Is Benghazi actually a coverup of something deeper?

| January 25 2013
Christopher Cook

In the audio interview below, we hear Senator Rand Paul and his host float some stunning theories about a possible reason why the Benghazi story was so assiduously covered up and deflected the Obama Administration.

Were Libyan arms being run through Turkey to Syrian rebels? Was Benghazi the headquarters of a gun-running scheme to arm Syrian opposition forces, which include open members of Al Qaeda and other jihad groups? Was the late Ambassador Chris Stevens a part of this? Was this some sort of international Fast and Furious?

Sen. Paul is not offering a definitive charge, but even as allegations and indications, these are stunning!

18 comments
ryn519
ryn519

"Its political" no its "religion", monotheistic religion is to blame for much much much of the worlds violence.  Why do people still believe in such garbage with no factual basis to it?  

Country 1st Election 2nd
Country 1st Election 2nd

Cover up...It runs normal in that family from "I did not sleep with that woman"  Good ol' Bill to now we have "What difference does it make?" Hillary.  She's been cheated on soooo many times; she's used to it.  How could a person wait to testify about the murder of 4 people, then say we need to get to the bottom of this. The time to do that was Sept 12th when everyone already knew what was going on.

phoenixlaw
phoenixlaw

Why is it "stunning," as you put it. to think that the US was supplying weapons to the Syrian "rebels"?   It has been fairly well documented that the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia have been funneling weapons, cash, technology and other support to the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood and other Sunni extremist groups, the backbone of the Syrian "revolution" since at least 2007, when Dick Cheney met with Lebanese proxies of the Brotherhood in Washington to discuss the implementation of this plan.  Under this plan, Lebanon and Turkey were designated as staging grounds to destabilize Syria with sectarian extremists.  This plan, implemented initially under W. Bush and continued under Obama, was proposed by Bush's Israeli-linked neo-con advisers to counter Iran's influence in the area, regardless of the consequences of supporting Sunni extremist groups which, of course, include al-Qaeda. This is all a result of the Israeli-Washington obsession with Iran, and of course its client state, Syria. This obsession has led to the illogical conclusion that it is better to support Sunni-based extremist groups as a counter to Shiite Iran and its clients and extremist groups.  This whole operation is really no secret in Washington and Tel Aviv, although, for obvious reasons, it has not been well publicized.

WesternFreePress
WesternFreePress moderator

 @ryn519 The biggest body counts in human history have been racked up by leftist/statist/secularist phenomena (USSR/Communist China/Nazi Germany/Khmer Rouge, etc.) 110 million give or take in just the 20th century. Religion doesn't hold a candle to statism in terms of violence and oppression.

ryn519
ryn519

Is Marxism not a direct effect of the fact that religion would not allow sciences up until the 20th century? Yet again it seems to stem from religious beliefs which started over 4000 thousand years ago. These killings where influenced or brought about by the hatred of religion(s). Yet again it all seems to be a "religious" thing to me. Was Hitler and many Nazis catholic and christian? These events may not have happened had religion been abandoned two thousand years ago. To say it has no religious connection to me seems to be ignoring human history and how we got to where we are today.

phoenixlaw
phoenixlaw

 @WesternFreePress I find it somewhat ironic, and disturbing, that Stevens was probably killed with weapons that we helped provide, and by an extremist group that we helped in the overthrow of Ghaddafi.  This is the same group that McCain had met with a year and a half earlier and proclaimed them "not al-Qaeda, but rather Libyan freedom fighters," this was part of McCain's campaign to arm the Libyan "rebels," just as in Syria, with no thought for the consequences of regime change.  One would think that after the disaster that we created with a regime change in Iraq that we would have learned something.  Obviously, not.

WesternFreePress
WesternFreePress moderator

 @ryn519 Very little is 100% one thing or another. But the Church's contributions to science and civilization (the very specific circumstances of Galileo notwithstanding) are many. Father Angelo Secchi and spectroscopy; Fr Georges Lemaître and the Big Bang theory; Catholic astronomers and the Gregorian calendar. Optics, Stratigraphy; Cartography. Gregor Mendel (genetics) was an Augustinian monk. The world's oldest universities. The flowering of Western music. Art. Architecture. And yes, even philosophies that influenced the development of democracy and the Enlightenment, especially though not exclusively by privileging the human individual. The Church even helped improve the status of women (though obviously not instantly to today's standards).This could go back and forth forever, with arguments made to justify all sorts of positions. But that is the point. The real situation is far more complex than your comment above about Marxism, the Nazis, and the role of religion, which was less pertinent to actual reality and more cartoonish.

ryn519
ryn519

 @WesternFreePress If you think democracy, morality and human advancement is dependent upon religious beliefs like Judaism, Christianity, or Islam than I disagree. If you can point me to the evidence that it was needed than you may sway my opinion.

ryn519
ryn519

 @WesternFreePress "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."  - Albert Einstein.

 

You can argue both ways that the catholic church and religion held back development of sciences after the crusades. But to be certain that we needed the crusades and religion to get to that point I believe is largely debatable.

 

ryn519
ryn519

 @WesternFreePress In 1632 Galileo published his Dialogues on the Two Chief Systems of the World and immediately found himself in trouble with the Catholic Church. Summoned to Rome by the Inquisition on September 23 1632, he was put on trial and following the verdict of the Inquisition was forced to renounce his beliefs in Copernican theory and the motion of the earth. The original verdict condemned him to life in prison, but was amended the following day to house arrest, a sentence that remained in force until his death. His book (Dialogues) was banned by the Catholic Church and only in the 1990s did the Church recant its condemnation of Galileo.  http://chnm.gmu.edu/history/faculty/kelly/wciv/science/galileo.htm 

 

to say the catholic church was open to change during the middle ages seems to be not very accurate.

WesternFreePress
WesternFreePress moderator

 @ryn519 Humans had the short bow 40,000 years ago, but it took until about 1000 years ago to develop the longbow. It took 39,000 years for someone to finally say, "Let's make this longer." That was not religion's fault; that is how human being are. Then, the developments started coming a lot more rapidly. The rate of technological advancement increases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_change). That is why the last 100 years have seen such a leap. That's how this tends to go.

ryn519
ryn519

I'm saying societal development was largely influenced by monotheistic religion for thousands of years. So to say the above events you mention have no connection to the way society developed dose not make sense to me. I'm not blaming Marxism on religion, yet the other way around. In the last hundred years humans have made more leaps and bounds in science than in the last four thousand. To say that societal development did not hold that back to me dose not make sense. 

WesternFreePress
WesternFreePress moderator

 @ryn519 To say that religion did not "allow sciences" is simply inaccurate. Huge advances were made because of, not despite, the activities of the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages. They also tended to preserve knowledge in books where it otherwise would have been lost.

 

Hitler et al were adherents to a bizarre Aryan-Teutonic neo-pagan quasi humanist freakshow spirituality. They were not Christians. Hitler hated Christianity.

 

And to blame Marxism on religion is nonsensical in the extreme.

 

I try very hard to maintain respect for opposing views, but honestly, this stuff is risible. It is reminiscent of the kind of tropes you hear bandied about by college students in a dormitory common room at midnight on a Saturday. You hear the same stuff repeated often enough, even though it has no basis in reality.