Galt's Gulch
11

Obama says Al'Qaeda no longer a threat to the US

Posted by Non_mooching_artist 10 years, 8 months ago to Government
45 comments | Share | Flag

Sure, and flying monkeys live in my attic.

He is a sneaky liar, and we will all suffer for it. Cover up after cover up pile on, yet nothing changes. Treasonous behavior with nothing being done to stop it. Get your bourkas ready...
SOURCE URL: http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/05/obama-admins-declaration-al-qaeda-longer-threat-us-causes-us-intelligence-officials-revolt/

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by Solver 10 years, 8 months ago
    In other alternate reality news, Head of FDA announces cancer no longer a threat. People of the world mind celebrate in no expense spared asbestos filled public pillow flight party’s.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by $ allosaur 10 years, 8 months ago
    Each and every time Obama moves his lips and causes his halting movie gangster-sounding kinda voice to flow through them, I consider myself being lied to. Who else but Chairman Lie-of-the-Year Winner can keep coming up with such jive as "phony scandals" and "Al Qauda is on the run"?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 8 months ago
    Depending on how you define "threat", I'm not convinced Al'Qaeda ever was a threat. It gets people scared, though, which helps people get their programs funded, which is how we get big and intrusive gov't.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by Kittyhawk 10 years, 8 months ago
      I've read AlQaeda is actually still funded by the U.S. government behind the scenes.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 8 months ago
        Al Qaeda (as are other terrorist groups) is funded indirectly through through US government grants and food aid to foreign nations such as Qatar, the Palestinian Authority, Yemen, and many others. Then there are the political sponsors like CAIR and other groups that bundle money and send it home to these groups via "charitable" organizations.

        It's a little bit of a stretch to say that Al Qaeda is directly funded by the US Government, but not a bit of a stretch to say that the US Government knows where much of the aid they give out ends up.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by Kittyhawk 10 years, 8 months ago
          I don't think it's that much of a stretch. See http://www.informationclearinghouse.info...
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            -
          • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 8 months ago
            Yes, I've seen this.

            Does the President know where the funds are ending up? Assuredly. Is it political obfuscation? Absolutely. In the end it is all semantics - US money is getting to and supporting our enemies.

            But then, this Administration won't even label them as enemies!
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              -
            • Posted by Kittyhawk 10 years, 8 months ago
              Right, but did you see the clip of Hilary Clinton acknowledging it began with CIA funding of the mujaheddin in Afghanistan? It didn't begin with this president, but it surely continues.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Non_mooching_artist 10 years, 8 months ago
                True, it began decades ago. It has been part of the fabric of our dealings with the Middle East and is getting aired now because Benghazi has blown the lid off of the bs that's been heaped on the shaky lies that've been spoon fed to the American public. Too many lies that couldn't hold up under close scrutiny.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                -
              • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 8 months ago
                Yeah, but that one is REALLY nuanced, as the mujahedin were originally financed back in the 60's and 70's by the CIA in order to fight the Russians and steal intelligence about their aircraft and weapons, so that one goes way too far back to really draw conclusively from, as Al Qaeda didn't really exist until Bin Laden financed and organized them in the early 90's.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  -
                • Posted by Kittyhawk 10 years, 8 months ago
                  I'm confused about your opinion on this. You posted the Bengazi article today, with Allan West stating it ties into CIA weapons deals which armed Al Qaeda and Islamic groups. But your contention is that the earlier incidents of the same thing under other presidents are completely unrelated? I think the CIA has been involved in shady deals like this all along. Creating a boogeyman is a good excuse for lots of military spending, and spying on the populace in the name of protecting them.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 8 months ago
                    The original question was specifically about the directing financing of Al Qaeda. Yes, the US Government has been sponsoring and encouraging various groups for political change in other countries going back to the mercenaries it employed in the Revolutionary War. I am not disputing that one whit. What I was only cautioning against without specific proof is the claim that the US has been DIRECTLY giving money and aid to Al Qaeda - a group that has only been around about 20 years. If one could prove that it would be proof of treason.

                    Am I opposed to the US giving money for foreign aid? Yes - and most especially when such is going to directly finance our enemies! Am I opposed to covert means of arming militant groups for the intent of causing political unrest in other nations? Yes, because way too many of those have turned out to be bad ideas (Afghanistan, Iran, Nicaragua, anyone ?). Am I trying to excuse the government for any of this - known or not? Absolutely not. All I'm doing is cautioning against the explicit accusation of treason without concrete proof. It is a capital offense - just ask Alger Hiss.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by wiggys 10 years, 8 months ago
    on this web site I read comments from people who understand what is going on and are concerned. then there are those who do not even know this web site exists and even if they did they would not heed what is said, so the ghetto guy just keeps on saying through his spokesman what ever the hell he wants and all those uninformed accept it. do we hear the cries of the opposition party(?) clamoring that it is a false statement? blank! it matters not what does take place on usa soil the ghetto guy will never accept that it is terrorism. he prefers showing his teeth in pictures with athletes that he much more is envious of because they do what he only has dreamt of doing. he is the complete personality that Ayn Rand refers to in her essay "ENVY" in "RETURN TO THE PRIMITIVE".
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 10 years, 8 months ago
    Benghazi had to be covered up so that the "Al Qaeda is no longer a threat to the US" myth could be told. There is just too much about Benghazi that doesn't make sense without going to conspiracy theories. For instance, why was Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi? That isn't the capital of Libya.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 8 months ago
      We already know that - he was the front man so that the State Department could funnel weapons to rebels militant groups in the Middle East. The CIA had already told them they wouldn't do it because the most of the rebels were associated with terrorist groups!

      Ambassador Stevens was hung out to dry by the administration so he couldn't blab.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by $ jbrenner 10 years, 8 months ago
        That was my thinking, too, but was there any evidence ever published to that effect?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 8 months ago
          Yes. It came out about a month ago. Originally, Glenn Beck postulated it only a few days after the attacks, and even brought on some ex-CIA guys that said it was entirely plausible even though at that time there was no proof.

          Now we know proof positive that the State Department was running guns to rebel forces in Syria and elsewhere in the attempt to overthrow dictators, but the involved militants were in many cases Al Queda or affiliates. What was more egregious was that the weapons weren't just submachine and machine guns, but also included heavy weapons - even missiles. Ambassador Stevens was ostensibly trying to buy the weapons back to prevent a scandal and became a convenient target.

          The other thing to consider was this: the consulate that was attacked was barely more than a safehouse. It wasn't protected by the standard forces one would find at an embassy (Marines), so why was the Ambassador there at all? Why were there only two SEAL's - and even those weren't with the Ambassador, but rather responded to the call for help (disobeying orders as they did so)?

          Too many things about this reek.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo