Ambassador Stephens Death and the Coming Military Coup

reply to post by Asktheanimals


well i agree they sure have much to think about but what i'm unsure of is why...

when i look at our presidents decisions i often wonder what's the real reason for them, because you and i will never know. we can read the news, listen to discussions and participate in them ourselves, but the truth is, we can have no idea what goes on behind the scenes.

i know one thing for sure, nothing is as it appears and that worries the hell out of me.

i think this is a large part of why we as a country are failing so miserably, it's because we have been disconnected from everything political and rely solely on third parties. when everything becomes corrupted and goes cloakNdagger, it's just a matter of time till it's over.

i do believe it's our own fault, we have collectively gotten too lazy to be involved in our political system and have instead allowed the elite to have it all.

Originally posted by Taiyed
Why are people still trying to spread the lie of General Ham being arrested?

Where is the proof of that?

Your always asking for proof in EVERY SINGLE THREAD then when presented you run off an ramble on about how thats not proof yada yada........

I predict youll do the same with Asktheanimals post........even tho there are gov sources on there.......


The point is........the Military has had it with Obama.........the lower ranks have been upset and done with him for a long time.......

Now the man is starting to throw his top guys under the bus........

Not a smart move by this man at all.........

Its no wonder theres been so much mess over absentee voting ballots for servicemen and women over seas........he damn sure wants to cut down on that influx coming in.........

reply to post by Asktheanimals


No where in your letter does it suggest that General Ham was arrested.

And yet you are using it to try to push the totally unsourced and unfounded rumor that he was.

Deny ignorance huh?

Originally posted by Vitruvian

Originally posted by Taiyed
Why are people still trying to spread the lie of General Ham being arrested?

Where is the proof of that?

Please read the first post in the thread more thoroughly along with many other verifiable news sources - thank you. The good General was taken into custody. Doesn't "taken into custody" imply that Rodriguez arrested Gen Ham? All reliable reports state that "General Ham was arrested by his deputy commanding officer, General Rodriguez."

The deposing and subsequent arrest of AFRICOM commanding officer, General Carter Ham, and the firing of Carrier task force commander, Admiral Charles M. Gayouette is an irresponsible move by the Obama administration and has left a leadership void in the Middle East that has needlessly put the lives of our military at risk.

You might want to Google it too........

edit on 4-11-2012 by Vitruvian because: pic added

Yes, when googled, it all goes back to the ONE blog about the "Rogue US General arrested".

It has just been re-posted countless times on other Right wing blogs. Just because google returns results for the same blog over and over, doesn't make it credible.

It all goes back to ONE BLOG that has zero sources for thier information, all speculation on the bloggers part.

That hasn't stopped you and others trying to spread it.

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


has he thrown them under the bus, or did they make a sacrifice for him, that's kind of my point is that you and i have no idea as to which that may be. i think our military stands by obama in that he has managed to keep them out of another full scale war, one of which netenyahu has pushed hard for.

Originally posted by Kali74
No one was, nor were they told to stand down or any other such nonsense.

Where is the proof on that? I'd like to read it.

Originally posted by detachedindividual
I'm not too familiar with what is going on here, but I can assure you there is no coup about to take place.

I have here listed a few notions of what a successful coup (and it needn't be exclusively military) might look like if implemented in these times, which to my mind at least, are possible in the United States of America in the not too distant future in we continue along the lines of what is being presented to us, and most especially to the military, by the overtly Marxist (sympathetic to Islam) Obama administration.

In a bloodless coup d'état, the threat of violence suffices to depose the incumbent. The self-coup denotes an incumbent government – aided and abetted by the military – assuming extra-constitutional powers. After the coup d'état, the military face the matter of what type of government to establish. As a moral guide most leaders of a coup d'état act under the concept of right orders: they believe that the best resolution of the country's problems is merely to issue correct orders. It presupposes that everyone who matters in the country shares a single, common interest, and that the only question is how to pursue that single, common interest.

Wiki

A coup d'état typically uses the extant government's power to assume political control of the country. In Coup d'État: A Practical Handbook, military historian Edward Luttwak states that "[a] coup consists of the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder." The armed forces, whether military or paramilitary, are not a defining factor of a coup d'état.

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask

Your always asking for proof in EVERY SINGLE THREAD

I know, how evil of me.

when presented you run off an ramble on about how thats not proof yada yada

Unsourced blogs based on speculation is not proof, sorry.

I predict youll do the same with Asktheanimals post........even tho there are gov sources on there

His source is asking if orders were sent, nothing about anyone being arrested.

I'm sorry, but his "proof" doesn't prove anything.



And I won't even address your ending conspiracy theory, well, because it would involve me asking you for proof, and I know how much you hate having to back up your outrageous baseless claims.

Originally posted by badgerprints

Originally posted by Kali74
No one was, nor were they told to stand down or any other such nonsense.

Where is the proof on that? I'd like to read it.

edit on 4-11-2012 by badgerprints because: (no reason given)

Oh, how cute, asking to prove a negative.

Here's how it works, the people who started a rumor that there was a "stand down" order have failed to prove it. Also, a senior intelligence officer has come out and point blank has stated there was no stand down order.

news.yahoo.com...;_ylt=A2KJ3CVRnpZQnGMAiozQtDMD

A senior U.S. intelligence official also insisted that the CIA security team that initially responded to the attack was not given orders "to stand down in providing support," as had been suggested in media reports.

Those are the facts we currently have. So you have a choice, use the facts and stay in reality or disregard the facts to play fantasy conspiracy time.

Originally posted by Taiyed

Originally posted by badgerprints

Originally posted by Kali74
No one was, nor were they told to stand down or any other such nonsense.

Where is the proof on that? I'd like to read it.

edit on 4-11-2012 by badgerprints because: (no reason given)

Oh, how cute, asking to prove a negative.

A senior U.S. intelligence official also insisted that the CIA security team that initially responded to the attack was not given orders "to stand down in providing support," as had been suggested in media reports.

ALL PROPAGANDA LIES invented by a corrupt and very desperate administration. Ha Ha Ha we all laughed heartily...............

reply to post by Taiyed


LMAO you ask for proof and then you provide that?

From a yahoo report written up, with an anonymous source and NO links to any information?

Anyone could have written that.........

you lambaste everyone and talk about how the only proof they have is from "FOX" with no facts.......

And then post THIS to back up your rhetoric? Give me a break..........

Not only that its in direct contradiction to everything thats come out about this so far......

Makes me laugh at them trying so hard to do damage control

by a senior U.S. intelligence official

If our sources for our information arent good enough for YOU , then that sentence alone with no names and no verifiable source is DEFINITELY not good enough to try and use as rebuttal..........

I maintain youre just trying to stir the pot

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask

From a yahoo report written up, with an anonymous source and NO links to any information?

It's not an anonymous source, it is an identified position with name with-held source. Do you have any clue what the difference is between an anonymouse source and a source with an identified position is?

The level of credibility of someone willing to allow their position reported is miles above a source that remains 100% anonymous.


You can go ahead and cling to your anonymous sources with no position cited, not even if they are Libyan or American, and only reported by ONE media outlet. I'll go ahead and stick to the identified position source who talked to MULTIPLE well respected reporters.


You can live in your fantasy world, that is fine, just don't expect logical intelligent people to take you seriously.

Originally posted by Taiyed
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask

 

From a yahoo report written up, with an anonymous source and NO links to any information?

It's not an anonymous source, it is an identified position with name with-held source. Do you have any clue what the difference is between an anonymouse source and a source with an identified position is?

The level of credibility of someone willing to allow their position reported is miles above a source that remains 100% anonymous.


You can go ahead and cling to your anonymous sources with no position cited, not even if they are Libyan or American, and only reported by ONE media outlet. I'll go ahead and stick to the identified position source who talked to MULTIPLE well respected reporters.


You can live in your fantasy world, that is fine, just don't expect logical intelligent people to take you seriously.

Fantasy world? are you kidding........your source is just as anonymous as any of the other sources you are railing against....saying its not proof........

I swear you HAVE to be trolling these boards.........Your anonymous source didnt even have anything to reference BACK to......You keep saying they were identified , but they werent........there is NO where in that post that says this....

Not to mention........in regards to the accusations you are in disagreement with, there was MORE then 1 source that reported it......SEVERAL insiders reported the same things you claim FOX is making up......not only that its not only FOX reporting it!

Yet you have ONE obscure report from yahoo news? with an unanamed "intelligence" official..........and this for you is enough...........EVEN THO , theres nothing in the report linking to the official reports or even referencing where this person got their information?

You have GOT to be kidding me

Originally posted by Vitruvian
reply to post by Tecumte

 

Yes - Stevens would definitely have been in total support of the invasion of Iran - Keep in mind that Steven's actions and activities in Libya/Tripoli/Benghazi were in concert with the CIA to run guns, among other thing more nefarious deeds (shades of Fast + Furious), to Syria to aid the rebel forces (al Qaeda) in the overthrow of Assad, which is part of the plan outlined below.

He would have surely been on the side of the 'neo/crypto' neo-cons in the BHO administration that are going along with the Bush era plan to takeover the Mid - East completely..............i.e., the US (meaning the BHO administration) still has an active plan in place for the overthrow of at least seven Mideast countries - if not more.

see here for a more lucid understanding. --->

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK - on plans to overthrow seven Mideast countries


March 2, 2007, former 4-star General and US presidential candidate Wesley Clark was interviewed by Democracy Now.

General Clark: About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and W. Secretary (Paul D.) Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the Generals called me in. He said, Sir, you gotta come in and talk to me a second. I said, Well, you're too busy. He said, No, no. He says, We've made the decision. We're going to war with Iraq. This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, We're going to war with Iraq? Why? He said, I don't know. He said, I guess they don't know what else to do. So I said, Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to Al Qaida? He said, No, no, there's nothing new that way; they just made the decision to go to war with Iraq. He said, I guess it's like, We don't know what to do about terrorists, but we've got a good military and we can take down governments. And he said, I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail. So I came back to see him a few weeks later and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, Are we still going to war with Iraq? He said, Oh, it's worse than that. He said -- he reached over on his desk, he picked up a piece of paper. He said, I just got this down from upstairs (meaning the Secretary of Defense's office) today and this is a memo that describes how we're going to take out seven (7) countries in five (5) years starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and finishing off Iran. (End of General Clark's statement.)

edit on 4-11-2012 by Vitruvian because: pic added

Can't say as I fully understand the current climate for war and who's on who's side, but yes I certainly recall the PNAC crowds blueprint for the Middle East, and their lust to invade Iraq and the other countries well before 9-11, and how having their wishfull "New Pearl Harbor" allowed them to roll it out. And how only after negotiations for the Caspian Sea Unocal pipeline routes with the Taliban fell though did the former (lol) CIA asset bin-Hidin' come flying in on his magic carpet and provide the 'perfect' pretext for taking the land (and opium) by force and funneling untold billions to various cronies.

But I have trouble believing OB is an any way less warlike and opportunistic than any of the other big controlled players. The face of the CEO may change, but behind the scenes it's hard for me to believe the Board of Directors ever really changes much. Always hard to know who's stepping on whose toes and working for just which financial giants but can't see any of them really not wanting ever more and more lucrative wars.

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


Yes, fantasy world.

If you don't see the differences between a source identified as a "senior intelligence official" and an "unnamed source on the ground in Libya", then you are beyond help.

And no, no one other than Fox News reported the "stand down" and refusal of back up. If you think you have someone else reporting that from a different source, please show me.

The "senior intelligence official" source comes from ABC, and it is from a well respected reporter, Martha Raddatz. It is also confirmed by Dana Hughes and Luis Martinez.

So you can go ahead and believe Fox News all you want with their unnamed source "on the ground". You can hang your entire argument on Fox News, that's fine. But don't be offended when intelligent people shake their head at you.

Originally posted by Vitruvian

Originally posted by Taiyed
Why are people still trying to spread the lie of General Ham being arrested?

Where is the proof of that?

Please read the first post in the thread more thoroughly along with many other verifiable news sources - thank you. The good General was taken into custody. Doesn't "taken into custody" imply that Rodriguez arrested Gen Ham? All reliable reports state that "General Ham was arrested by his deputy commanding officer, General Rodriguez."

The deposing and subsequent arrest of AFRICOM commanding officer, General Carter Ham, and the firing of Carrier task force commander, Admiral Charles M. Gayouette is an irresponsible move by the Obama administration and has left a leadership void in the Middle East that has needlessly put the lives of our military at risk.

You might want to Google it too........

edit on 4-11-2012 by Vitruvian because: pic added

wrong...

you forgot the " "'s after your keyword there, bud

your showing all results that contain the words "general" "ham" "arrested"

you should be typing "general ham arrested" which produces.. a whopping 86 results

try again

Originally posted by Taiyed
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask

 

Yes, fantasy world.

If you don't see the differences between a source identified as a "senior intelligence official" and an "unnamed source on the ground in Libya", then you are beyond help.

And no, no one other than Fox News reported the "stand down" and refusal of back up. If you think you have someone else reporting that from a different source, please show me.

The "senior intelligence official" source comes from ABC, and it is from a well respected reporter, Martha Raddatz. It is also confirmed by Dana Hughes and Luis Martinez.

So you can go ahead and believe Fox News all you want with their unnamed source "on the ground". You can hang your entire argument on Fox News, that's fine. But don't be offended when intelligent people shake their head at you.

Holy crap..........there is no difference between "un named man on the ground" and "senior intelligence official"........you sat there in another thread and said that since they didnt name the source then the source and the claim were bull and couldnt be verified......

THE SAME WORKS FOR YOURS! I can make up "A spokesperson for Obamas Administration" and say anything I want in that case......and it will be true right? I can come up with any number of claims and start spouting random bull......

Seems to me you are all to willing to claim one is true and one is not..........even tho its essentially the same damn thing......and if you are willing to say that what FOX reported is unfounded, then you have to admit this is unfounded.......

Period end of story

This is very sensational, with a heavy dose of "fear mongering".

These men were professionals, and there are a long list of other professionals that can just as easily step in and take their place. The US Military is not lacking in good officers.

The analogy to a sports team is juvenile, and may work to scare uneducated people.

Nothing to see here, get over it and move on.

reply to post by Taiyed


You're right in that I cannot find any mainstream media sources reporting that Gen. Ham was arrested. I think we can agree that he somehow disagreed with an order or the head of the House Armed Services Committee Rep. Mc Keown wouldn't be writing such letters to the administration.

If you trust ABC then the relieving of rear Admiral Charles.Gaouette is a fact and called the move "unusual"

The replacement was prompted by an Inspector General’s investigation of allegations of inappropriate leadership judgment.

.
abcnews.go.com...

I wouldn't expect the MSM to release the story of Gen. Ham's arrest so close to the election. We know for a fact they have and do sit on stories that are politically volatile.
While multiple alt news sources does not constitute "hard proof" in my book either given the sheer number of sources who are not plagiarizing each other tells me there is some substance to the story.

You're certainly right to challenge stories and ask for sources to back them up. If were looking to the government to be the sole provider of facts in this case we'll still be sitting here waiting well in to the next millenium.

reply to post by Asktheanimals


Where in your link does it say that General Ham was arrested?

ETA NVM I see that you have answered that.