David Cameron has returned from his holiday early in order to
chair a meeting of the government's Cobra emergency committee on the
crisis in Iraq.
The prime minister, who had not been due to resume
charge until tomorrow, is under pressure to consider direct UK military
intervention.
MPs from all parties, including a substantial
number of Tories, have been also urged him recall parliament from recess
to allow the Commons to debate Britain's involvement in any escalation
of Western intervention. So far Downing Street has rebuffed the demands.
Conservative
Conor Burns said: "Now that the PM is back I hope he will listen to
those of us who want more action on Iraq and will allow that to be
expressed in Parliament."
RAF aircraft have made several drops of
humanitarian supplies to civilians trapped on a mountainside by
advancing Islamic State (IS) extremists.
Chinook helicopters are
to be sent to the region to increase the options to ease the plight of
the tens of thousands of trapped Yazidis, and Britain is also to
transport military equipment to resupply Kurdish forces which have been
outgunned by IS.
Cameron - who flew back to the UK from Portugal
on a scheduled fight ahead of his wife and children to chair the meeting
- is expected to discuss progress on plans for a co-ordinated
international rescue effort to extract the trapped Yazidis.
Another
130 US troops have arrived in Iraq on what the Pentagon described as a
temporary mission to assess the scope of the humanitarian crisis.
But
the prime minister has so far insisted the UK will not intervene
militarily - despite increasing calls from experienced commanders and
several Tory MPs.
A third round of successful UK air drops took
place last night, including 2,640 reusable water purification containers
filled with clean water. More than 500 shelter kits to provide shade in
temperatures of more than 40C (104F) were also inside the packages.
There have now been five successful drops over three nights.
Among
those joining the call for firmer action was Tory former defence
secretary Liam Fox. Writing in the Daily Mail today, he backed the use
of the military to protect civilians from the "barbaric" jihadists and
attacked what he called the "catastrophic complacency" of Western
politicians over the humanitarian crisis.
He urged Cameron to send in RAF jets to join the US strikes and agree to supply arms to the Kurdish army.
Colonel
Tim Collins, noted for the inspirational speech he delivered to troops
on the eve of the 2003 Iraq War, warned in the Daily Telegraph that
ancient civilisations in Iraq could be "extinguished" unless there is
action and dismissed the aid drops as a "pebble in the ocean".
General
Sir Mike Jackson, professional head of the Army during the Iraq War,
said there was a "moral duty" to help with the humanitarian response.
He
told the newspaper he would have "no difficulty at all" in saying the
UK should be alongside the US to up the "British ante" to the use of
airpower on humanitarian grounds.
Labour welcomed the stepping up
of aid efforts, including the deployment of Chinook helicopters, but did
not join the calls for direct UK military intervention.
Shadow
foreign secretary Douglas Alexander said: "The Iraqi government has
asked for international help. The UN Security Council has urged the
world to act, and the United States has unique military capabilities to
help avert a massacre.
"The Government should be working actively
with our allies to now step up the humanitarian response to the
unfolding tragedy on Mount Sinjar. That should include looking at how
the United Kingdom can contribute most effectively."
Labour MP
Graham Allen hit out at those calling for UK air strikes. "Many MPs who
voted for the Iraq war, started this blood-letting and the creation of
Isis, have learnt nothing and bay for yet more violence," he said.
“From
the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to
Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and
Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the
overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the
basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible
equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs.
Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part in the
tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every
subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this
band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great
cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair
of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of
that enormous empire.”
The concept of conspiracy frightens some people, so much so that they
are willing to overlook any and all evidence that world events are for
the most part directed, rather than chaotic and coincidental. For those
who are uneducated and unaware, explanations for the terrible tides of
politics and war generally revolve around a false understanding of
Occam’s razor. They argue that the theory states that the “simplest
explanation” is usually the correct one for any particular problem or
crisis. But Occam’s razor actually states that the simplest explanation according to the evidence at hand
is usually the correct answer for any given problem. That is to say,
the simplest explanation must conform to the evidence, or it is likely
not correct.
Unfortunately, “skeptics” of directed conspiracy often turn a blind
eye to evidence that is contrary to their simple explanations, while
arguing that simplification is its own vindication. In other words, they
don’t feel the need to defend their simplistic world view because, in
their minds, simplicity stands on its own as self-evident. There was a
time when men believed that the planets revolved around each other
because they were tied together by long glass strings, and this was
evident to them because it was the simplest explanation they could come
up with. The thinking of skeptics of the New World Order and concerted
globalization is much like this.
The most common argument they tend to exploit is that the world is
far too “chaotic” and that if the elites are actually seeking a fully
centralized one-world system, they are “failing miserably” because so
many cultures are so clearly divided. For anyone who holds this argument
as logical or practical, first I would suggest they look beyond the
surface of the various conflicts at the similarities between these so
called “enemies.”
For example, what about the United States versus Russia? These two
nations have a long history of opposing ideologies and have come close
to war time and time again. Certainly, average Americans see themselves
as individualists and Russians as socialist or communist. Average
Russians see Americans as capitalist imperialists and see themselves as
humanists. But what about their respective governments? What about their
respective financiers and oligarchs? Do they really see each other as
enemies?
If that were so, then why did American Wall Street tycoons and the U.S. military aid the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917?
A false paradigm was created when internationalists supported the
Bolshevik Revolution and allowed Russia to become a communist-held
country. The eventual Cold War that resulted created the rationale used
by the military-industrial complex to build a massive standing army
(which is not part of the U.S. Constitution), an army which could then
be sent around the world to subdue various nations and even possibly be
used to oppress the American people.
Even today, the false East/West paradigm continues, with America
painted as the bumbling villain and Russia painted as the stalwart and
reasonable objector. Yet Russia’s top government officials and our top
government officials work closely with and answer to the same
international financiers and elites, like the International Monetary
Fund and the Bank of International Settlements, as I outlined in great
detail in False East/West Paradigm Hides The Rise Of Global Currency and Russia Is Dominated By Global Banks, Too.
Even closer to current events, the U.S. has now entered into military
operations against ISIS insurgents moving rapidly through Iraq’s
northern regions toward Baghdad. However, if ISIS is the enemy, why did the U.S. and our ally, Saudi Arabia, support and train ISIS agents in Syria as well as Iraq?
Is it just irony that our government helped birth ISIS and now the
White House is at war with the group? Or is it possible that maybe, just
maybe, a greater plan is afoot?
As the sinister Rahm Emanuel famously said: “You never
want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an
opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”
If a crisis of opportunity does not present itself in the time frame
you need, why not ENGINEER a crisis to fit your goals? This is a tactic
that has been used by elites for generations, and it is called the
Hegelian dialectic.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s work was the very foundation of the
collectivist/socialist ideology, and it inspired Karl Marx during his
writing of The Communist Manifesto. Hegel was an avid statist
who believed that the collective must be ruled and directed by
centralized governance and that all individualism should be sacrificed
for the greater good.
Hegel wrote that the state “has supreme right against the
individual, whose supreme duty is to be a member of the State… for the
right of the world spirit is above all special privileges.”
In his dialectic theory, Hegel conjured a strategy by which the
establishment elites could control the masses through deliberately
created division. To define the Hegelian dialectic method simply, the
ruling body must first trigger a problem or crisis that causes the
citizenry to react with fear and demand a solution. The rulers then
offer a solution, which they had already predetermined before they had
started the crisis; this solution would usually entail more power for
the elites and less freedom for the citizens.
The world appears divided and chaotic exactly because it has been
MADE that way by a select few in the globalist establishment. In fact,
if you were to name any war in the past 100 years, any competent
alternative analyst would easily produce undeniable evidence of the
involvement of international banks and think tanks pulling strings on
both sides. If you don’t understand the concept of “order out of chaos,” then you’ll never understand a thing.
Engineered chaos serves several purposes. It provides distraction and
cover for the elites to implement other plans that they would rather
not have noticed.
It also provides a scapegoat for the masses, who are now divided
against each other. When violent changes are implemented that produce
destructive consequences, the people must be placated with an easily
identifiable villain. Certain changes globalists wish to make in the way
the world functions require the careful exploitation of scapegoats.
For example, the globalists at the IMF have been discussing the establishment of a global basket currency for years to replace the U.S. dollar.
Russia and the East have also, conveniently, been calling for the IMF to replace the dollar with their Special Drawing Rights basket.
And finally, as well as conveniently, the elites in the U.S.
government have launched a controlled coup in Ukraine and initiated
direct economic confrontation with Russia, thereby giving the East the
perfect excuse to dump the U.S. dollar as world reserve and replace it
with a basket currency system under the IMF. Despite claims that
Vladimir Putin is “anti-globalist,” the Russian is in fact an avid
supporter of the IMF, and has stated his goal is to continue Russia’s IMF membership in a larger capacity:
"In
the BRICS case we see a whole set of coinciding strategic interests.
First of all, this is the common intention to reform the international
monetary and financial system. In the present form it is unjust to the
BRICS countries and to new economies in general. We should take a more
active part in the IMF and the World Bank’s decision-making system. The
international monetary system itself depends a lot on the US dollar, or,
to be precise, on the monetary and financial policy of the US
authorities. The BRICS countries want to change this."
Yes, Vladimir, and so do the manipulative social engineers at the IMF... Hopefully, you have the sense to see how this works: problem, reaction, solution.
Economic or physical war is launched between East and West, while the
dollar is killed in the process. The masses react by demanding a fair
and balanced replacement for the dollar as world reserve so that
economic stability can return. The Americans blame Russia and the East
for their fiscal misfortune. The East blames the hubris of the West for
its own downfall. Neither side blames the banksters, who started the
whole calamity to begin with. And the elites swoop in as saviors with a
new Bretton Woods-style agreement to appease all sides and cement their
global currency system, the system they had always wanted. And with a
global economic currency and authority in place, global governance is
not far behind — order out of chaos.
This process is more psychological than political in its goals. One
could argue that if the elites already have control of all central banks
and governments, then why do they need a global government? The answer
is that these men do not want secret global governance, they want open
global governance. They want us to ACCEPT the idea as a fact of
existence, for only when we agree to participate in the lie will they
then have truly won.
The end result of World War I was the creation of the League of
Nations and the argument that sovereignty leads to disunion and
catastrophe. World War II led to the creation of the United Nations and
the International Monetary Fund. I believe that a third world war is
nearly upon us, one that may involve weapons of monetary destruction
more so than weapons of mass destruction. Each supposed disintegration
of global unity has eventually led to greater centralization, and this
is something the skeptics seem to forget. The progression of crises
suggests that the next war will lead to total globalization under the
dominance of a minority of elitists posing as "wise men" who only wish
to bring peace and harmony to the masses. In the meantime, the
skeptics will continue to mindlessly debate in the face of all reason
that the whole thing was a fluke, an act of random mathematical chance,
leading coincidentally to the one thing the establishment rulers crave:
total global totalitarian micromanagement.
WATCH: Obama Tries to Get Away With a Massive Lie… And Fails
August 16, 2014
President Obama ended the war in Iraq in 2011, by precipitously
withdrawing all of our remaining troops from the country. Obama was
sure to remind the American people of that fact constantly, throughout
his reelection campaign in 2012.
He was also responsible for the release of numerous Al-Qaeda
terrorists that had been captured in Iraq. One of those men, released
in 2009, has gone on to become the head of the ISIS Islamic State terror army that is slaughtering Christians and minorities by the thousands in Iraq and Syria.
Now, due to increasing public outrage at the genocide occurring in Iraq, Obama has finally authorized airstrikes
against the ISIS terror army. Unsurprisingly though, Obama’s story on
Iraq has changed, as it no longer fits the narrative pushed by his
administration for the past few years.
Although Obama repeatedly claimed credit for ending the war in Iraq
and bringing home our troops, he now claims that ending the war was “not my decision“. He has even gone so far as to resort to his tried and true tactic of blaming Bush,
saying the abrupt ending to the war in Iraq in 2011 was actually set in
place during the previous administration, and he had nothing to do with
it.
Watch as Obama blatantly lies in an attempt to rewrite history, right before our very eyes, thanks to Western Journalism.
The truth is, Obama abandoned Iraq for political reasons, to keep a campaign promise from 2008 to bring the war to a close during his first term.
Unfortunately, the fledgling Iraqi Army was not ready to stand on
their own yet, and the dysfunctionally corrupt Iraqi government most
certainly wasn’t ready to run the country in a fair and equitable
manner.
As such, a resurgent terror movement, under the label of ISIS now,
has overtaken large swaths of the country, sending the Iraqi Army
fleeing back to Baghdad, with the central government unable to do
anything to stop them.
The fall of Iraq can be blamed on Obama,
and Obama alone. He is the one who decided to pull out all of our
troops before the Iraqis were ready. He is the one who has released
terrorists that have returned to the battlefield to fight us once more.
And he is the one who has silently watched a terror army, unlike
anything we have seen before, rise to power and establish a Caliphate,
or Islamic State, right in the middle of territory that American men and
women shed blood and sacrificed life and limb for just a few years ago.
Please share this on Facebook and Twitter if you know that
Obama is to blame for the turmoil in Iraq, despite any lies he may tell
to the contrary.
Nine senior commanding generals have been fired by the Obama
administration this year, leading to speculation by active and retired
members of the military that a purge of its commanders is underway.
Retired generals and current senior commanders that have spoken with
TheBlaze say the administration is not only purging the military of
commanders they don’t agree with, but is striking fear in the hearts of
those still serving.
The timing comes as the five branches of the U.S. armed forces are
reducing staff due to budget cuts, and as U.S. troops are expected to
withdraw from Afghanistan next year.
“I think they’re using the opportunity of the shrinkage of the
military to get rid of people that don’t agree with them or not tow the
party line. Remember, as (former White House chief of staff) Rahm
Emanuel said, never waste a crisis,” a senior retired general told
TheBlaze on the condition of anonymity because he still provide services
to the government and fears possible retribution.
“Even as a retired general, it’s still possible for the
administration to make life miserable for us. If we’re working with the
government or have contracts, they can just rip that out from under us,”
he said.
Retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, an outspoken critic of the
Obama administration, said the White House fails to take action or
investigate its own, but finds it easy to fire military commanders “who
have given their lives for their country.”
“Obama will not purge a civilian or political appointee because they
have bought into Obama’s ideology,” Vallely said. “The White House
protects their own. That’s why they stalled on the investigation into
fast and furious, Benghazi and Obamacare. He’s intentionally weakening
and gutting our military, Pentagon and reducing us as a superpower, and
anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged.”
A Pentagon official who asked to remain nameless because they were
not authorized to speak on the matter said even “young officers, down
through the ranks have been told not to talk about Obama or the politics
of the White House. They are purging everyone and if you want to keep
your job — just keep your mouth shut.
The Nine Military Commanders Fired This Year by the Obama Administration
Gen. Carter Ham, Army
Served as head of the United States African Command
during the bloodshed in Benghazi, Libya when four American citizens,
including Ambassador Christopher Stevens and two retired Navy Seals,
were murdered by militants on Sept. 11, 2012. Senior military officials
told TheBlaze Hamm was extremely critical of the Obama administration,
including when reinforcements were not sent to help the U.S. citizens
under attack in Benghazi. Hamm “resigned and retired” in April 2013.
Rear Adm. Charles Gaouette, Navy
Commander of Carrier Strike Group Three. He recently served as deputy
commander of the U.S. Naval Forces, U.S. Central Command. He was in
charge of Air Craft Carriers in the Mediterranean Sea the night of the
Benghazi assault on Sept. 11, 2012. Under testimony, he told Congress
there may not have been time to get the flight crews to Benghazi, but
left the door open when he told Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) under
cross-examination that he could have launched aircraft to the
destination. He was later accused of using profanity in a public setting
and making at least two racially insensitive comments. While he was
cleared of any criminal violations under the Uniform Code of Military
Justice, he still faced administrative penalties that have ended his
career. Maj. Gen. Ralph Baker, Army
Major General Baker served as commander of the Joint Task
Force-Horn at Camp Lamar in Djibouti, Africa. According to several
military officials who spoke to TheBlaze, he was also involved in some
aspect with the Benghazi incident Sept. 11, 2012. He was relieved of
command and fired for allegedly groping a civilian, but no assault
charges or sexual misconduct charges were filed with military JAG
officials.
Brigadier Gen. Bryan Roberts, Army
General Roberts took command of Fort Jackson in 2011. He
was considered a rising star in his field and served in Iraq during his
service as the commanding officer of the 2nd Brigade Combat Team. He was
the deputy commanding general of the United States Army Recruiting
Command at Fort Knox, Ky. He was relieved of duty and fired for adultery
— still on the books in the United States Code of Military Justice but
rarely since President Bill Clinton’s indiscretions.
Maj. Gen. Gregg A. Sturdevant, Marine Corps
Director of Strategic Planning and Policy for the U.S.
Pacific Command and commander of the aviation wing at Camp Bastion,
Afghanistan. He was a highly-decorated Marine with two Naval and Marine
Commendations, two Naval and Marine Good Conduct medals, as well as the
Air Medal with a gold star. He was one of two commanding officers
suddenly relieved of command and fired from the military for failure to
use proper force protection at the camp after 15 Taliban fighters
attacked Camp Bastion on Sept. 14, 2012, resulting in the deaths of Lt.
Col. Christopher K. Raible, 40, and Sgt. Bradley W. Atwell, 27.
Maj. Gen. Charles M.M. Gurganus, Marine Corps
Regional commander in the Southwest and I Marine
Expeditionary Force in Afghanistan. Highly decorated with a Defense
Superior Service Medal, two Legion of Merit with Valor, and three
Meritorious Service Commendations. According to several military
officials, Gurganus questioned having to use Afghan security patrols
alongside American patrols after two officers were executed at their
desk and a platoon was lead into an ambush on the front lines.
Lt. Gen. David Holmes Huntoon Jr, Army
Served as the 58th Superintendent of the United States
Military Academy at West Point, N.Y. He graduated from the same academy
in 1973 and had served in Senior Planning and Education Services through
the majority of his career. He was “censored” for “an investigation”
into an “improper relationship” according to the Department of Defense.
Nothing was released to the nature of the improper relationship. Nothing
was even mentioned if an actual investigation even took place.
Vice Adm. Tim Giardina, Navy
Deputy Commander of the United States Strategic Command.
He was commander of the Submarine Group Trident, Submarine Group 9 and
Submarine Group 10, where every single one of the 18 Nuclear Submarines
with Nuclear Trident Missiles of those three groups were in his command.
This commander earned six Legions of Merit, Two Meritorious Service
Medals, two Joint Service Commendation Medals, and several other medals
and ribbons. He is under criminal investigation for the alleged use of
counterfeit gambling chips, while playing a poker game at a western Iowa
casino.
Major Gen. Michael Carey, Air Force
Commander 20th Air Force in charge of 9,600 people and
450 Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles at three operational wings and
served in both Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.
Carry was fired October 11, 2013, for “personal misbehavior,” according
to ABC News. Pentagon and Air Force senior officials have remained
relatively tight-lipped about Carry’s firing.
–
UPDATE:
Author Sara Carter joined Andrew Wilkow to discuss this story on TheBlaze TV this week. Watch their conversation below:
Your browser does not support iframes.
Iraq crisis: David Cameron in ‘terrorist state’ warning
Prime Minister David Cameron has warned of the possibility of a “terrorist state” on the shores of the Mediterranean
Islamic State jihadist militants could grow strong enough to
target people “on the streets of Britain” unless action is taken, Prime
Minister David Cameron has warned.
He said a “humanitarian response” to the rebel group was not enough and a “firm security response” was needed.
The prime minister was writing in the Sunday Telegraph.
The militants, formerly known as Isis, seized a large band of territory across northern Iraq and Syria this summer.
IS-led violence has driven an estimated 1.2 million Iraqis from their homes.
Kurdish forces, supported by US air strikes, are currently battling to retake Mosul dam from IS fighters in northern Iraq.
Mr Cameron writes: “True security will only be achieved if we use all
our resources – aid, diplomacy, our military prowess – to help bring
about a more stable world.
“If we do not act to stem the onslaught of this exceptionally
dangerous terrorist movement, it will only grow stronger until it can
target us on the streets of Britain.”
Analysis: Robin Brant, BBC political correspondent
The language is very strong – “a battle against a poisonous ideology”
– and the warning is stark – “a terrorist state on the shores of the
Mediterranean” – as the prime minister seeks to make the case for
Britain returning to Iraq.
After a week that has seen UK military aircraft drop humanitarian
aid, David Cameron makes it clear that alone is not enough to defeat IS.
He talks repeatedly about Britain using its “military prowess” and
military action, alongside diplomacy, to defeat the group.
The talk is tough, but Downing Street insists this is not an
escalation. The Ministry of Defence has been reminding people that the
UK has played no role in supporting the latest round of US air strikes
on IS targets across northern Iraq.
The prime minister’s message is as much about home as well as abroad.
People walking around with an Islamic State flag “will be arrested”, he
says. That is a nod to the growing concern about Britons who have gone
to fight jihad, in Syria or Iraq, returning home with the intention of
carrying on the struggle.
In June, Mr Cameron claimed that fighters from the group were
plotting attacks against the UK – although the threat level has remained
unchanged.
At the time, he said up to 400 British nationals were fighting alongside militant groups in Syria.
He added that several people had already been stopped from travelling
to conflict zones, and preparing a terrorism offence abroad would
become a crime under legislation to be put before Parliament in the next
few months.
Downing Street later revealed that the UK security service had
arrested 65 people suspected of Syria-related jihadist activities during
an 18-month period – including 40 in the first quarter of this year.
On 29 June, IS declared that it had created a caliphate, or Islamic
state, stretching from Aleppo in Syria to the province of Diyala in
Iraq.
Writing in the Sunday Telegraph, Mr Cameron warns that if IS is able
to “carve out its so-called caliphate” the UK would be “facing a
terrorist state on the shores of the Mediterranean and bordering a Nato
member”.
In the past few days, the UK military has made aid drops to hundreds
of people stranded in northern Iraq while the US has launched air
strikes to target the militant group.
But the prime minister writes that a “broader political, diplomatic
and security response” is needed, in addition to such humanitarian
action. “Uncompromising action”“First, we
need a firm security response, whether that is military action to go
after the terrorists, international co-operation on intelligence and
counter-terrorism or uncompromising action against terrorists at home,”
he writes.
The prime minister suggests that anyone walking around in the UK with an Islamic state flag should be arrested.
Mr Cameron makes clear that he does not see this as a “war on terror”
but “a battle between Islam on the one hand and extremists who want to
abuse Islam on the other”.
The extreme Sunni group, which overran Mosul this summer, has been accused of massacring non-Muslims.
Whole communities of Yazidis and Christians have been forced to flee
in the north, along with Shia Iraqis, whom IS do not regard as true
Muslims.
Meanwhile, Iraq’s military response to a rapid advance by IS has been hampered by political turmoil in Baghdad.
Maj.
Gen. Ralph Baker, commander of the Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of
Africa, was fired March 28, according to a Washington Defense official.
The
command is headquartered in Djibouti and runs U.S. military operations
in East Africa, including some counter-terrorism operations.
Baker,
a two-star general, is appealing the firing, which was ordered by his
boss, Gen. Carter Ham, the commanding general of all U.S. military
operations across Africa.
He was relieved of his duty for loss of confidence, three Defense officials told CNN.
It was second embarrassing dismissal of a high ranking officer involved in the U.S. military hierarchy in Africa in five months.
Gen.
William “Kip” Ward, the first four-star general to command U.S.
military operations in Africa, was demoted for excessive spending from
duty at U.S. Africa Command (Africom).
He lost one star and retired a lieutenant general.
Ward
used his rank to shuttle his wife on shopping sprees, enjoyed a lavish
beachfront trip and once accepted a Defense contractor’s gift of going
backstage to meet actor Denzel Washington.
There are reports that
two high-ranking military officers, Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette and
General Carter Ham, were fired by Obama for wanting to come to the
assistance of the beleaguered U.S. missions in Benghazi.
via Michael Savage
source: BBC NEWS