The attack on Benghazi is most interesting. Obviously, if the US did not invade, the attack on Benghazi would not of occurred. As for the cover-up, the root of the public version of this scandal lies specifically in the accusation of the Ambassadorís requested help during the attacks. Although, there were troops close by they were instructed to stand-down. Clinton and officials within the Obama administration tried to pretend that the event was the escalation of a protest over the innocence of a Muslim video on YouTube. The MSM gained much attention publicizing and informing the masses in regards to this video, and what was the main justification in the hearings. Nevertheless, assistance was intentionally denied and the government will deny it enduringly. Hence, officials at high levels of the state department had reason to want Ambassador Stevens dead. Now, retired veteran General Jerry Bowden, former deputy under secretary of defense for intelligence and former head of US special forces command said that, this event likely had to do with the fact that the US government was channeling weapons to Syrian rebels through Benghazi and in addition, Stevens was most likely in charge of the operation. This covert action program is something the government would deny, but only executed after congress has been briefed on it and the president signs a finding. This is all conjecture; however questions worth asking such as did Stevens have a dispute with the administration? Was he about to blow the whistle on US plans to topple Syria? Did it have something to do with framing the Syrian government for chemical weapons all the way back in January? If Jerry Bowden were correct, then Stevens would have known about this operation. Unless, a real investigation is conducted no one will know. On another note, the bombing in Syria conducted by Israel are actually indirect attacks on Iran. Syria and Iran are bound by a mutual defense treaty, any moved made by Israel will be interpreted by the US. If in fact Israel get into a conflict with Iran the US will join the fight. On April 17, 2013, the US senate foreign relations committee voted to endorse resolution 65, hence the US will fully back Israel militarily and financially should it attack Iran. Israel has openly indicted its desire to use military force on Iran. Now, accusations by the US government state that the Syrian government was utilizing chemical weapons against its own people. Mysteriously, the Obama administration backed down from these claims, nevertheless findings by Del Ponte state that it was Syrian rebels that used chemical weapons. Was it set up to create the pretext for military involvement? Leaked documents form a UK base defense contractor reveled that a proposal by Qatari to have the firm provide false evidence that Syria would give the go ahead to use chemical weapons in the country. Documents state, that this plan had full proof from the US government. If this is what happened then NATO facilitated the use of chemical weapons on civilians! Israel says they were targeting Hezbollah arms, however some annalists believe that the real motive was to derail Syriaís progress in their fight against foreign militants who were from Lebanon. The most powerful military force in Lebanon is Hezbollah who sides with president Assadís government, saying that it was a war against foreign backed terrorists. Russia has also warned the US about external interference. NATO is backing up these rebels despite carnages and the use of chemical weapons. This is about how Iran has one of the largest oil reserves; in addition they are not cooperating with the US. The US wants to topple Syria and draw Iran into an exposed conflict. Thus, giving the US and NATO an excuse to invade.
I know many people will get mad. Well look at this-
Yes, but all news outlets push some kind of agenda and are slightly bias, more so than others. The fact is I linked many different sources and compared all of them to come to a clearer conclusion. That's what you do when you research, apparently.
I'm not saying you didn't research and I'm not saying you provided biased shit. I didn't even read your post past the second second. I'm a scroll master.
I'm just telling you you're going to get lectured by some college kid in a couple of posts because he's an "expert" and you're going to get told you're sources suck dick. just trying to help you out mang.
Well thank you, I appreciate that. I really could care less about if someone lectures me and will surely listen. I would love to know where one obtains non-biasd information though, if there is such a thing. Best way is to research opposing side of argument as well as different news outlets publicizing the same topic to understand and piece together the issue.