Quantcast

October Surprise setup?

Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆ 2012/10/16 02:41:35
Yeah...you know what? It must might be...!
Nothing to see here. Move on.
I don't know one way or the other.
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Was Ambassador Stevens set up to act a part in a kidnapping drama?

Think about it. An ambassador kidnapped on the eleventh anniversary of September 11.

One month later, on October 11, perhaps, The Delta Force, or maybe Navy SEALs, pull off a daring white-knuckle rescue. Hoo hah, and hooraw for Obama!

I have it indirectly from military sources that Obama had a secret meeting with the Muslim Brotherhood. That same source said that Ambassador Stevens had contract guards around him, all of whom were known practicing--er--same-sex-roommates-sharing-bed. And in a Muslim country. (And we already had a report that Ambassador Stevens himself had tendencies in that direction. So what on earth was he doing there? Why did the State Department post him there, of all places?)

And there's more. The CIA knows exactly who killed the ambassador. 270 pages, written in Arabic, tell the tale. And look at the way they've changed their story since this happened.

So think about it some more. The Muslim Brotherhood agrees to have Ambassador Stevens kidnapped, and then quietly tell the Americans where to go get him. Obama wins, and The Muslim Brotherhood has their man in Washington for another four years.

Only they slipped up. They gave the job to Al Qaeda in Libya. For whom those contract guards were no match. So two Navy SEALs on the scene took the guns away from the contract guards and used them to resist the attack. So the raiders faced more resistance than they bargained for. And they met it head-on. Maximum damage. Termination with extreme prejudice.

And panic in the White House.

Culminating in this spectacle:

Read More: http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/10/15...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Beccy 2012/10/19 00:06:55
    Yeah...you know what? It must might be...!
    Beccy
    +1
    In the past it was the republican party that staged the October surprise.
  • Temlako... Beccy 2012/10/19 00:38:39
    Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
    +1
    Or stood accused of it.
  • shaltov72 2012/10/17 05:56:20
    Yeah...you know what? It must might be...!
    shaltov72
    +2
    FALSE FLAGS the obama, deciever extraordinare, might pull a war drama so that he will say that is important to not have elections, or he might pull a fake assassination of himself being the self centered puppet for the one world order who pushes mercury vaccinations, flouride in the water to dumb you down, etc!
    The Bengahzi situation was a arms cover-up, obama osama bin lieing with the eric holder gave arms, and Stevens was sent there to get them back from al-quiada and or the muslim brotherhood. The obama dudes and dudesses got caught, and did not want Stevens to talk, it had nothing to do with a movie, as those who are thinking individuals all the left leaning progressive liberals will follow the messiah!
  • kitkat42 2012/10/17 04:55:13
    Nothing to see here. Move on.
    kitkat42
    +2
    Wish we had more of these around. Get a grip Terniakos!
    kitteh conspiracy theory
  • Marek 2012/10/17 01:05:43
    Yeah...you know what? It must might be...!
    Marek
    +3
    I'd say the way things happened there lend support to your scenario. In my opinion obama would do or approve anything to ensure his reelection. If that stunt had worked as intended then he was a shoe in.
  • scbluesman13 2012/10/16 18:30:28
    Yeah...you know what? It must might be...!
    scbluesman13
    +2
    You're stretching this one a little Tem. First off, Stevens had a long diplomatic history in that region. You may remember in 2007, he was one of the first to report on the high levels of Al Qaeda recruitment going on in Derma, just to the east of Benghazi. He went to those camps to interview recruits, to get an idea about what they were being taught, and why they were training to become Al Qaeda operatives.

    And I'm not sure where you're bringing delta force or navy seals into this. Ambassador Stevens was with only 3 other people at the time of his assassination. He had 1 information analyst, and 2 body men with him. He was at the embassy when he was told he needed to get out, and the four of them travelled to his compound. When the 4 armored vehicles entered the compound there were no US military forces there at all, so where is this scenario of a planned daring rescue gone wrong coming from?
  • Temlako... scblues... 2012/10/16 19:36:01
    Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
    +2
    I suggest that the plan was to send in the special forces after the thugs put the snatch to him. They were supposed to get him out, and make a big show of it. Only it didn't work out that way.
  • instantmassage 2012/10/16 18:16:00
    Nothing to see here. Move on.
    instantmassage
    +1
    I presume the october surprise IS related to Libya. We're going to know soon enough: http://octsurprise.com
  • zapped 2012/10/16 16:58:39
    Yeah...you know what? It must might be...!
    zapped
    +3
    as well as the standing question as to why SOETORO aka obama is allowed to retain a chair person's position with in the UN security council position ...

    which is against the constitution ...but he's been allowed to retain this position & office as president of the united states ,,,

    it's in the const .!!???
  • Always Right 2012/10/16 16:56:33
    Yeah...you know what? It must might be...!
    Always Right
    +3
    I believe there is merit to this theory!
  • whitewulf--the unruly mobster 2012/10/16 16:51:00
  • firelooker 2012/10/16 16:12:36
    I don't know one way or the other.
    firelooker
    Another conspiracy theory?
  • flrdsgns 2012/10/16 15:06:00
    Nothing to see here. Move on.
    flrdsgns
    +1
    Another theory could be: Romney and Ryan organized the attack on the Embassy and arranged to have Ambassador Stevens murdered, all to gain political points and criticize Obama's highly successful foreign policy.
  • NightRyder flrdsgns 2012/10/16 17:15:34 (edited)
    NightRyder
    +3
    Romney may be Morman, and Ryan is catholic (The muslim's first enemy, holy wars, 1100 AD), thus, they are christians. If they ever met with muslims, the extreme type, they would be as dead as Stevens. They have nothing good for muslims, and that could be a worry, but to long to discuss here; but perhaps you could figure that out yourself.

    However, Obama has nothing but praise for the Muslims, and I figure that you have not figured that out yet. In Obama's own words; "I will stand with the Muslims."
  • flrdsgns NightRyder 2012/10/16 19:12:38
    flrdsgns
    I don't let ones religion determine whom I like or dislike. Sorry if you do
  • Turings... flrdsgns 2012/10/16 22:31:02
    TuringsChild
    +2
    He doesn't. Muslims do. You haven't noticed?
  • NightRyder Turings... 2012/10/16 22:49:13
    NightRyder
    +2
    Acually, Turings, firdsgns hates religion so much that it warps his view of just about everything.
  • flrdsgns NightRyder 2012/10/16 22:53:41
    flrdsgns
    hey buttwad, you want to find one post where I say I hate religion? What I don't like are the phony so called christians like yourself who think anyone who doesn't believe the same as you is wrong.
  • NightRyder flrdsgns 2012/10/17 00:42:49 (edited)
    NightRyder
    I don't think it, I know it, but that is your choice, not mine. And by law of the Constitution, I can agree with that, but somehow, I just don't think you can. Time will tell the tale, and if I am wrong, big deal, but on the other hand, If I'm right........... I think that scares atheist more than they want to admit.
  • flrdsgns NightRyder 2012/10/17 03:32:16
    flrdsgns
    +1
    But then again, you're old and about ready to die anyway, guess you are trying to get right with god before you cash it all in
  • NightRyder flrdsgns 2012/10/17 15:49:12
    NightRyder
    +1
    For once you are right, but I, like most, did not have much regard for the Bible in my younger years, but as the Bible said, God will not lose his chosen, and at 47 years of age, a change came over me, and since then, I have not been able to lay the Bible down for any reason.

    However, I will say this; I am a warrior Christian, fully understanding that God is a jealous God, and understanding exactly what that means. But the Church is turning apostate as the scriptures say it would, and would eventually do more harm to people than good. I know that you, at least at this point of your life, do not believe, but please allow this one scripture to explain that apostate condition, and some of what it means;

    “For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.” (1 Timothy 5:2-3)

    In the Greek, there is no definite article before either `day' or `Lord,' indicating that the expression was stereotyped, having become somewhat as a proper noun. The expression was used extensively in the Old Testament; and one could summarize the Old Testament meaning of the expression thus:

    (1) It would come suddenly and une...





    For once you are right, but I, like most, did not have much regard for the Bible in my younger years, but as the Bible said, God will not lose his chosen, and at 47 years of age, a change came over me, and since then, I have not been able to lay the Bible down for any reason.

    However, I will say this; I am a warrior Christian, fully understanding that God is a jealous God, and understanding exactly what that means. But the Church is turning apostate as the scriptures say it would, and would eventually do more harm to people than good. I know that you, at least at this point of your life, do not believe, but please allow this one scripture to explain that apostate condition, and some of what it means;

    “For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.” (1 Timothy 5:2-3)

    In the Greek, there is no definite article before either `day' or `Lord,' indicating that the expression was stereotyped, having become somewhat as a proper noun. The expression was used extensively in the Old Testament; and one could summarize the Old Testament meaning of the expression thus:

    (1) It would come suddenly and unexpected, (2) it would involve a cosmic upheaval in which the earth, and likely its solar system, would be shaken to its very foundations, and (3) it would be a time when God would bring spiritual judgment upon the people of all nations upon the earth.

    The adoption, from the very beginning of Christianity, of this same expression, used in the sense of the day of Jesus Christ, shows how universally the early church accepted Jesus as co-equal with God. However, that just means that as most men's sons become equal with their father in the areas of a family business, then God's son became equal with His Father in the capasity as a Savior. Thus, The day of the Lord here means not the destruction of Jerusalem, nor the day of one's death, but the day of the Lord's Return. The Lord himself used this figure; a thief gives no warning of his coming.

    But there is a bit more, it also means at the precise moment when humanity feels most secure in their rebellious and sinful course against God, and at a time when all of the devices of government and society believe they have produced an environment in which man may think that the peace, prosperity and safety of the whole world have been secured, it is precisely then, when the Lord will descend from heaven with a mighty shout, with the voice of the archangel and the sounding of trumpet of God.

    In regard to "an environment in which man may think that the peace, prosperity and safety of the whole world have been secured," Could that mean a one world government? Revelations seems to set it on that level.
    (more)
  • flrdsgns NightRyder 2012/10/17 17:29:28
    flrdsgns
    +1
    I disagree on the jealous God part, I think God is all caring and all loving and is a kind God.
    I have very little use for organized religion as I think it is largely just a business.
    Most people do the best they can, and most people that I have met over the years have basically been kind.

    Good luck to you, I hope you are at peace in your religion.
  • NightRyder flrdsgns 2012/10/17 20:37:25
    NightRyder
    fridsgns, a true Christian can never be at peace with any religion of man's contrivance. Recent history has made that very clear, starting in year one AD. Daniel made an observation of our times about 500 years before Christ, saying:

    "And of the ten horns that were in his head, and of the other which came up, and before whom three fell; even of that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake very great things, whose look was more stout than his fellows. I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them;"

    "Made war with the saints, means, persecuted the Church (Revelation 11:7, 13:7), and prevailed--but only to a point. Most Christians today cannot see what is happening, so how can we think that non-believers can see and understand what they cannot?
    While no more is intimated than that the children of men make war with one another, and prevail against one another, the prophet does not show himself so much concerned, but what is the meaning of this? Will the Lord cast off his people? Will he suffer their enemies to trample upon them and triumph over them? What is this same horn that shall prevail so far against the saints? To this the interpreter answers (v. 23–25) that this fourth beast is a fourth kingdom, that shall devour the whole earth, or (...





    fridsgns, a true Christian can never be at peace with any religion of man's contrivance. Recent history has made that very clear, starting in year one AD. Daniel made an observation of our times about 500 years before Christ, saying:

    "And of the ten horns that were in his head, and of the other which came up, and before whom three fell; even of that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake very great things, whose look was more stout than his fellows. I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them;"

    "Made war with the saints, means, persecuted the Church (Revelation 11:7, 13:7), and prevailed--but only to a point. Most Christians today cannot see what is happening, so how can we think that non-believers can see and understand what they cannot?
    While no more is intimated than that the children of men make war with one another, and prevail against one another, the prophet does not show himself so much concerned, but what is the meaning of this? Will the Lord cast off his people? Will he suffer their enemies to trample upon them and triumph over them? What is this same horn that shall prevail so far against the saints? To this the interpreter answers (v. 23–25) that this fourth beast is a fourth kingdom, that shall devour the whole earth, or (as it may be read) the whole land.

    This can mean only a one world government, and that the ten horns are ten kings, and the little horn is another king that shall subdue three kings, and shall be very abusive to God and his people, and that is how it sets at the end. It really does not matter, in a general sense that the earth will be destroyed by fire, but whether people like it or not, mankind has discovered the means to do just that, destroy the earth through a nuclear war.

    There is a lot that the Bible teaches that fits mankind to the “T”, and that alone should make a person consider at least parts of the Bible, if not all. What does it teach about what I say here? The inherent selfishness of human nature in the pathetic struggle to satisfy the desire for pleasure must inevitably be thrust into conflict both inwardly within the personality itself and outwardly in all human relationships. As so often in God's word, it is self-explanatory. The kind of wars and fightings I mention is precisely that of pleasures warring against the soul's true interests in people’s members, meaning not between members of the church, exclusively (though this is included), but within men themselves, individually.

    So true peace between men is often nothing more than a dream, but I can testify that I have an inner peace with God, not man, that will stay intact through anything that gets thrown at me.
    (more)
  • NightRyder flrdsgns 2012/10/16 22:46:26 (edited)
    NightRyder
    +1
    My like or dislike is of no consequence, I am just stateing the facts about a religion that likes to behead it's enemies (a well proven fact), and one that dose not.
  • NightRyder 2012/10/16 15:05:48 (edited)
    Yeah...you know what? It must might be...!
    NightRyder
    +3
    But tonight's Debate may add more fuel to the fire. I wonder if Obama even knows that a fire is buning on his coat tail?



    Is that a Typo? "It must might be?" is that supposed to be "It just might be"?
  • Turings... NightRyder 2012/10/16 22:52:04
    TuringsChild
    +1
    lol- This is the Internet. Who spellchecks everything? ;)
    (check out 'buning' above)
  • NightRyder Turings... 2012/10/17 00:45:51
    NightRyder
    +1
    LOL come on, turings, there is a big difference between "Must" and "Just"
  • lurx: the soda jerk 2012/10/16 14:21:44
    Yeah...you know what? It must might be...!
    lurx: the soda jerk
  • Jeff Smith 2012/10/16 14:19:16
    I don't know one way or the other.
    Jeff Smith
    +2
    If Clinton had taken responsibility maybe this never would have happened in the first place. Pretty easy to take the blame off the President after the fact she's committing political suicide for Oscumbag who was to busy partying and Golfing to care.
  • NightRyder Jeff Smith 2012/10/17 20:55:39
    NightRyder
    Yep, that’s pretty good, seeing as how Obama says he takes all the responsibility and blame while debating Romney. Bet Clinton feels real good right now.
  • **StarzAbove** 2012/10/16 14:16:38
    Nothing to see here. Move on.
    **StarzAbove**
    +4
    Another crazy conspiracy by the right wing nut jobs. I don't believe one word of it.
  • NightRyder **Starz... 2012/10/17 20:57:51
    NightRyder
    Then you don't believe one of the liberals leading news sites. CNN
  • seadog6608PWCM 2012/10/16 14:05:19
  • jimmy d 2012/10/16 13:11:17
    Yeah...you know what? It must might be...!
    jimmy d
    +5
    Seems plausible. I wouldn't put it passed the BOZO.
  • Seonag 2012/10/16 12:11:26
    Yeah...you know what? It must might be...!
    Seonag
    +4
    Though this is 'speculation' at this point, it does make me wonder. It is reported that the President was advised the evening of 9/11/12 that the State Department had lost contact with the Ambassador (we know know they were monitoring the situation in real-time). Let's say the President was notified at 9 p.m. ET --- that would have been 2 a.m. in Benghazi. The President then went to bed. I really can't see any prior President going to bed not knowing what happened, unless he 'knew' something. Was it a planned kidnapping that went wrong? Was their a planned 'rescue' that was to happen in October right before the election? Before heading for Los Vegas for the 12th fund raiser, the President with Hillary at his side, spoke to the press, even then blaming the video. Yep, there is much more here than we have been told.
  • seadog6... Seonag 2012/10/16 14:00:12
  • Seonag seadog6... 2012/10/17 12:02:55
    Seonag
    +1
    It was interesting that in last night's debate the President said that "as soon as we found out that the Benghazi Consulate was being overrun, I was on the phone with my National Security Team." Since the State Department has admitted that they were aware and following the attack in real time, that would indicate that he KNEW Tuesday evening what has happening ---- and he STILL went to bed. Yep, his bedtime is just too important! So much for that 3 a.m. call!
  • seadog6... Seonag 2012/10/17 22:49:06
  • Artist 2012/10/16 12:11:21
    I don't know one way or the other.
    Artist
    +3
    If you had suggested this two years ago I would have laughed but considering the number of dumb things obama has done since then I have to wonder...hmmm?
    The desperation from the obama camp to remain in power despite crumbling support and overall failure of his policies is plain to see. With his abysmal performance at the first debate, team obama put out the next moment unbelievable (and I mean UNBELIEVABLE!)
    unemployment figures the likes of which he (or anyone else) has seen since obama's been in office.
    We've all been worried of an October surprise but if this is the best obama can come up with, along with getting Stevens killed, then the only thing left for obama is cancelling the election. Now how is he going to do that?
  • jmc07806-PWCM-JLA 2012/10/16 11:57:56
    I don't know one way or the other.
    jmc07806-PWCM-JLA
    +1
    We need a little more information to make that leap.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2013/06/19 16:19:50

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals