Who was the Conservative Republican Senator who gave this speech?

So, from that you have extrapolated that Obama is supporting Al Qaeda?
Don't you see what a massive leap in logic that is?
Did you ever consider it was put there by somebody who was affiliated or in support of Al Qaeda because the courthouse was seen as the 'birthplace of the Libyan revolution'?
Wouldn't it be the perfect place for propaganda purposes for Al Qaeda?
I doubt you are that naive to not have thought about that.
Can you acknowledge, using the image of the flag is just meaningless, with regards to whom Obama 'supports'?

I think you have made this up.
If you don't know just say 'IDK'.
I'll humour you, though, why would it be removed?
Do you think 'Al Qaeda' would remove it because it might look bad on their 'secret' gun-runner, Obama?

Well, he isn't going to say they hated him is he?
So sure of that love - there wasn't any genuine elections for 40 years

What's your point?

I don't trust RT.
I know the spin they put on issues - and it's not what I consider honest (a lot like yourself).
However, I do think it would have been more pertinent to post something relating to what you were talking about, rather than something that had not a lot to do with what you were talking about.
I do know you have used RT as a source before, and the articles, generally, didn't say what you suggested they did.
The Fox News article (above) is another e.g of this.
I wanted to know if that was the case this time.

P.S: You can't find it or it doesn't exist?

Articles I have found:
http://rt.com/usa/elizabeth-obagy-syria-commentator-fired-736/
http://rt.com/usa/researcher-falsifying-credentials-hired-mccain-457/
http://rt.com/usa/media-failed-pundits-defense-syria-011/

This doesn't make much sense...'Prop up... Al Qaeda'?

This:

Isn't the same as this:

I think I can say that you were implying 'directly' when you say things like:
'Obama gives guns to radicals' and throwing around 'Al Qaeda' (like it's going out of fashion)
Are you saying the "Free Syrian Army" are all 'radicals' and therefore Jihadists and must all be affiliated with Al Qaeda?
Oh, ofcourse you are not, are you?

I agree that if we can't determine precisely who gets what then the 'wrong' people can get their hands on X, Y and Z, and even if we do get X, Y and Z into the 'right' hands we can't guarantee they will remain there.

But then instead of leaving it at that, you say: 'Obama gives guns to radicals' 'Obama supports Jihadist' 'Blah blah blah Al Qaeda' (for good measure).
When you know that isn't 100% true.
What we probably can agree on is that there is consequences to Obama's actions and inactions.

Yes (or they were)

It's definitely interpretation.

Erm' no he doesn't. Read the linked article (source) within that article:
[1] http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/05/31/nato-data-assad-winning-the-war-for-syrians-hearts-and-minds/

'The people are sick of the war and hate the jihadists more than Assad'

'The sources said no formal polling was taken in Syria, racked by two
years of civil war in which 90,000 people were reported killed. They said
the data came from a range of activists and independent organizations that
were working in Syria, particularly in relief efforts'

Which isn't 'support for Assad'.
Obviously a proportion do. But 70%? I doubt it.

Me too.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jan/17/syrians-support-assad-western-propaganda

The total sample size, across the Middle East, was 1,012.
In five Levant countries (Syria, Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq) the total sample was 211 people -- of whom 46% were in Syria. Therefore, by my reckoning, the total number of people interviewed in Syria was only 97. That is hardly a representative sample.
In addition, because of the fear factor, it is unsafe to assume that people in Syria necessarily gave a truthful answer.
In other words, it's scarcely surprising that the poll's findings have been widely ignored.

Lets agree to disagree.

I was talking about the 'fast and furious' programme, and the fact certain ATF officers (and others) had said it was a Fuck Up (FU).
I don't think I am saying anything controversial there..

That would be less than useless.

I love how you start talking about one thing in one sentence, and then start another sentence talking about something completely differently, and they rarely have anything to do with each other or the topic at hand.
My point was - I didn't say what you said I had.

 

It is not! It all fits together. (Not if you believe the official story EVERY time, like you do.)

It doesn't make sense that we took Gaddafi out over a civil war.
It does make sense though, that America used Al Qaeda to fabricate a "civil war," so that they'd have a "Humane" excuse for war.

"Who benefits?" Al Qaeda wouldn't benefit from "propaganda," it's the American government known for that. As I said earlier, when someone does something all the time, they turn into the usual suspects. The American government is known to lie to get us into wars. I don't understand why you think this instance is any different from Vietnam, Iraq or, any of the other wars America has gotten into.

Not at all. I see where some can dismiss it as meaningless, but it's actually pretty significant to me. Obama boosted up these rebel groups, and the media portrayed them as humanitarians, fighting for their life. Looking into the situations surrounding these events, I find the official story very hard to believe, (in both cases.)

We don't go after every evil dictator, so what makes Gaddafi and Assad so bad? Especially when Gaddafi was shaking Obamas hand not 6 months earlier, and on Syria, they didn't even wait for the verdict on chemical usage, to blame Assad.

I truly believe it is in the governments "interests," to lie to us and propagate war, and a passive-aggressive outlook on the world, because the Defense industry makes money during war, and we've built a Military Nation which constantly needs a foreign enemy.

There's tons of countries like that. Some see England like that. I wouldn't want to pay someone taxes for their DNA; But, that's a cultural difference we all must realize. Drone strikes, supplying insurgents and, war are no way to peace and happiness. We are creating militants and supplying them, perhaps "indirectly," but I don't think that's the same as "inadvertently;"
Our government seems to indirectly help our enemies a lot.

My point is that the regime change in Libya was a violation, not only of the US Constitution, but also Gaddafis Human Rights. I don't believe this new age idea, you seem to, that government can do as they please, and are exempt from the law. That isn't what America is about. It is about rebellion to bad governance.

I am totally honest. There are times where I'll just type up something I've read, and forget to cite it, that's why I've been trying to put in some of them when conversing now. I'm willing to admit that I am bias. But I have a bias based on logic. Some Americans think Conservatives are at fault, others think the Democrats are at fault; Whereas, I think they've both been pushing us into wars, and robbing the American people for political and business transgressions. It is the only way it really makes sense.

So I don't care what you say/think about me. I said earlier, it's difficult conversing with someone who ignores history. With everything our government has done, that have placed themselves above the Rule of Law, and I really don't think Americans would take that lying down!

I have been posting related articles. It's not my fault mainstream articles don't get into the story. But if it wasn't money or guns, what else would she vouch for? To me, it's a common sense thing. And then, the government can never insure that guns will be in the right hands. They sell it to one man, they can sell some to Al Qaeda, or even go rouge and turn Jihadists with the guns. My premise was that Obama is sending these sketchy insurgents automatic weapons, even considering rocket launchers, when he's been passing "Executive orders," which put more arbitrary restrictions on peaceful gun owners.

Like I said dude, it was either money or weapons. What else would we send militants? But they all got guns from the backs of hard working Americans, while Obama takes something more priceless- Our Freedom- at the same time of sending radicals heavy weapons. I don't think I said Al Qaeda, but I don't believe Al Qaeda is "accidentally" receiving our weapons.

Everything seems too coincidental in the official story.

It is the same, because if you know guns are gonna get in the hands of your (alleged) enemy, you shouldn't be involved at all. They are spending our money, for all types of radicals to obtain fully automatic weapons, out of the citizens pocket. "An error doesn't become a mistake, until you refuse to correct it." When they knew Al Qaeda was receiving the weapons, they should put a halt to it. (and they knew way before us.)

Well I'm glad we agree on that. I just don't believe that it's as accidental as you seem to. Supposably, Al Qaeda was responsible for the biggest terrorist attack in history, on our soil, yet we're knowingly allowing them to receive our weapons, bought with our money, without putting a halt to the whole thing?

It seems to me, that there are Business and lobbyists who are manipulating Obama's foreign policy, as with Bush. It is evident with his menacing and shady alliances.

Well, you have more faith in government than I do. We had CIA there, (which Btw doesn't count as "boots on the ground.") and we were sending the free Syrian army weapons, Mc Cain went and set up a deal. I'm sure we were supplying them secretly before that, as a lot of rebel fighters can be seen with American made automatics, and rocket launchers. It's possible it's just Saudi and France supplying weapons, but if America has interest there, it's also possible and probable they were supplying weapons too.

That's how all polls are conducted. It always annoyed me too. It's never gonna be the exact number, but compared to Obamas 43% and the US governments 23%, he actually looks like a saint.

There is still plenty of support for him. He has enough support. And anyway, it's not really our responsiblity or right to police the world, and pick which dictators are okay, and which are evil anyway. I think the US government is secretly just as bad as bad as any of those governments, but we've just been getting small doses at a time. Until the years following 9/11.

I just don't think it's right. The Drug Cartels were created by the Government's "Drug war;" It has been an utter waste of taxpayer money and, they've created the violence that comes along with prohibition. (Much like the prohibition of alcohol.) I'd be happy if Federal Agents said that was a fuck up.But instead, they support it in more than 1 way. Even the cartels new recruits are Ex-marines and soldiers, to gaurd their dope. This is all a reflection of a failed drug policy.

It's more useless to do nothing when selling violent criminals firearms.

You perceive them differently, they all tie in together. When you believe the government is some group that represents the "greater good" of society, it may seem like I'm speaking incoherent jargon. But when you actually see what police and government do to the people, you'd realize it must be a motive which is not in the best interest of those people. I believe too many people are ignoring the history of government in general, but especially the American government. Something is going to give soon though, because alot of people are unhappy about it.

 

As far as I can tell, you have not explained how it all fits together, other than saying: 'Whoever hung it, was affiliated or in support of Al Qaeda, and that courthouse was also the birthplace of the "Libyan revolution."'
There is, as far as I can tell, no 'official story'.
I agree that: 'Whoever hung it, was affiliated or in support of Al Qaeda, and that courthouse was also the birthplace of the "Libyan revolution."'

Al Qaeda 'benefits' by seemingly being in control of the courthouse and the 'victor' in the "Libyan revolution."
Are you saying Al Qaeda never partake in 'propaganda'?

I am unsure if you have explained the significance (or relevance) so far, other than suggesting it isn't meaningless and it does have significance.

It's, perhaps, unfair to say you are not being honest.
I am sure you believe what you are saying is true, or it is your opinion.
And you do sometimes admit that you do not know or you are not correct (in a round about way).
I shall leave my personal thoughts on this to myself.

Did you not read: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2013/09/12/obagy-affadavit-in-harroun-case/
It sounds like she was 'vouching' (perhaps a rather pejorative term here by Fox News) the legitimacy of certain groups, and what they do and do not do, also who and who not certain groups are affiliated to.
I'm not sure where you are getting the idea she was 'vouching' for money or guns.

I know what your premise is/was.
I agree: 'the government can never insure that guns will be in the right hands' - that is the fatal flaw in what certain governments are taking part in.

As far as she is concerned, it was neither.
It seems as if you have not really read the story correctly.
What was sent is a totally different issue to her.
What you seem to be suggesting (or thinking) is that she 'vouched' for certain groups who may have received weapons.

the “Al-Aqsa Islamic Brigades,” a small armed Sunni rebel faction fighting with the Free Syrian Army, the main umbrella military organization of the opposition forces.

We shall have to agree to disagree on this point.

I think we can agree the end result is the same.
However there is a distinction between direct and indirect.
We shall have to agree to disagree regarding if the intention was to indirectly arm groups such as Al Qaeda.
Personally, I don't think so.

True. As far as I know, Obama isn't the one sending weapons.
And it was his 'people' that alerted others to where the guns etc were ending up.
To be fair, I have not read up on the recent developments.

No they are not.

In a round about way some did.

In your mind, perhaps, they do.