On Benghazi and 'Expendible Faggots'

Ann Barnhardt ^ | May 10, 2013 | Ann Barnhardt

[little jeremiah]

Don’t worry about answering me - looks as though the whole article is here.

[gaijin]

Whaddya think? Revisions to that document, or do we put you up in stirrups and cut off, oh, THIS MUCH of your member? Whaddya say? Whassit gonna be?

[little jeremiah]

For some reason link doesn’t work, I use Firefox. But no worry it’s here in entirety.

I read a long time about that Stevens got to Libya on some strange freighter with arms for the jihadists.

[who knows what evil?]

That is weird, as I use Firefox, and the link works just fine. Gremlins?

[Mamzelle]

I was aware that Stevens was openly, obviously gay since the incident. It's all over Chicago, where he was photographed and known.

And Steven sounded like an OK kind of guy, except very naive.

They execute homosexuals regularly throughout the Middle East just for being homosexual.

Why would they send an openly gay man in harms way where his life would be forfeit? It smacks to me that he was expendable, too.

[longfellow]

I would like to reiterate that the ultimate “expendable faggot” is Barry himself.
whoa! Have some respect, he is our c@cksucker and chief.

[Mamzelle]

To the media who would call use "haters" for resisting the wholesale destruction of marriage, they won't tell the story of this man who was killed in such a vicious and awful way. What must his family be going through? Why has no mention been made that he was homosexual?

Like I said, everything I read about him pointed to a naive but decent man, a little addled in what he thought he could accomplish in a place like Libya, but hardly deserving of being abandoned to this fate.

And they call us haters...

[drypowder]

that all sounds plausible and may even be true but help me out here; if it was arms smuggling as apposed to a kidnapping what was to be gained by killing Stevens before anyone ever knew obozo hussein and the hildahag were smuggling arms and especially during an election cycle? Was the military arms market in Libya and Syria full up by 9/11/2012 so Steven's was no longer necessary? I think that scenario is a stretch. Sure Stevens was set up, that's clear by what we now know of the consulate's security that was hired by the US State Dept (hildahag). Aside from the date of 9/11 as being significant, why would this administration take out Stevens prior to an election when logic tells us that the timing of a murdered US Ambassador in and of itself was not going to bode well for the obozo hussein?

[PieterCasparzen]

This is idiotic.

a) The “hit” did not cover up the gunrunning. The gunrunning came out anyway.

b) The gunrunning was published months before the attack in mainstream news sources (you’ll have to search my old posts, I think I posted a link to one here on FR). So there was nothing to cover up in regards to gunrunning.

c) The exchange of the blind shake for the Ambassador is not a given; the negotiations would have been secretive and would not necessarily include an exchange. Personally, I never have thought or posited that the blind shake exchange was part of the plan. A simple “apology from the President” would have sufficed to get the Ambassador home in time for nice election photo ops for the President.

d) Establishment / faux outsider conservatives, sharply aligned with Wall Street, are now rushing to put stories out into the public sphere which take over the narrative, trying to grab the attention of the conservative base by having conservative media whip them up into a frenzy of indignation about a whole list of “we want to know” items, and thereby helping them to lose focus on the simple point that Obama ordered a stand down and Hillary does not have a record of requesting, directly from Obama, a FEST team response. Everyone in the chain of command should have requested FEST response up the chain of command. DB, Thompson’s boss, must be interrogated under oath to find out who gave him the order to prevent Thompson’s FEST team from doing their jobs.

e) The conservative establishment is desperate to hide the fact that the top level State Dept and White House top level staff and the President are tools of international banking. It is international banking that wanted Qadaffi gone in order to bring Libya into the dollar fold. Since international banking runs both the liberal and conservative establishments, they are desperate to maintain the facade of ideological differences and to hide central banking’s efforts that are implemented by USAID, CIA and NGOs (Soros is a main NGO network in the mideast). If the conservative establishment is revealed to not be conservative at all, but simply just another front for banksters, the Republican party could split in two, which would actually be good for conservatives. What’s much worse for the establishment fronts, however, is if the public finds out about the simple link between CIA, international banking (Wall Street), drugs and money laundering. If it became widely known that our Afghanistan war is simply guarding international banking’s poppy fields... morale would go in the toilet. Bags of money are all over the place in Afghanistan, opium is flowing like water, corporate jets are transporting it. FDR’s grandpa Delano would be proud.

[arthurus]

I heard early on in this that Stevens died of smoke inhalation before the attackers got into the building. If the kidnap property has expired then the deal can’t be done anyway. Might as well do what you wanna do.

[PieterCasparzen]

And they call us haters...

Can you see how that response is exactly what this article is designed to evoke ?

This article whips up the conservative base (it's psychological "engineering"):

a) the word faggot in the title draws people who are against the sin of sodomy to read the story, and read it while they have the emotional reaction to rejecting sodomy in their mind

b) the word "expendible" tells us the angle of the story

c) Christians who hate sin but love the sinner feel that this story precisely demonstrates the fact that even though they are against sodomy, it being a sin, they do not support the idea of setting up a person for execution by a mob.

d) the story reinforces in the Christian's mind that they have the right stance on the issues; we would tend to then agree with the article as a whole since we would agree on the very significant points mentioned above. The Christian reader is then very susceptible, in their "blanket agreement" with the article, to think that since the blind shake release would not go over well publicly, that therefore the idea of a kidnapping must be false. All they have to do is forget that the exchange would not be necessary and they can fall for this ruse.

e) The telltale sign is that this article is very well-designed ruse; great effort was put into engineering it - all to break down the kidnapping idea.

Red flags should be firing off in our logic units like crazy.

Liberal intelligentsia say - it was NOT a kidnapping plot

Conservative intelligentsia say - it was NOT a kidnapping plot

Politicians say - it was NOT a kidnapping plot

The news media say - it was NOT a kidnapping plot

Pundits and bloggers all over the internet say - it was NOT a kidnapping plot

But the simple facts are - the Executive Branch stopping the FEST team hurt the administration politically. The Ambassador dying hurt the administration politically.

It defies all logic that the topmost politicians in our country would hurt themselves politically when sending in a rescue team was as easy as just saying "ok".

Especially considering the Bin Laden killing has shows running on Advance Publications, Inc.'s Military Channel that tout dear leader as being one who can make these tough decisions so well.

Even if the rescue team was unable to save all four of those that were killed, it still would have been very politically helpful for the President's reelection campaign to have everyone rally 'round the flag. The propaganda media could have had a field day - the work is almost done, don't change horses in the middle of the stream.

Even conservatives would have been politically stuck supporting the President's order. If it failed, no way could conservatives start blaming the military; they simply did all they could. And the Secretary and dear leader would have no blame themselves - the media would have the same covering line it does now, except they'd not have to answer questions about why the order to stand down was given. That's the biggest embarassment.

[Louis Foxwell]

I do not get that this is an embarrassment. It is much, much worse than a fart at the podium.

[PieterCasparzen]

Of course; I’m saying embarassment in the sense that it’s a big political problem for Hill and Bama. In truth, of course, it appears treasonous.

All they had to do was say “Yes” to activating the FEST team.

If they did, the no one would be blaming anything on them other than perhaps some complaining about the security requests for the months leading up being denied.

But as long as they gave the order for FEST to do its thing, there would be basically nothing scandalous to talk about.

Seeing as how they told FEST (and apparently all military, CIA, contractors, etc.) to stand down, they are in the extremely awkward position of having to explain WHY they did that. Awkward, cuz, well, it looks like dereliction of duty at best, and treasonously aiding and abetting America’s enemies at worst.

[Mamzelle]

Except that I have been aware for several months that Stevens was gay and have been wondering all this time why it was never in *any* news story. And I do not credit the author with much more than drawing that salient fact to light.

It ought to be, sending Stevens into that part of the world was both foolish and cruel--or it was despicable...

[PieterCasparzen]

This is a subtle yet key part of this propaganda operation.

By the mainstream news media keeping quiet about the Ambassodor being a sodomite, it allows for the conservative part of their machine (which is outside the mainstream), to scream about the fact. This makes the conservative internet media justified in having righteous indignation.

A key part of the tactic is to put conservatives on a “high horse” - with complete justification. The conservative pundits are, in fact, correct in pointing at the hypocrisy of the left and news media in that they are not “standing up” for the sodomite in this instance. If the left stands up for sodomy, to be consistent they’d have to stand up for it in every instance.

Once a pundit gets the conservative “righteous indignation” going, the typical conservative will jump in and lend positive support to the pundit.

And again, this is a powerful tool, because the righteous indignation is coming from a valid point. Ambassador Stevens was a sodomite and it is being swept under the rug; this isn’t some imagination or conjecture, it’s actually happening. This author, like others, is pointing out hypocrisy in the media; that part of the story is factual.

This sweeping under the rug is very important to Fox news, which tows the line on not condemning sodomy. If Fox pointed out that the Ambassador was a sodomite, the on air personalities would have to either condone or condemn it and would thus either offend the social conservatives in their audience or the powers that be (in that case likely resulting in legal action). Fox can avoid the whole thing by just not mentioning it. The rest of TV media, of course, does not want to highlight for their sodomite audience that dear leader and Hillobeans left a sodomite in the field to be brutally murdered; not exactly the PR the administration is looking for.

As to the question of why Ambassador Stevens would be sent there, he’s just a minion of interntional banking - a minion.

When the Soros NGOs send people into a middle eastern country I don’t think George loses much sleep over whether they live or die. When JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, BNP Paribas, etc., send people into dangerous countries to set up shop, I don’t think anyone think “oh my, this is too dangerous, we should not send people there”. On the contrary, history has shown that when minions perform in a stellar manner in dangerous situations, they are amply rewarded by their masters. Herbert Hoover found himself in the middle of Boxer Rebellion; many new world order figures did all sorts of dangerous missions in WWI and WWII as young men, then went on to rise up through the ranks of business/politics working for the same shadowy power interests.

[little jeremiah]

placeamark