: Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations:
[B]ased on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what - it began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo, where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy sparked by this hateful video. [...]
[T]his is a spontaneous reaction to a video, and it’s not dissimilar but, perhaps, on a slightly larger scale than what we have seen in the past with The Satanic Verses with the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.
Sept. 18, 2012: Sarah Chayes, former special assistant to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:
While many 1st Amendment scholars defend the right of the filmmakers to produce this film, arguing that the ensuing violence was not sufficiently imminent, I spoke to several experts who said the trailer may well fall outside constitutional guarantees of free speech. "Based on my understanding of the events," 1st Amendment authority Anthony Lewis said in an interview Thursday, "I think this meets the imminence standard."
Finally, much 1st Amendment jurisprudence concerns speech explicitly advocating violence, such as calls to resist arrest, or videos explaining bomb-making techniques. But words don't have to urge people to commit violence in order to be subject to limits, says Lewis. "If the result is violence, and that violence was intended, then it meets the standard."
Sept. 18, 2012: Tim Wu, The New Republic:
When Censorship Makes Sense: How YouTube Should Police Hate Speech
A better course would be to try to create a process that relies on a community, either of regional experts or the serious users of YouTube. Community members would (as they do now) flag dangerous or illegal videos for deletion. Google would decide the easy cases itself, and turn the hard cases over to the community, which would aim for a rough consensus. Such a system would be an early-warning signal that might have prevented riots in the first place.
Sept. 20, 2012: President Barack Obama:
Here's what happened. ... You had a video that was released by somebody who lives here, sort of a shadowy character who -- who made an extremely offensive video directed at -- at Mohammed and Islam.
Sept. 25, 2012: President Barack Obama:
In every country, there are those who find different religious beliefs threatening; in every culture, those who love freedom for themselves must ask how much they are willing to tolerate freedom for others.
That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well – for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and religion. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion – we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.
Sept. 25, 2012: Eric Posner, professor at the University of Chicago Law School:
The vile anti-Muslim video shows that the U.S. overvalues free speech. [...]
Americans need to learn that the rest of the world—and not just Muslims—see no sense in the First Amendment. Even other Western nations take a more circumspect position on freedom of expression than we do, realizing that often free speech must yield to other values and the need for order. Our own history suggests that they might have a point. [...]
So symbolic attachment to uneasy, historically contingent compromises, and a half-century of judicial decisions addressing domestic political dissent and countercultural pressures, prevent the U.S. government from restricting the distribution of a video that causes violence abroad and damages America’s reputation. And this is a video that, by the admission of all sides, has no value whatsoever.

153 comments:

  1. What a bunch of assholes. We should have left Ghadaffi alone. The regime we need to remove is in the District of Calamity.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The French President owed Colonel Q a lot of cash.

    Obviously, the Colonel had to be disposed of.
    So he was.

    He was also an old school enemy of the US, so no tears should be shed on his behalf.

    The oil is flowing, now.
    Beyond that, who here really cares if the status que in the sand box is good to go or good and gone?



    ReplyDelete
  3. Well in the history of Europe there have been many Crusades to the Middle East.

    Even GW Bush said the US was on a crusade, once. Before he was reformed.


    In 1948 the Jews of Europe really got into the Crusade business, establishing a Jewish enclave, in Palestine.

    Now, in 2013, the Muslims of Europe are gearing up for a Crusade of their own, back to Damascus!

    The Islamic Crusade

    http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/middle-east/syria/130509/syrian-islamic-rebels-european-recruits-young?google_editors_picks=true

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Think it could be in the water?

      Delete
    2. What a stupid comment.

      Delete
    3. If not the water, is it in the air?

      Why do Europeons, of every stripe, go on the march?

      Off to foreign lands to ....

      ... Do Something.

      Delete
    4. That the Muslim are now off to the Middle East, from Belgium, to fight for religious freedom, invalidates the idea that the aggressiveness is the exclusive heredity of Europeons.

      But what is it that drives them to continually attempt to intervene in the Middle East?

      What could be more hallucinatory than the folks that killed at least 40 million of their own, in the 20th Century, to consider the peoples of the Middle East to be childish and themselves civilized.

      40 million dead in Europe from political and sectarian violence, in the 20th century, does not seem to be indicative of what we'd call "Adult Behavior".

      Delete
    5. Desert Rat stated"

      "In 1948 the Jews of Europe really got into the Crusade business, establishing a Jewish enclave, in Palestine"


      This is a perfect example of why this blog has sunk to the toilet. Anti-zionism is anti-Semitism.

      Delete
    6. That, quot, is an out right lie.

      Zionism is NOT to be conflated with Judaism.

      If you conflate the two, well, that's your own whirled, child.

      Delete
    7. This is a perfect example of why this blog has sunk to the toilet. Anti-zionism is anti-Semitism.

      Rubbish. You are no more chosen or privileged by historic myth to make territorial claims than any other self-grieved descendent. Your PR skills and weapons are better. It is nonsensical and if practiced and accepted universally, the world would be in even worse shape.

      Delete
    8. If you argued that you are entitled to German lands as a form of reparations, I would agree that it is logical. If the US or any other country voluntarily opened up land for settlement, I would also agree, but European colonialism, regardless of the lofty claims is still colonialism.

      Delete
    9. Sadly you really DONT know the history of the modern state of Israel nor it's claims.

      To call it a "european colony" shows your lack of knowledge and your complete by-in to the modern day anti-zionism screeds which are nothing more than a new way of being an anti-semite

      Now you can swear on your daddy's soul that you dont hate the jews. But every Jew that meets you?

      FIND YOU SICKENING.

      You figure it out.

      The open Jew haters love you...

      You figure it out.

      Delete
    10. desert ratSat May 11, 11:16:00 AM EDT
      That, quot, is an out right lie.
      Zionism is NOT to be conflated with Judaism.
      If you conflate the two, well, that's your own whirled, child.


      This coming from a self confessed KILLER? A so called man that bragged about murdering civilians? That I had to call the AZ FBI on to report his cyber stalking?

      Great blog here folks...

      What a standard.

      Tell us rat, at your islamic jihad meetings, what is OK to say about supporting a modern day state of Israel?

      Delete
    11. DeuceSat May 11, 11:46:00 AM EDT
      If you argued that you are entitled to German lands as a form of reparations, I would agree that it is logical. If the US or any other country voluntarily opened up land for settlement, I would also agree, but European colonialism, regardless of the lofty claims is still colonialism.


      You get more and more deep in your propaganda on a daily basis.

      sad, really.

      Delete
  4. Shit, and I'm scheduled to be in Bani Walid next week. Quirk's in trouble again, in over his head. Guess I'll have to let him languish.

    ReplyDelete
  5. (Reuters) - Twin car bombs killed at least 20 people near Turkey’s border with Syria on Saturday, increasing fears that Syria’s civil war was dragging in neighbors and drawing a swift warning from Ankara not to test its resolve.

    Turkey supports the uprising against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said it was no coincidence the attacks in the town of Reyhanli came as diplomatic moves to end the conflict intensify.

    "There may be those who want to sabotage Turkey's peace, but we will not allow that," Davutoglu told reporters during a trip to Berlin. "No-one should attempt to test Turkey's power, our security forces will take all necessary measures."

    There was no immediate claim of responsibility.

    NATO member Turkey has been one of Assad's harshest critics and has harbored both Syrian refugees and rebels during the uprising against him, now in its third year.

    Prospects appeared to improve this week for diplomacy over the civil war, in which more than 70,000 people have been killed, after Moscow and Washington announced a joint effort to bring government and rebels to an international conference.

    But a Russian official said on Saturday that there was already disagreement over who would represent the opposition and he doubted whether a meeting could happen this month.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Good morning Folks!
    What a start to a lovely day.
    The birds are singing, the sun is shining.
    And I'm at the beginning of a 16 hour shift.
    So, aren't you all the lucky ones to have my full attention until I get off at mid-nite?
    Yes you are! heh.
    I love mornings so much I sometimes wake up and go through the routine twice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Someone had a great dream.

      Delete
    2. No dreams that I remember.
      The coffee was already made when I woke. I had cigarettes.
      I learned to love the little things in life!

      Delete
    3. Spirit (yellow pack), if you really have to take a smoke.

      Delete
    4. Old Gold is what I've been puffing for a few years. They start to taste nasty towards the end though.
      I'm going to try those Spirits.
      I like the name

      Delete
    5. Kool 100's, green box

      With coffee

      Good morning!!

      Delete
  7. Now, boobie, who is correct, Winston Churchill or quot?

    Well-informed observers, both inside and outside of Russia, took note at the time of the crucial Jewish role in Bolshevism. Winston Churchill, for one, warned in an article published in the February 8, 1920, issue of the London Illustrated Sunday Herald that Bolshevism is a

    "worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality."

    The eminent British political leader and historian went on to write:

    There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews.

    It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews.

    Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate, Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd), or of Krassin or Radek -- all Jews.

    In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combatting Counter-Revolution [the Cheka] has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses

    Needless to say, the most intense passions of revenge have been excited in the breasts of the Russian people."


    David R. Francis, United States ambassador in Russia, warned in a January 1918 dispatch to Washington: "The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90 percent of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The chief scamps are Mohammed, Marx, and Mao, Hitler, the 'philosophers' behind him of racial supremacy, even Luther in a way, though a minor player.

      A good number of atheist Jews were into world wide communist revolution at the time. I really don't know why, other than a mistaken urge to a 'just society' from their heritage. They were entirely wrong. They had forgotten simple teachings about the nature of man. Concentrating power is the biggest mistake of all.

      Very few spout that kind of stuff nowadays.

      No, I don't think it is 'in their blood'. I think it more likely that anti-Semitism is in yours, though I don't believe in that sort of thing.

      I don't think Churchill was really anti-Semitic. He often expressed concern for their situation. He was an accurate observer, mostly, of his time. He was for the British Empire, a man, like all others, of his time.

      Delete
  8. ... the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combatting Counter-Revolution [the Cheka] has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses

    Winston Churchill, 8FEB1920


    Maybe it is in the blood, aye.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The constant attack on Jews, the vilification of israel are two prongs of the modern anti-semite.

    It's not a victim card I am playing it's a statement of fact.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Winston Churchill, an anti-semite attacking Jews?!?

      What will boobie say, now, of his hero Winston?

      Delete
  10. This week the Israeli army conducted at least 79 invasions into Palestinian communities in the West Bank and Gaza. During these attacks, Israeli Troops kidnapped at least 45 Palestinians, including 3 children. IMEMC’s Ghassan Bannoura has more:

    This week invasions were focused in the West Bank cities of Jenin, Nablus, Ramallah and Hebron. Among those kidnapped this week by Israeli soldiers was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and the Holy Land, Sheikh Mohammad Hussein, he was taken after troops after surrounding his home and breaking into it in East Jerusalem.

    At the start of the week, four Palestinian civilians were wounded on Saturday at the village of Ras Karkar , northwest of Ramallah, during Israeli settlers attack targeting the village. According to villagers around 300 Israeli settlers attacked their village and set fire to some trees and throw stones at their cars and homes.

    Israeli court in Jerusalem has decided to allow the Israeli government to demolish the new built part of The Muhammad Al-Fatih Mosque. The Muhammad Al-Fatih Mosque, located in the Ras al-Amoud neighborhood in East Jerusalem, was forced to expand in 2009 due to a massive increase in worshipers after Israeli authorities began preventing Palestinian worshipers from accessing the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem's Old City.

    To deal with the influx of worshipers, the Muhammed Al-Fatih mosque applied to the Israeli authorities for a permit to expand. That permit, like virtually every permit filed by Palestinians for construction on existing property, was denied. Facing a weekly overload of its capacity, the mosque's managers decided to complete the expansion anyway.

    In the Gaza Strip, Israeli forces continued to attack Palestinian fishermen at sea. On Monday, Israeli gunboats stationed off al-Waha resort, northwest of Beit Lahia, in the north of the Gaza Strip, opened fire at Palestinian fishing boats that were around 3 nautical miles offshore. Similar incidents took place on Tuesday. Neither casualties nor material damage were reported.

    On Sunday, Israeli forces positioned along the border fence opened fire at some gravel and steel collectors who were about 300 meters away from the border fence, north of Beit Lahia, in the north of the Gaza Strip. However, no casualties were reported.


    ReplyDelete
  11. No additional vilification is required. This happens week in and week out.

    ReplyDelete
  12. quot, who wrote of his admiration of Hitler, just two days after the Patriot Day bombing.

    Hitler, quot wrote, was right, his own father wrong.

    quot wanted to share his epiphany, wanted to change the name of the blog to celebrate his revelation.

    Deuce is not the fan of NAZIs that quot revealed himself to be, so the name change obviously was not made.

    quot was so upset, he fumed.
    Vapor locked and then got himself a new Israeli passport.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rat, admitting his crimes of murder before everyone here and stalking several of us tells us that murder aint murder if you aint convicted.

      Delete
    2. That is so stupid rat, to keep that lame crap out there.

      Delete
  13. RT - ‎2 hours ago‎

    US Secretary of State John Kerry said there is “strong evidence” proving the Syrian government used chemical weapons in its war against the militant opposition, a position at odds with recent UN findings.


    http://rt.com/news/syria-us-russia-chemical-israel-145/

    ReplyDelete
  14. Israel will never stop. Then it points fingers at Palestinians for protesting. If they would try to stop acting like bullies and then laying on the poor pitiful “you are against the Jews.” routine they would probably get a lot more respect from everyone.

    Anti wall and settlements protests were organized this week in the villages of al Nabi Saleh, Bil’in, Nil’in as well as Al Walaja in southern west Bank.

    Many were treated for the effects of tear gas inhalation when soldiers attacked villagers and their supporters at the village of Bil’in, Ni’lin and al Nabi Saleh.

    In Bil’in and Ni’lin, residents and their international and Israeli supporters, managed to reach the wall. Soldiers stationed there fired tear gas and chemical water on protesters. Haytham Al Khatieb, a local journalist from Bil’in also sustained light wounds in his hand when soldiers shot him with rubber-coated steel bullets.

    However at the nearby Al Nabi Saleh village Israeli soldiers attacked the unarmed protesters at the village entrance then invaded the village and fired tear gas into residents’ homes. Earlier in the week Israeli settlers from the illegal Halmish settlement near Al Nabi Saleh closed the road leading to the village and attacked residents cars and homes. Damage was reported but no injuries.

    Elsewhere, In Al-Walaja village near Bethlehem, residents marched towards the gate installed on the eastern entrance of the village which separates the village from the nearby Cremisan Monastery. The gate is part of the separation wall built on the village's land.

    The protest was called for by the Popular Committee against the Wall and Settlements as part of a week of popular resistance activities to commemorate the 65th anniversary of Palestinian dispossession in 1948 known by Palestinians as an Nakba.

    As soon as the protesters arrived at the gate, Israeli soldiers started pushing them backwards away from the gate, which was recently installed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In Egypt they simply burn down the buildings with the people they dont like inside, in Sauda Arabia? They simply expel them, In syria? they murder them by the 10's of thousands, in SUdan? they rape and murder them by the hundreds of thousands.

      And you bitch about a separation fence and tear gas?

      Really visit Mexico/America, China, or Saudi Arabia for walls.


      Delete
  15. From his facebook post a couple minutes ago:
    Michael Yon
    Taiwan and Philippines: On the brink

    Seeing much traffic on this. None of it is good.

    Both are friends of the United States. This can get complicated quickly.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I don’t do facebook. Post what you have.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thats all from him so far.
      All I can find out about this is:
      TAIPEI (Taiwan News) – President Ma Ying-jeou said Saturday he did not rule out taking sanctions against the Philippines over the killing of a Taiwanese fisherman by Philippine maritime agents.
      Hung Shih-cheng, a 65-year-old fisherman from Pingtung County, died after his fishing trawler was shot at with machine guns from a Philippine government vessel in overlapping exclusive economic zones about 164 nautical miles southeast of Taiwan’s southernmost tip.

      The Taiwanese ship, the Kuang Ta Hsing No.28, returned home Saturday morning. The vessel had been hit by 52 bullets, prosecutors said. Coroners said the autopsy showed that Hung had died after a bullet entered through the left side of his throat and exited from two places on his back. Because the injuries showed marks of a high-velocity bullet, the gun used had probably been a machine gun or a rifle, prosecutors said.




      Delete
  17. .

    This is the one that struck me most.

    Sept. 12, 2012: Rev. Steven D. Martin, CEO of the New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good:

    I have no sympathy for anyone who would assassinate a U.S. ambassador. But I have even less sympathy for filmmakers who spread hatred and for pastors who knowingly incite violence.



    It is comforting to see the Reverand has his priorites in place like some here.

    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have maintained for long past my memory now that it is way way too easy to become a 'Reverand' or even a 'Reverend'.

      Delete
  18. .

    I see the Israeli bashers are out in force again.

    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And here I thought I was bashing Winston Churchill, or boobie, maybe both.

      Mostly boobie, for making a hero of Winston.

      Delete
    2. And for thinking that Europeons, who killed almost 40 million of their own in the 20th century, are some how qualified to be the "Adults" in the whirled.

      No matter how you count the bodies, the Europeons put the Islamoids to shame, when it comes to killin'.

      Goin' back to before the Islamoids were even "Brothers in Abraham".

      Delete
    3. .

      Ironic, rat, that you self-identify yourself as an Israeli basher. And telling.

      As they say, round up the usual suspects.

      .

      Delete
    4. Does not matter who reads what book, the truth is in the Europeon body counts.

      Goin' back to Caesar and running forward through time, non-stop to Mr Putin and the Europeon adventures in Chechnya. The Europeons have industrialized death.

      No one else in the whirled comes close.

      Delete
    5. Though the Mongols and Chinese, combined do come close.

      Delete
    6. No, Q, i do believe that I am biased against the Israeli/Europeon position in the Levant.

      I do think that you would include me on YOUR list of Israeli bashers. I know I am on quot's list of those that bash Israel.

      I do think that if anyone were to defend the Saudi, I'd bash them, too.
      Their oppression of the Shiite population in eastern Saudi Arabia, is just god awful.

      But no one here does defend the Saudi.
      No one here does defend Assad.
      No one here does defend the Muslim Brotherhood.

      So there is no reason to bash those positions.

      There are those that defend Israel.
      They will be bashed, by the facts and realities on the ground, today.
      And in history.

      Delete
    7. .

      I also disagree with your suggestion that, maybe it's in the water (I realize you were being facitious). I see it as being in the culture. To argue that it is all Israel's fault as Jenny does or that it is all the Muslims fault as Bob does offers us merely truncated arguments. In truth, is is all of their faults. Truth be known we can include the Christians also, though since they are a minority in most countries it is less noted.

      The whole area is tribal and sectarian. Arab, Persian, Christian, Muslim, Kurd, Shia, Jew, Sunni, it doesn't matter, they have been fighting each other for millenia. I don't expect it to change any time soon. The key reason we should stay out of there.

      .

      Delete
    8. There is only one poster, here, that ever wrote affirmatively about Hitler.

      quot, the Israeli, will be bashed with that, incessantly.

      Delete
    9. My position, for years, is that the players in that region are equivalent.

      You seem to agree.

      I will maintain my position that Israel is no more or less equal than any of the other players.

      They are not the "worse", certainly not the "best" of the peoples in the Islamic Arc.

      Delete
    10. .

      The Europeons have industrialized death.

      No one else in the whirled comes close.



      Again, I disagree. History tells us otherwise. It is merely a matter of who has the power at any given time to cause the most mischief.

      We see it in ancient examples like the Aztec and Mayans and in more recent examples like Mao and Pol Pot. We see it with the U.S. The equation is based on power wielded and weapons owned not on nationality. Power corrupts.

      .

      Delete
    11. .

      It is speculated that Ghenghis Khan was the first 'green ruler'. Because of the 40 million people he was reputed to have killed vast tracts were converted back from farmland to forest.

      40 million.

      And that does not include the Khans who followed him.

      .

      Delete
    12. I happen to think that the 40 million attributed to the Great Khan, is a tad exaggerated based upon the total populations in the whirled at the time, but perhaps not.

      Which is why I included the Mongols and Chinese, as coming in 2nd. Perhaps a photo finish.

      While I would also agree that the Aztecs did chop the hearts out a tens of thousands, at a time.
      The cumulative total ... I am not sure. But not, I think, tens of millions.

      But the industrialization of death...

      High explosives, Lee-Enfield rifle, the Mauser rifle, the Lewis Gun, Mustard gas, aerial bombardment, the Dreadnaught, concentration camps.

      The Europeons take the cake.


      Delete
    13. Churchill was a hero, and deserves high praise, compared to all the others I mentioned above.

      Delete
    14. The 40 million I mentioned, just the 20th century totals for tyrants.

      Delete
    15. So his 1920 missive is not anti-semitic or biased against Judaism?

      Delete
    16. I think it probable that there were major slaughters in the past of which we have no knowledge.

      The Europeans certainly did their share in the 20th Century, but they were hardly the only ones.

      An argument about which group has killed the most - well, it's a sad thing to have an argument about what kind of dreadful beings we often seem to be.

      It would be more uplifting to argue about the saints in all groups one of these days.

      Delete
    17. bob, you said that the Europeons were the "Adults" in the whirled.

      The 20th century disputes that assertion.

      It makes a lie of your assertion.

      The only "Right" the Europeons have is "Might".

      Delete
    18. I think I said, or was trying to say, that I was the adult.

      :)

      The Europeans have a long and mixed history.

      We have a short and mixed history.

      A country that used to have slavery has elected a black President.

      In this particular case, a major mistake in my view, having nothing to do with race. I think Shillary is just a female white Obama. Electing her would be a major mistake too.

      The image still stands as an example of our mixed history.

      Sometimes I think of how 'easily' and 'naturally' Obama and Shillary have worked together on their Benghazi deceit.

      Both are equally scum.

      Delete
  19. Anyone that would compare the Iranians to the NAZI, would have to think the NAZI were impotent incompetents.

    Because the Iranians certainly are.

    Another Cause for Alarm in Iran's Nuclear Program: Earthquakes
    The country's nuclear power plant is built near tectonic plates, and reports show it may not be safe in the event of a major seismic event.

    ReplyDelete
  20. A Corrupt and
    Bloody Reign

    Robert Mugabe won election as Zimbabwe’s first prime minister in 1980. He’s held on to power through violence and intimidation: Attacks by government-backed forces on civilians who could oppose him have peaked in election years (time line below). The country’s natural resources—including gold and remarkable diamond deposits—have helped finance Mugabe’s rule, enriching him and his inner circle.


    Happy to bash Mugabe's defenders.

    Where are they?

    He and his ruined Rhodesia.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/05/zimbabwe/conflict-map

      Delete
    2. I do not think, though, that Mugabe gets much in US aid or loan guarantees.

      Delete
  21. Breaking the Silence

    Oppression, Fear, and Courage in Zimbabwe


    There are at least two things to know about Zimbabweans. The first is that they have an immoderate attachment to their land, and no wonder. Anyone who has seen the spring-red blush of musasa woodland at the beginning of the rains, or felt the crackle-hot wind of a lowveld summer afternoon, or absorbed the scents of sweet potato and marigold as dusk settles over the bush will know that theirs is a soul-snagging land. Of course such an attachment to land comes at a price. For it, and over it, there will be wars and revolutions, and the inevitable loss of land by the vanquished or the politically unlucky will be so unendurable that the unmoored people will end up true ghosts, souls in search of soil.


    http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/05/zimbabwe/fuller-text


    Who wants to defend Mugabe?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Place was once known as 'The Breadbasket of Africa'. Basket case now. I recall the righteous cries coming from our colleges and universities, Free Zimbabwe Now.

      I also remember the Rhodesian ambassador to here who said there will be one man, one vote, one time, and then it will become a true tyranny.

      Delete
    2. Any dissent to that?

      Anyone willing to defend Mugabe?

      Delete
    3. If not, well then, the subject is closed, at least until until someone wants to defend that tyrant.

      Delete
    4. For my part, in a highly unusual move, I concur.

      I am not willing to defend Mugabe.

      I believe he famously said once, concerning the starving, "We don't need all these people around here anyway".

      Delete
  22. Confession.
    I used to be an Isael basher.
    That all changed in the blink of my broken hearted eye.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. An honest man, we need you.

      Delete
    2. I used to be an Israel supporter.
      That all began to change when I was challenged to read the unedited story.
      Then I was introduced to allen, matt and quot.

      The truth then became clear, crystal.

      Delete
  23. May 10, 2013 5:00 PM
    The Benghazi Lie
    A failure of character of this magnitude corrodes the integrity of the state.

    By Mark Steyn


    Throughout the all-night firefight in Benghazi, Washington’s priority seems to have been to do everything possible to deny that what was actually happening was happening at all. To send “soldiers” on a “mission” to “fight” the “enemy” was at odds with the entire Obama narrative of the Arab Spring and the broader post-Bush Muslim world. And so the entire U.S. military was stood down in support of the commander-in-chief’s fiction.

    As Mr. Hicks testified, his superiors in Washington knew early that night that a well-executed terrorist attack with the possible participation of al-Qaeda elements was under way. Instead of responding, the most powerful figures in the government decided that an unseen YouTube video better served their political needs. And, in the most revealing glimpse of the administration’s depravity, the president and secretary of state peddled the lie even in their mawkish eulogies to their buddy “Chris” and three other dead Americans. They lied to the victims’ coffins and then strolled over to lie to the bereaved, Hillary telling the Woods family that “we’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video.” And she did. The government dispatched more firepower to arrest Nakoula Basseley Nakoula in Los Angeles than it did to protect its mission in Benghazi. It was such a great act of misdirection Hillary should have worn spangled tights and sawn Stevens’s casket in half.

    The dying Los Angeles Times reported this story on its homepage (as a sidebar to “Thirteen Great Tacos in Southern California”) under the following headline: “Partisan Politics Dominates House Benghazi Hearing.” In fact, everyone in this story is a Democrat or a career civil servant. Chris Stevens was the poster boy for Obama’s view of the Arab Spring; he agreed with the president on everything that mattered. The only difference is that he wasn’t in Vegas but out there on the front line, where Obama’s delusions meet reality. Stevens believed in those illusions enough to die for them. One cannot say the same about the hollow men and women in Washington who sent him out there unprotected, declined to lift a finger when he came under attack, and in the final indignity subordinated his sacrifice to their political needs by lying over his corpse. Where’s the “partisan politics”? Obama, Clinton, Panetta, Clapper, Rice, and the rest did this to one of their own. And fawning court eunuchs, like the ranking Democrat at the hearings, Elijah Cummings, must surely know that, if they needed, they’d do it to them, too. If you believe in politics über alles, it’s impressive, in the same way that Hillary’s cocksure dismissal — “What difference, at this point, does it make?” — is impressive.

    But the embassy security chief, Eric Nordstrom, had the best answer to that: It matters because “the truth matters” — not least to the Libyan president, who ever since has held the U.S. government in utter contempt. Truth matters, and character matters. For the American people to accept the Obama-Clinton lie is to be complicit in it.

    — Mark Steyn

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Also -

      May 11, 2013
      It's the character, stupid
      Thomas Lifson

      >The realization of what really happened in Benghazi - the story of brave men betrayed for political gain - is slowly sinking in. The MSMers suddenly on the story have to face the fact that big lies have been told. Writing like Steyn's can only help hasten the process of America coming to terms with who (and what) we have in the White House.<

      http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/05/its_the_character_stupid.html

      Delete
  24. This one, for you, bob.

    Take up the White Man’s burden—

    Send forth the best ye breed—

    Go send your sons to exile

    To serve your captives' need

    To wait in heavy harness

    On fluttered folk and wild—

    Your new-caught, sullen peoples,

    Half devil and half child

    Take up the White Man’s burden

    In patience to abide

    To veil the threat of terror

    And check the show of pride;

    By open speech and simple

    An hundred times made plain

    To seek another’s profit

    And work another’s gain

    Take up the White Man’s burden—

    And reap his old reward:

    The blame of those ye better

    The hate of those ye guard—

    The cry of hosts ye humour

    (Ah slowly) to the light:

    "Why brought ye us from bondage,

    “Our loved Egyptian night?”

    Take up the White Man’s burden-

    Have done with childish days-

    The lightly proffered laurel,

    The easy, ungrudged praise.

    Comes now, to search your manhood

    Through all the thankless years,

    Cold-edged with dear-bought wisdom,

    The judgment of your peers!

    Source: Rudyard Kipling, “The White Man’s Burden: The United States & The Philippine Islands, 1899.” Rudyard Kipling’s Verse: Definitive Edition (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1929).

    “The White Man’s Burden”: Kipling’s Hymn to U.S. Imperialism

    In February 1899, British novelist and poet Rudyard Kipling wrote a poem entitled “The White Man’s Burden: The United States and The Philippine Islands.” In this poem, Kipling urged the U.S. to take up the “burden” of empire, as had Britain and other European nations. Published in the February, 1899 issue of McClure’s Magazine, the poem coincided with the beginning of the Philippine-American War and U.S. Senate ratification of the treaty that placed Puerto Rico, Guam, Cuba, and the Philippines under American control. Theodore Roosevelt, soon to become vice-president and then president, copied the poem and sent it to his friend, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, commenting that it was “rather poor poetry, but good sense from the expansion point of view.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. :)

      I'm not a Kipling fan. And don't know him well. I do know as a poet he was sometimes more than an imperialist bumpkin, but can't go further being unfamiliar with him

      Empire too is a complex thing. Obama's brother there in Kenya has said he thinks it was better there when the British were running thing.

      It is hard to see how things could be worse in Zimbabwe.

      India has improved somewhat by accepting certain British ideas about government. At least many think so.

      Was the Spanish Empire better or worse than the Aztecs? You answer.

      At any rate, we are not an 'empire' in any meaningful sense of the word, as many here continue to insist.

      The people we beat or helped beat overseas have been set free to run their own affairs, and compete in trade with us.

      Delete
  25. .

    The 40 million I mentioned, just the 20th century totals for tyrants.

    Tyrants. You have obviously left out Mao, who historians credit with the deaths of 50-70 million of his own people. Pol Pot, by comparison, was a piker; althouigh he did manage to do away with a quarter of the population.

    .



    ReplyDelete
  26. .

    But the industrialization of death...

    High explosives, Lee-Enfield rifle, the Mauser rifle, the Lewis Gun, Mustard gas, aerial bombardment, the Dreadnaught, concentration camps.

    The Europeons take the cake.


    Technology certainly increase the efficiency of our ability to slaughter; however, it doesn't necessarily deserve the primacy you grant it.

    The main factor and key advantage the mongols possessed was their horses not their weapons.

    Likewise, Mao in just the four years of the Great Leap Forward killed over 45 million through torture, murder, and starvation.

    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mao cleaned up the opium problem in China with a few million bullets.

      No buying of heroin at the Wal-Green's drive through there.

      Delete
    2. The horse has been a great influence in human life. For good and bad. The Aryans were sort of a peaceful sort, but when they tamed the horse they immediately became fierce. Likewise the horse in north America changed Native American culture. Without the horse, the Nez Perce would not have been over in Montana fighting with the Blackfoot over the buffalo. They would have stayed home and fished. Everyone seems to seek a little adventure when the means arrive. What hominid brute can resist the call to adventure of thrashing some foot bound worthless from the seat atop a noble horse?

      On the other hand, they make farming easier than working a hoe. And good for going to town. You can even get drunk in town, and fall asleep in the saddle on the way home, and the noble horse will get you to the barn.

      The horse: that necessary animal.

      Delete
  27. A movie review for Quirk -



    Archives
    Green Room
    Ed Morrissey Show


    Film review: Oblivion


    posted at 10:01 am on May 11, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

    Drone repairman, Tom Cruise, fights for his humanity.

    >Good science fiction, especially futuristic sci-fi, uses the trappings of technology and dislocation to tell stories about humanity. Oblivion meets that challenge, as Jack (Tom Cruise) ends up questioning not just his world but also his own uniqueness in it. The cold sexual relationship between Jack and Vicca (Andrea Risenborough) is almost as antiseptic and emotionless as the glass-and-metal chalet in which they live. It’s only when Jack runs across a book while fighting off what he thinks are aliens, and then has a chance to rescue a woman who often appears in his dreams (Olga Kurlyenko), that Jack’s humanity begins to emerge from his drone-like existence as a drone repairman. Eventually, Jack’s humanity can only be rescued when he gets in contact with other human beings, even if Jack himself may not be as authentic as they are.<

    http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/11/film-review-oblivion/

    ReplyDelete
  28. .

    Speaking of Mao, an interesting anology occurred to me.

    During the Cultural Revolution, Mao was meeting resistance from more moderate members of the Party.

    In the summer of 1966, Mao seized on the concept of a Cultural Revolution and appealed to the masses in an effort to unseat the conservative Communist Party leaders. He called on Chinese students, whom he designated “Red Guards,” to spearhead a movement to remove “representatives of the bourgeoisie” from all areas of government and society.

    On August 18, one million of them were brought to a rally, organized by Jiang, in Beijing’s Tienanmen Square, where Mao circulated among them for six hours wearing a Red Guard armband. Mao told the students that the revolution was in danger, and that they must do all they could to stop the emergence of a privileged class in China, as had happened in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin and Nikita Khrushchev.

    Universities were closed, and students were given free passage on trains to travel round China and participate in revolutionary rallies. They marched through cities, mobilizing workers, hanging up banners and posters with revolutionary slogans, and renaming streets, monuments and businesses with new “revolutionary” names.

    The Red Guards became the instruments of the “Cultural Revolution,” attacking intellectuals, professionals, and anyone who had contact with the West, as well as anything representing traditional Chinese culture or religion. Believing Mao’s slogan that “Rebellion is Justified,” they defaced temples and monuments and broke into homes to destroy old books, Western-style clothing, paintings and art objects. Thousands of professionals and scholars were beaten to death, or tortured in public; many were sent to “May Seventh Cadre Schools” to perform hard labor.[2]


    A couple streams back we read,

    It should come as no surprise that President Obama told Ohio State students at graduation ceremonies last week that they should not question authority and they should reject the calls of those who do. He argued that "our brave, creative, unique experiment in self-rule" has been so successful that trusting the government is the same as trusting ourselves; hence, challenging the government is the same as challenging ourselves. And he blasted those who incessantly warn of government tyranny.

    Trusting the government is the same as trusting ourselves.

    The amazing thing is that there are those here who defend this notion, who acuse anyone who would question the government as traitors and/or spies, who accuse the civilian whistle blowers on Benghazi as seditious traitors, who say we don't need to know why the government did what it did even though four Americans were killed, that argue when the government says "Trust us" we should automatically do it, that argue as Hillary did "What does it matter?"

    Heck, even Obama admitted that the death of four Americans was not "optimal".

    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wasn't there something said by someone about it being only 'a bump in the road'?

      Who said that?

      Delete
    2. .

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JXkB3TSicE

      Who do you think?

      .

      Delete
    3. I think it was Obama, now I'll watch your youtube.

      .........

      What happens the day after a strike on Iran? --

      The Day After a Strike on Iran

      Marwan Muasher
      |
      May 10, 2013

      http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/the-day-after-strike-iran-8456

      Yup, I read opposing opinions.

      Delete


  29. A judge has ruled that a nun and two other nuclear protesters must remain in jail until they are sentenced in September for breaking into the Y-12 National Security Complex in Tennessee.

    Sister Megan Rice and protesters Michael Walli and Greg Boertje-Obed (bohr-CHEE' OH-bed') were convicted Wednesday of interfering with national security and damaging federal property during last year's incursion. They cut through security fences, hung banners and hammered off a small chunk of the fortress-like Highly Enriched Uranium Materials Facility.

    An attorney for the defendants asked the judge Thursday to allow their release until their Sept. 23 sentencing. They face up to 10 years in prison.

    The Knoxville News Sentinel (http://bit.ly/17bibId) reports U.S. District Judge Amul Thapar said in an order Friday that releasing them would be too lenient.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Jonathon Pollard, he was a traitorous spy, a Federal civil servant who served himself.

    PFC Manning a soldier in the US Army in time of war.
    We'll see just how serious his misconduct turns out to be.

    The Army, Q, is not General Motors or FoMoCo.
    It demands a higher standard of blind obedience than either of those Detroit motor works.

    PFC Manning is getting off easy. The Great Khan would have had him drawn and quartered, by now.

    ReplyDelete
  31. As to students out of the class rooms, while protesters were on campus, playing to the politics of the moment...

    Four Dead in Ohio.

    That was what, 1967, 1968?
    The anniversary just passed, no?

    Turbulent times, no doubt.

    ReplyDelete
  32. And who profited from that opium, sold in China?

    FDR's grandfather, for one.
    Yale University, for another.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Micahel Savage used to claim that Kerry's grandfather's ships carried opium to China. Never heard him retract that allegation.

      Delete
    2. What was his name?

      Those business dealings were recorded.
      Those involved in ruining Chinese lives were proud of their entrepreneurship.

      Delete
  33. Another piece of turbulence, from the Sexy Sixties

    A clear majority of Americans still suspect there was a conspiracy behind President John F. Kennedy's assassination, but the percentage who believe accused shooter Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone is at its highest level since the mid-1960s, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll.

    According to the AP-GfK survey, conducted in mid-April, 59% of Americans think multiple people were involved in a conspiracy to kill the president, while 24% think Oswald acted alone, and 16% are unsure. A 2003 Gallup poll found that 75% of Americans felt there was a conspiracy.

    As the 50th anniversary of Kennedy's death approaches, the number of Americans who believe Oswald acted alone is at its highest since the period three years after the Nov. 22, 1963 assassination, when 36% said one man was responsible.

    ReplyDelete
  34. .

    You offer a continuous stream of straw men, rat.

    No one is arguing about Manning or Pollard. You are the only one who has brought them up. What we were talking about yesterday and in my post above was American citizens, civilians, none convicted of crimes we know of, who want to come forward and testify, yet who fear being punished as whistleblowers, a legitimate fear given Obama's clear contempt for the Constitution and the First Amendment.

    Here is the stream from yesterday. Try to follow it.

    bobSat May 11, 05:26:00 AM EDT
    The attorney for one of the Benghazi whistleblowers told TheBlaze Radio that he has more people who want to come forward to testify.

    Joseph diGenova, attorney for acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Counterterrorism Mark Thompson, did not specify how many new witnesses there were, but said they had been “on the ground” and “in the fight” during the September assault that left four Americans dead. Thompson was one of three whistleblowers who went before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday.

    “We’ve been contacted by some people on the ground who were there, who were in the fight, who want to come forward but who fear if they do they will never get contract work with the agency again,” diGenova told TheBlaze Radio host Jay Severin on Thursday. “We are going to test the director of central intelligence’s word [that those who testify will not be penalized]. If these people decide they want to come forward, the first thing we’re going to do is go to the director’s office and say here they are, how are you going to protect them?”

    Hot Air


    ReplyDelete
    Repliesdesert ratSat May 11, 07:40:00 AM EDT
    There is no protection for seditious traitors, boobie.

    Ask PFC Manning.

    Delete
    desert ratSat May 11, 07:54:00 AM EDT
    Perhaps you think Jonathon Pollard needs a medal, too?

    Traitors and spies, those are your kind of guys.

    Delete
    bobSat May 11, 09:08:00 AM EDT

    Goodmorning, Bunk.

    I see you are in your usual bottomland shit mood.

    Delete
    QuirkSat May 11, 01:14:00 PM EDT
    .

    There is no protection for seditious traitors, boobie.

    Ask PFC Manning.


    Once again the rat proves himself to be the Prince of the Sheeple.

    Anyone who objects to government policy is a traitor and a spy. Civilians working for the government have to do what they are told and not discuss it in public if it goes against the storyline put out by the top levels of government or they are seditious traitors. Straw men like Manning (a soldier) and Pollard (a spy) are drawn out and compared to civilians on the ground while events happened that want to tell their story, what some call whistleblowers but what I call patriots but what rat calls seditious traitors.

    Makes me want to puke.



    Also, and the main point, what information can these guys give that would hurt national security at this point? Even if there was something, it could be given in closed session and classified. What we are looking at is a classic cover-up. The administration has nothing to base their case on except the credulity of guys like you.

    .

    .


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very well said, Quirk.

      Delete
    2. Quirk, having disposed of that issue, has allowed us now to return to moving upward, and ever onward, our usual way of dialogue.

      Delete
    3. Those Whistle Blowers are anything but.

      They offer nothing new. The President was not going to send troops into Libya.
      That was obvious from the beginning. The Marines were ready, they are always ready.

      They were not going to be sent. That was determined early on. We knew that when the story was told the President went to bed. The decision had been made. The cost/benefit decision on military intervention, putting boots on the ground, made. The Marines could stand down.

      To have to be told four times, that Marine should be relieved.

      The White House decided to promote the video storyline, rather than to legitimize the aQ raid, right off the bat.
      Foolish, no doubt.
      Poorly handled, no doubt.

      But, on balance, the right decision.
      The presentation of it, terrible.

      But on the money, regardless.

      Delete
    4. But, but, wait.....didn't the President say he ordered everything to be done to help the people in Benghazi....


      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gThLeEAmOlw

      and

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QTrwainv80


      "To have to be told four times, that Marine should be relieved."

      Or, given the nation's highest honor.

      He was obviously trying to follow the President's order to do everything possible to help the people in Banghazi. He must have thought the stand down order to be bogus, because we have just heard the President said he ordered everything possible to be done to protect the people in Benghazi.

      Delete
    5. Having given the order to do everything possible to help the people in Benghazi, the President then went to bed, his duties faithfully discharged, and headed to a campaign event in Las Vegas in the morning.

      The Marine was simply trying to resist what he considered to be a bogus order from some illegitimate source to stand down.

      He was trying to do the right thing.

      He deserves the nation's highest medal.

      To understand all this, all you really have to do is take Obama's recorded words concerning it all.

      Our President does not lie.

      Delete
    6. .

      Gee and Jay Carney said only one word in the Intelligence Report was changed. Now we hear 148 our of 248 words were deleted from the initial talking points. All references to intelligence warnings based on previous attacks there delated, all references to terrorists deleted, all references to Ansar al-Sharia deleted.

      ABC has access to 12 separate drafts of the talking points.

      Obama despite what he said obviously in the loop since it was the White House that eventually cancelled the e-mail stream as things got really embarrassing.

      .

      Delete
    7. .

      Without the whistleblowers, it is unlikely that we would have known of the various witnesses that were ecluded from testifying for the ARB investigation, and ARB appointed by Hillary Clinton, an ARB currently being investigated by the State Dept. OLG.

      The cutoff for assigning blame for Benghazi was around the mid-level of career bureaucrats. Without the whistleblowers we would not have confirming evidence that the decisions were actually made among the upper levels of the political appointees.

      .

      Delete
    8. .

      Relax, rat. Go stick your head back in the sand.

      Let us poor benighted yahoos worry about Benghazi.

      Your echoing of the part line, "What does it matter", isn't actually selling here at the moment.

      .

      Delete
    9. That part of the line, matters little.

      Get all excited, Hillery is already out the door.

      General P, fired.
      The President will not be impeached, if he is, he will not be convicted.

      Meanwhile, the real story ...

      Kim Kardashian has taken her baby bump on a world tour. From the Met Ball in New York City to shopping trips in Paris, the 32-year-old mom-to-be has strutted her stuff, showing off her burgeoning belly in high-fashion gowns, bikinis, and outfits that have put ...

      Delete
  35. "The cost/benefit decision on military intervention, putting boots on the ground, made. The Marines could stand down."

    But intervention is seperate from security.
    Someone in the administration left those folks with none to guard them.
    That is negligence.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. From the AP:
      Democrats note that an independent inquiry found that the State Department badly mishandled security needs in Libya. But it blamed officials no higher than the assistant secretary of state level.

      Oh how they need to protect their next presidential candidate.

      Delete
    2. The Ambassador, Dman, made the decision to go to Benghazi, with the security he had.

      That is the man that makes those decisions, in country.

      He was the Administration, he made the decision to go.

      He COULD have stayed in Tripoli, where there was security.

      Was the Ambassador negligent, in his own death?
      More than likely.
      No one in DC was.

      Delete
    3. Was the Ambassador negligent, in his own death?

      Possibly.

      Delete
    4. For whatever the reason, Mr Stevens did not meet the Turkish ambassador in Tripoli, in either's embassy or consulates.

      One can wonder why?
      If there is a cover up, it concerns the substance of those meetings.

      Who leaked that the ambassador would be at the Benghazi compound?

      That is the only whistle that matters.
      It seems to be silent.

      Delete
    5. And is why General P was given the gate.

      He had responsibility for security, in Benghazi.

      His forces had the weapons.
      His forces screwed the pooch, giving up their position with that laser designator.
      Which is even more evidence of the fact that the CIA had the security ball, in Benghazi.

      The CIA had the weaponry, in country, on site.

      Casualties had been limited to the ambassador and his security man, the employees from the compound evacuated to the CIA annex. Then the CIA gunsels got aggressive, lased the Islamoid mortar position, which then engaged the targeting laser position. Killing two more of the US employees.



      Delete
    6. Who was telling the CIA gunsels that there would be air support?

      That person killed the folks at the CIA annex.
      If they had just hunkered down, they'd have not drawn fire.
      But they lased the mortar position, why?

      That's the cover up.
      Who at the CIA told the people in that annex that there was air support armed and incoming, when there was not?

      The political fallout and double talk from the talking heads, just more entertainment, that does not really matter.

      Mr Stevens is still dead, General P still fired and Hillary is still going to be 69 years old on election day in 2016.

      Delete
    7. The CIA employees at the annex would have been communicating with their own chain of command within the CIA.

      Not with anyone at State or Defense.

      They are attempting to cover up the level of CIA involvement, and seem willing to take quite a bit of political "heat" doing so.

      Why?

      That is the essence of the "Real" cover up.

      Delete
    8. Indeed, it is a mess.
      I don't expect anyone will come forward to confess a single thing.

      Politics!
      I think I'll just lay off it for awhile.
      Makes my head hurt.
      At any rate, I'm eleven and a half hours into this 16 hour shift and need to get going on a few things here.

      Delete
    9. .

      Rat, I continue to ask you for links regarding the assertions you are making and you give me nothing.

      For instance.

      Then the CIA gunsels got aggressive, lased the Islamoid mortar position, which then engaged the targeting laser position. Killing two more of the US employees.

      Please provide a link. I have seen numerous accounts indicating that those at the annex had the laser targeting equipment available but I have seen none that said they actually used it. If they did it it would be passing strange, Just as to simply assuming they used it would be passing stupid, and to think the terrorists needed them to use it also seems kind of strange.

      I've asked for a link before and the reasons are obvious.

      1. Why target the mortar position when they knew there would be no air support. One would think they would have more important things to do than play x-box to no purpose.

      2. The terrorists were armed with AK47's, RPGs, and mortars. As our resident military expert, tell me, would this rag tag group of dipshits have the capability to know they were being lasered?

      3. If they did have the capability, one would assume it would also give them the capability to readily pinpoint their target. Testimony from the hearings indicated the initial mortars were long and then fell short before they finally started hitting the annex.

      4. Why would you assume the terrorists needed the laser to pinpoint their target? There had been a running gun battle between the consulate and the annex with the two vehicles containing the survivors being riddled with shells before they made it to the annex. The terrorists obviously knew were the annex was. one would assume that the annex would be hard to miss. Two major firefights occurred at the annex but witnesses say there was intermittent firing all night long. The two guys that were killed were on the annex roof. They could see the mortar positions. One has to assume the terrorists could see them too. It was dawn, about 5:30am when Doherty and Woods were killed by mortars hitting the annex.

      As I said just provide a link so we can check the source.

      .

      Delete
    10. .

      Was the Ambassador negligent, in his own death?
      More than likely.
      No one in DC was.


      More bullshit. Testimony by the whistleblowers indicated why Stevens was in Benghazi at the time. According to Hicks, when Stevens took over Hillary indicated to him that she wanted the Benghazi facility raised to full consulate status and wanted to announce it on her trip to Libya scheduled for October. The head of mission left Benghazi at the end of August and was temporarily replaced by another official who left after the first ten days of September. Stevens went to Benghazi to see haow progress was going and to move it along if possible. Timing was important because money from a particular facilites program was only available for Benghazi until September 30. The State Department stateside was aware of his trip and raised no objections.

      Because of the security situation in Benghazi, Stevens cut his trip short arriving a few days later than planned and planning to leave earlier than in the original plan.

      Stevens might have aggressive in carrying out his duties, he may have been conscientious, but a 'cowboy' as described here, I don't think so.

      As for meeting with the his Turkish counterpart, I've seen articles reporting he did.

      .

      Delete
    11. .

      Who leaked that the ambassador would be at the Benghazi compound?

      The trip was planned for weeks. Officials in both Tripoli and the U.S. were aware of it.
      You merely offer us up red herrings and diversions. Try checking out Occam's Razor sometime.

      .

      Delete
    12. .

      And is why General P was given the gate.

      Because he was an incompetent asshole and he could't keep the horse in the barn.

      .

      Delete
    13. .

      He had responsibility for security, in Benghazi.

      Pure bull. The State Department was responsible for security in Benghazi. How dense must you be not to realize that? The CIA had their own game going in Benghazi no doubt but while there was coodination between the CIA and State the two groups were seperate with different chains of command.

      You have been trying to blame this fiasco on the CIA since day one but that horse won't run. During this event, the people on the ground, CIA and State did their jobs heroically. They had to, they were left hanging in the wind by everyone else.

      The involvement and politcal bumbling on this affair by Obama's political appointees in D.C. are clear for any with eyes to see.

      .

      Delete
    14. .

      His forces screwed the pooch, giving up their position with that laser designator.


      Still waiting for that link.


      .

      Delete
    15. .


      Then the CIA gunsels got aggressive, lased the Islamoid mortar position, which then engaged the targeting laser position.


      Link?


      .

      Delete
    16. .

      Who was telling the CIA gunsels that there would be air support?


      According to acting HOM, Hicks, no one was telling anyone there was going to be any air support accept for an unarmed drope that could take pictures of them dying.

      Hicks indicated every request for not only air support but for any support was denied. They knew they were on their own.

      If you have info to the contrary please provide a link.

      .

      Delete
    17. .

      His forces had the weapons.
      His forces screwed the pooch, giving up their position with that laser designator.
      Which is even more evidence of the fact that the CIA had the security ball, in Benghazi.


      Giving up their position? Didn't you follow this affair at all. You don't think the terrorists knew their position all along? Good lord, what a maroon.

      The people from the consulate were evacuated to the annex using two vehicles that were sprayed with bullets along the way. They were followed to the annex. the annex suffered two seperate attacks; however, there was sporatic shooting throughout the night. It was dawn before the two guys were killed, right around 5:30 am.

      Gave up their position! Good lord, rat, try and keep up.

      .

      Delete
    18. The info I had, Q, was that the CIA gunslingers lased thee mortar position of the Islamoids.

      That the CIA man lasered the mortar position was posted here, back in the days after the attack on the compound.

      If an accurate report, it would indicate a lie in the telling of the story that there was no air support promised to the shooters on the ground. Using the laser, without inbound air support would be inviting suicide.

      Was the exSEAL suicidal, I doubt it.
      Though he did die.

      "Someone" told 'em air support was inbound, you can bet on that.
      It got 'em killed.

      Delete
    19. It was said he went on the roof of the annex to target the mortar, and did.


      Delete
    20. It was not a Consulate, Q.

      You need to keep up.

      Delete
    21. .

      Who was telling the CIA gunsels that there would be air support?

      Please provide a link showing who is saying the CIA was told there would be air support.

      If in fact they were told they would be getting air support and then didn't, you would be right, that would be a major cover-up.

      Link.

      .



      Delete
    22. You are repeating the misinformation, just as planned by those that planted that spin on the story...

      Spinning the baaaah, for the sheeple.

      Delete
    23. .

      The info I had, Q, was that the CIA gunslingers lased thee mortar position of the Islamoids.

      That the CIA man lasered the mortar position was posted here, back in the days after the attack on the compound.



      Link.

      I'm sure your googling abilities are better than mine. I have been unable to find an article of any kind saying they actually targeted the mortar sites except with their eyes though I have tried a couple of times today.

      I guess your comment about someone telling them that they would get air support is just something you 'assumed' since targeting the mortar site would make little sense if there wasn't someone out there somewhere that could attack the site. So until I see some source stating that these guys actually targeted the sites, I ignore that 'assumption'.

      .

      Delete
    24. You can believe the original FOX report or the revised by the CIA report, released later.
      It was reported, you decide.

      Sources who have debriefed the team that was at the CIA annex the night of the attack in Benghazi say that the CIA operators from the Global Response Staff, or GRS, were equipped with Mark 48 machine guns and had two types of laser capability. Each weapon had both a “passive” as well as a “visible” laser that could be used against the Libyan attackers.

      The presence of laser capability on the roof of the CIA annex confirms what Fox News sources that night in Benghazi originally said, which is that they had laser capability ...

      Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/04/what-laser-capability-did-benghazi-team-have/#ixzz2T37o4uWr

      The CIA told the Washington Post’s David Ignatius that


      Why believe the CIA cover up story and not the original FOX reporting?

      Delete
    25. The CIA told the Washington Post’s David Ignatius that “the rooftop defenders never ‘laser the mortars’ as has been reported,” a reference to an earlier Fox News report. The CIA added the “defenders have focused their laser sights earlier on several Libyan attackers, as warnings not to fire.”


      Why believe the CIA cover up story and not the original FOX reporting?

      Delete
    26. Adding more smoke and a few mirrors, a CIA specialty. To spin and dissemble.

      Delete
    27. Not an assumption, Q, but knowledge gained by experience.

      FOX News told the tale, the CIA changed the story, after the fact.

      Why believe the CIA and not the State Dept.
      They are all Federals.

      FOX has more credibility than the CIA.

      Delete
    28. If there is a cover up, it starts there, on the roof top.

      Delete
    29. .

      Why believe the CIA cover up story and not the original FOX reporting?

      1. Why not believe the CIA? Occams Razor. Why would these guys be targeting the mortar sites if if there were no planes or other forces available to take them out?

      To explain this and avoid the obvious you come up with a theory of some grand conspiracy, a cover-up as you put it, in which you 'assume' there was 'someone' who falsely told the people under fire at the annex that they had incoming air support.

      Right.

      2. As part of your theory, you further assume that this targeting by laser ended up giving up the defender's positions. Their friggin position was already given up as explained above. The annex, a building hard to miss when it is sitting there right in front of you, was under attack all night long from about midnite to dawn. The attack on the two guys on the roof took place at dawn.

      .

      Delete
    30. .

      Not an assumption, Q, but knowledge gained by experience.

      :)

      Gosh, didn't I call you our miltary expert.

      .

      Delete
    31. .

      Why believe the CIA and not the State Dept

      Well for one thing we have testimony from the people on the ground that disputes the official State Department story, we have have e-mail records showing that lies were told, we have Susan Rice, we have Hillary's testimony contradicted by that of Charlene Lamb, we have the OIG currently investigating why the ARB appointed by Hillary failed to take into account the testimony of any of the people actually in Benghazi during the incident.

      As far as the CIA, I have no problem accepting that they were lying. I just need a little more proof than a FOX News story that is denied by the CIA.

      .

      Delete
    32. .

      If there is a cover up, it starts there, on the roof top.

      And it centers on the CIA



      Truly bizarre.

      .

      Delete
    33. .

      You are repeating the misinformation, just as planned by those that planted that spin on the story...

      Spinning the baaaah, for the sheeple.



      Sorry, haven't a clue as to what you are trying to say.

      Who are these mysterious "those" you refer to who planted the "spin" on the story. Oh, and by the way you might as well explain the spin also. What was the "misinformation" that was "planted".

      Tell me quick as I'm currently sitting here with chills running up my spine. I was going to say with 'baited breath' but I don't know what that means.

      .

      Delete
    34. .

      Actually, I could care less if it was CIA, DOD, or State or a combination of all the above that is responsible for this clusterfuck (although I admit I would love to see Hillary hung out to dry). I expect they are all culpable to one degree or another. Untimately, the responsibility rests with Obama.

      Will anyone be blamed for this? If so, it will be at levels so low as to be irrelevant. Will anyone be punished? Naw. There is no law against being either incompetent, callous, or detached from the guys working for you to the point four of them die, well, at least in government work. Now, if it happened withing a company, public or private, OSHA would be all over their ass.

      I don't expect indictments, impeachment, firings, or even lesser punishments. What I do hope for is when this all shakes out, the munchkins in OZ will be shown for the lying pricks they are. That might shake up the sheeple if only for a moment.

      .




      Delete
    35. Will anyone be blamed for this? If so, it will be at levels so low as to be irrelevant.

      It just does not matter, Q.

      Glad you agree.

      Delete
    36. .

      Everytime you say that it makes me cringe..

      Don't be stupid rat, of course it matters.

      Just because someone gets away with a crime or just gets their hands splapped it doesn't mean they shouldn't be pilloried for it even if only in public opinion.

      Sandy Berger was a high-flyer, a player, yet, today what else is he known for except stealing classified documents from the National Archives and shoving them down his pants like a clown or a burgler. He's often referred to as Sandy Burgler.

      There can, albeit rarely, even be some political consequeces. We saw it with Susan Rice. It may not ultimately affect Hillary but if she runs there will be plenty of negative adds based on her testimony to Congress that I think will probably make her squirm a little.

      If the CIA is involved as you say they are I have no problem seeing them outed also. The same for DOD or the rest. However, that is not where the investigation has gone yet. Currently it is centered on the DOS. The investigations will continue and I can wait to see who else falls into the loop.

      However, what literally disgusts me is there are four people dead apparently through political consideration and/or base incompetence and all the people responsible for that are interested in is covering their asses. And guys like you and Rufus argue it doesn't matter.

      "It just doesn't matter", the cry of the sheeple. And I don't include you in that group lightly, it's not some gotcha phrase, you show yourself to be part of that group everyday with your comments here. You don't care about this, you don't care about that. Life and death are apparently of slight concern to you.

      Perhaps of lesser importance, although to me it is of key importance, is that you are willing to play the game, not only play but be played, have your intelligence insulted daily, be made to look like a fool along with the rest of the American public and yet with sanguinuity yawn "It just doesn't matter." As you can judge from my posts, my contempt for that attitude is immense.

      I denouce the sheeple but frankly I was part of that group not long ago. I can understand where the majority of them are coming from. They are too busy working their ass off every day, trying to put food on the table and get their kids through college, those of course who aren't bailing their kids out of jail or worrying about getting taken out in a drive-by. They don't have the time to spend all day googling the minutiae on government crime, incompetence, and lying. To them it probably doesn't matter, but only because they have more pressing concerns at the moment.

      But you are different. You obviously have the time. Yet, you still sit there in your smug cynicism and say, "It just doesn't matter."

      Makes me want to puke.

      .

      Delete
  36. Dougman:

    Confession.
    I used to be an Isael basher.
    That all changed in the blink of my broken hearted eye.


    A chickenhawk like Cheney was "qualified" to be SecDef, but not a veteran like Hegel, all because he saw policy daylight between US and Israel?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you've got me confused with Hawaii Doug.
      I'm Minneasooooota Doug(man), ya, don'tcha know. :)

      Delete
  37. I can imagine him being suckered into a trap.
    After all, it was an Al-Q affiliated group that was supposed to be securing the outer perimeter. They just happened to melt away before the attack.

    ReplyDelete
  38. "Prospects appeared to improve this week for diplomacy over the civil war, in which more than 70,000 people have been killed, after Moscow and Washington announced a joint effort to bring government and rebels to an international conference."

    80,000 dead Muslims, by other Muslims, more dead than all the Arab-Israeli conflicts since 1948 combined.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They used to say Assad Senior killed 50,000 at Homs,back in his day.

      The Assad's are the foremost anti-Islamoid force in the Middle East, and that's why they've got to go.

      Delete
    2. DR: The Assad's are the foremost anti-Islamoid force in the Middle East, and that's why they've got to go.

      That's fine, as long as our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines aren't the ones booting him out. Stinger missiles to rebels sounds okay, let them do their own No Fly Zone. Body armor and night-vision equipment, knock yourself out. Just keep us out of it.

      Delete
  39. DR: Four Dead in Ohio.

    That was what, 1967, 1968?
    The anniversary just passed, no?


    May 4, 1970. I was almost five, but I'd come down on the side of the students if it happened today. They were protesting the expansion of the war into Cambodia. There's a wounded Marine who served in Cambodia and couldn't get veterans benefits when he was mustered out because the VA had no record he was ever in Vietnam.

    ReplyDelete