[HoosierDaddy]

That you think that statement makes me an Islamophobe colors everything else you say. I could tell you until I'm blue in the face that I think every religion is fucking retarded equally, and that all the radicals are equally retarded, but it wouldn't matter. I explained my statement above. You refuse to see it any other way.

I refuse to be baited by you anymore.

I hope you are happy in your hate filled world.

[Studlock]

Did I read that wrong? Was it a typo? Because that's what got my hackles up. I don't think you're a bad gut or anything I just really, really disagree with the amount of problem exist because of the USA. I agreed with you over and over about ISIS but ISIS isn't actually the problem, it's a symptom of it. The problem is states like the USA (and Russia, and Israel, and anyone else who think they can abuse their power for gain against weaker enemies). Until the world becomes a more balanced place where trade and wealth doesn't flow to three or four places shit like this isn't going to go away. It'll keep happening over and over again until the entire world is ash and dust. For me ISIS is only a smaller part of a much larger global problem. Of course individuals are responsible for their actions but again we're not taking about the individuals, we're talking about a larger thing. Yelling to kill ISIS, while understandable, won't solve the problem because the ISIS aren't the creators of the problem but a product of it.

Anyways, I'm sorry for throwing shade and if I miss read you post I originally replied to.

And I'm truly sorry if it bothers you but I can never respect a nation that was built on genocide and slavery and war (and as previously stated, I have very little respect for a great many states and nations), and has done very little to recant it's past. You can yell at me for that but I think the statistics speak for itself. It's not like I filled the world with hate, I just inherited that way.

[Morgoth]

I do not think it’s reasonable to claim that ISIL (IS now, I guess) exist in a vacum. The middle east has been the playground of every major power since Rome, and was no less exploited by, say, the Ottomans than the British. Or the Americans. Or the Persians for that matter. The Middle East we have today still looks much like the administrative regions of the Ottomans.

You can easily point to the unlawful invasion of Iraq combined with the US support of Saudia Arabia and other regimes in the region as the cause of what’s happening right now. To some extent that would be correct too. However, even without US meddling something like IS was bound to emerge eventually. The ironing out of borders. The creation of nation states. It requires conflict. If the Middle East is to stabilize I believe the region needs to work out a more organic system of borders. Maybe that’s possible without conflicts. There are examples I believe (though even in cases such as Norway and Sweden there were conflicts, just not particularly violent ones), but I find it very doubtful that anything but all out war will settle the issues of that region.

It was only a matter of time before Iraq split into several pieces. The Americans certainly were a catalyst in the case of IS, but not the root cause of the conflict.

@ EM – I understand why you feel such anger towards the US, and if anyone here is justified in that anger it would be someone born in Iran. However, I think you’re letting your biases drag you too far into the anti-american camp. For one, how much in the way of arms do you believe the US, or the west in general for that matter, have supplied the rebels? If you think ISIL were successful because of western weapons you might want to examine your sources.

I’m also curious as to how you believe imperialism created Wahabism?

[Silencer]

Ok, everyone calm down and take a short walk around the block before coming back to the table,please.

A lot of heated comments going around,and I think at least one of them was fatally incorrectly worded...

[Cause]

Re the Islamaphobia:

I think we should acknowledge the fact that ISIS is not practising Islam as many Muslims understand it. Still you cant just dismiss the Islam term from the equation either. This conflict and many before it have a massive sectarian component. I read recently that 10-35 % of Muslims are radical. I take this factoid with a grain of salt since I cant remember where its from or how they came to such a figure. However even on the lower figure that leads to 160 million radical Muslims. Which would put them in the top ten of religions in their own right by numbers.

Religion is a tricky subject, short of god coming and telling his followers which is the right path you cant just dismiss people as being a wacky fringe group. Especially when the fringe group is massive.

Im not saying Islam is the enemy, I am just saying we should not be apologists for it either. In twenty years since Apartheid ended I have never found a white person who thought it was a good idea. Take that as you will but I thinkin part it suggests that a very rabid and vocal minority can often steer policy, the great majority of people will simply then accept that is how it is.

This post has been edited by Cause: 15 August 2014 - 08:27 AM

[Obdigore]

Studlock, on 15 August 2014 - 04:31 AM, said:

'You won't because you know that ISIS wouldn't exist without a fundamental craziness that doesn't exist outside the realms of normal Islam'

I'm sorry but this is an Islamphobic statement anyway you cut it. ISIS would not exist without fundamental craziness that does not exist outside the realms of normal Islam. Somehow only fundamental craziness only exist inside the realms of normal Islam? How is that not a bigoted statement? Perhaps it's poorly phrased?

And again I don't fucking condone ISIS, they could all go die in a fire for all I care, I blame them fully, there scum who use peoples believes against in the name of power. I'm just saying the USA also has a lot to answer for creating the environment that ISIS could be created in. It's a damn if do and damn if you don't situation for sure but only because you did it in the first place

Also I don't feel bad at all for shitting on the USA, it deserves do be shitted upon. It's in the same league as ISIS and any other groups that throws it influence and power around to achieves it's goals. A lot of people are dead because of the USA, and still more are dying. It's the black beating heart of modern economic imperialism and you can tell me to fuck off all you want but that doesn't make it any less true

If by 'the USA' you mean 'The Entire Western World, Most of the Middle East, and the Policies of the rest of Asia', then you might have a point.

I don't condone a ton of stuff my country does, as it helps nothing. I will not, however, agree with you that apparently only the USA is 'wrong'. Your hate does not make you strong. Let it go.

If you honestly think that area of the world wasn't a mess before the 'Western' world even discovered the continent of North America, you are clearly blinded by your hate. If you think that thousands of years of war, rapine, pillaging, and grudges would just go away if the US didn't exist, you are clearly blinded by your hate.

Also, I'm unaware that the USA just kills anyone with a different religion, or outlook, or anything, and so are 'just as bad' as ISIS. I'll wait for you to back that up with some sort of proof?

[Obdigore]

Cause, on 15 August 2014 - 08:20 AM, said:

Im not saying Islam is the enemy, I am just saying we should not be apologists for it either. In twenty years since Apartheid ended I have never found a white person who thought it was a good idea. Take that as you will but I thinkin part it suggests that a very rabid and vocal minority can often steer policy, the great majority of people will simply then accept that is how it is.

Are you claiming you haven't found a white person who thought endng Apartheid was a good idea, or you haven't found one who thought Apartheid itself was a good idea?

[Cause]

Obdigore, on 15 August 2014 - 09:47 AM, said:

Cause, on 15 August 2014 - 08:20 AM, said:

Im not saying Islam is the enemy, I am just saying we should not be apologists for it either. In twenty years since Apartheid ended I have never found a white person who thought it was a good idea. Take that as you will but I thinkin part it suggests that a very rabid and vocal minority can often steer policy, the great majority of people will simply then accept that is how it is.

Are you claiming you haven't found a white person who thought endng Apartheid was a good idea, or you haven't found one who thought Apartheid itself was a good idea?

Apologies, someone who thought apartheid itself was a good idea.

[cerveza_fiesta]

Studlock, on 15 August 2014 - 04:31 AM, said:

'You won't because you know that ISIS wouldn't exist without a fundamental craziness that doesn't exist outside the realms of normal Islam'

I'm sorry but this is an Islamphobic statement anyway you cut it. ISIS would not exist without fundamental craziness that does not exist outside the realms of normal Islam. Somehow only fundamental craziness only exist inside the realms of normal Islam? How is that not a bigoted statement? Perhaps it's poorly phrased?

To be fair, HD did explain his actual intention with that statement at least twice. Go back in the thread and have a look.

[amphibian]

Morgoth, on 15 August 2014 - 06:49 AM, said:

@ EM – I understand why you feel such anger towards the US, and if anyone here is justified in that anger it would be someone born in Iran. However, I think you’re letting your biases drag you too far into the anti-american camp. For one, how much in the way of arms do you believe the US, or the west in general for that matter, have supplied the rebels? If you think ISIL were successful because of western weapons you might want to examine your sources.

I’m also curious as to how you believe imperialism created Wahabism?

I don't think Emperor Magus is anti-American at all. It goes back to the bull in a pottery shop thing. By itself, the bull is ok, the pottery is ok, but the bull really belongs elsewhere because the pottery is getting broken and the shopkeeper is giving all the customers cattle prods, which are being used on the bull, each other and the shopkeeper because the customers are Deep South Walmart level customers.

The intervention of the US, the Soviets/Russians, the Wahhabis and the Iranians over the last 40 years have led to splinter groups and sects being armed wildly beyond their means otherwise. They can now punch far above their weight in terms of bringing weapons and destruction and that in turns gives them political power. The violent radicals are still a small portion of the overall population - exacerbated by the extremely high jobless rate and non-mobility of the people - but their influence is outsized because of their weapons and because of the flight of the middle class to elsewhere in the world. Those who couldn't protect themselves, yet could leave, did exactly that, so the majority of what is left is the very rich and the very poor. With that departure of the institutional memory/tradition along with the middle class, the way of life crumbles and groups like ISIS/ISIL can rise fast. I've seen it happen in Nepal and it's been happening elsewhere in the world for a long, long time.

[Gredfallan Ale]

I think it's fair to say that the involvement of the U.S.A. in Iraq has shaped the circumstances that allowed ISIS to take over.

However, in all the finger-pointing that is happening here, I feel that another, more actual question is being ignored: Should the international community get involved in the current affairs in the Islamic "state"? We can fight over the responsibility all we want, but do we want to allow for another mass genocide to take place, knowingly, while we stand passive at the sideline debating whether or not the U.S. is to blame for it?

What do you think, should we act?

[Studlock]

Obdigore, on 15 August 2014 - 09:46 AM, said:

Studlock, on 15 August 2014 - 04:31 AM, said:

'You won't because you know that ISIS wouldn't exist without a fundamental craziness that doesn't exist outside the realms of normal Islam'

I'm sorry but this is an Islamphobic statement anyway you cut it. ISIS would not exist without fundamental craziness that does not exist outside the realms of normal Islam. Somehow only fundamental craziness only exist inside the realms of normal Islam? How is that not a bigoted statement? Perhaps it's poorly phrased?

And again I don't fucking condone ISIS, they could all go die in a fire for all I care, I blame them fully, there scum who use peoples believes against in the name of power. I'm just saying the USA also has a lot to answer for creating the environment that ISIS could be created in. It's a damn if do and damn if you don't situation for sure but only because you did it in the first place

Also I don't feel bad at all for shitting on the USA, it deserves do be shitted upon. It's in the same league as ISIS and any other groups that throws it influence and power around to achieves it's goals. A lot of people are dead because of the USA, and still more are dying. It's the black beating heart of modern economic imperialism and you can tell me to fuck off all you want but that doesn't make it any less true

If by 'the USA' you mean 'The Entire Western World, Most of the Middle East, and the Policies of the rest of Asia', then you might have a point.

I don't condone a ton of stuff my country does, as it helps nothing. I will not, however, agree with you that apparently only the USA is 'wrong'. Your hate does not make you strong. Let it go.

If you honestly think that area of the world wasn't a mess before the 'Western' world even discovered the continent of North America, you are clearly blinded by your hate. If you think that thousands of years of war, rapine, pillaging, and grudges would just go away if the US didn't exist, you are clearly blinded by your hate.

Also, I'm unaware that the USA just kills anyone with a different religion, or outlook, or anything, and so are 'just as bad' as ISIS. I'll wait for you to back that up with some sort of proof?

I've said before I don't trust very many, if any, state-actors. This includes Western Europe, China, Japan, Russia, etc. The USA is a heavy contributor to the condition of the world today that resulted in the imbalanced global economy favouring Western countries at the expensive of decent living of at lot of people in Africa, East Asia, Southeast Asia, the West Indies and others. And please don't attempt to tell me my peers history, I am very aware of the practices before hand, probably more so than 'war, rapine, pillaging, and grudges'. You misunderstood my 'hate', I don't hate the USA I find it immoral, and not it's people who are usually just as much as a victim of it than anything else (example Ferguson), the USA is last great colonized empire that exist (though with the Russian starting up again and given China's history and current occupation of Tibet I doubt that will be the last) and it has not changed to accommodate the present as it's peer have (and I'm not saying that the U.K. or France is all roses, they are still larger benefiters of their past but at least they 'tried'). So no I don't hate the USA anymore than I would hate the USSR or ISIS, at the end of the day they basically have the same function it's just a matter of scale.


And are you serious with that last question? You realize the Cold War happened right? A conflict mainly defined by the USA and USSR fighting over ideology via proxies (Vietnam comes to mind)? Ringing a bell? And what about this War on Terror which was against Muslim extremist and no one else (in which the Muslim majority suffers the most)? Do you think African slaves changed their religions and outlooks because they chose to do so? Residential schools run by Christians not a thing you learned in school? The USA has done nothing else but attempt to either forcefully make people assimilate to become more American or fought wars make the world a more American-friendly place to say otherwise is disrespectful to all those people who did die in the effort to resist it and just intellectually dishonest.

This post has been edited by Studlock: 16 August 2014 - 12:12 AM

[Gredfallan Ale]

Studlock, on 15 August 2014 - 10:57 PM, said:

I've said before I don't trust very many, if any, state-actors. This includes Western Europe, China, Japan, Russia, etc. The USA is a heavy contributor to the condition of the world today that resulted in the imbalanced global economy favouring Western countries at the expensive of decent living of at lot of people in Africa, East Asia, Southeast Asia, the West Indies and others.

While I agree with you that the USA is a heavy contributor to the state of affairs in the world today, I think you cannot regard that contribution in isolation. During that cold war you mention later in your post, the USSR and the USA both very actively tried to manipulate nations, movements and religious groups to further their interests, by arming and funding strategically. We still see the heritage of those actions today, especially, but not limited to, the situation in the Middle East.

If we look closely at the current efforts by both the USA and Russia, then we might even argue that not much has changed: Russian involvement in the Ukraine, Chechnya; involvement of the USA in Iraq and Afghanistan. Moreover, there have been numerous allegations of both Russia and the USA supplying weaponry to various groups around the world and, more specifically, in the Middle East. I think it's not fair to look at the instability in Iraq only in regard the USA, not the former USSR.

I think both former (?) cold war opponents have contributed massively to the current instability in the Middle East, fertilizing the ground for the emergence of fundamentalism and suppression.

[Studlock]

Gredfallan Ale, on 16 August 2014 - 10:05 AM, said:

Studlock, on 15 August 2014 - 10:57 PM, said:

I've said before I don't trust very many, if any, state-actors. This includes Western Europe, China, Japan, Russia, etc. The USA is a heavy contributor to the condition of the world today that resulted in the imbalanced global economy favouring Western countries at the expensive of decent living of at lot of people in Africa, East Asia, Southeast Asia, the West Indies and others.

While I agree with you that the USA is a heavy contributor to the state of affairs in the world today, I think you cannot regard that contribution in isolation. During that cold war you mention later in your post, the USSR and the USA both very actively tried to manipulate nations, movements and religious groups to further their interests, by arming and funding strategically. We still see the heritage of those actions today, especially, but not limited to, the situation in the Middle East.

If we look closely at the current efforts by both the USA and Russia, then we might even argue that not much has changed: Russian involvement in the Ukraine, Chechnya; involvement of the USA in Iraq and Afghanistan. Moreover, there have been numerous allegations of both Russia and the USA supplying weaponry to various groups around the world and, more specifically, in the Middle East. I think it's not fair to look at the instability in Iraq only in regard the USA, not the former USSR.

I think both former (?) cold war opponents have contributed massively to the current instability in the Middle East, fertilizing the ground for the emergence of fundamentalism and suppression.

I fulling agree that USA isn't the only state responsible for what is happening in at the moment. The game they played with the USSR fucked over a great many people but in trying to concoct another 'great' enemy to duel the USA created the War on Terrorism, which directly lead to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, that has now lead to rise to the ISIS (or is IS nowadays?). Like honestly if you want to look at how the modern Middle East came to be you'd have to look all the way back to the Mongol invasion during the mid-1200s (1256 I think, I'd google it but my pride won't let me) and then all the successive states after it. But at the moment the USA is last barbarian horde knocking at the gate so to speak and thus are at least partially responsible for the suffering of the Iraqi people at the moment (other's obviously being the ISIS who the vast majority of the blame can be placed upon and the asshat of a PM that recently stepped down--Nouri al-Maliki).

[HiddenOne]

EDIT: I'm not getting into this conversation after all.

This post has been edited by HiddenOne: 16 August 2014 - 02:24 PM

[Gredfallan Ale]

Studlock, on 16 August 2014 - 01:03 PM, said:

I fulling agree that USA isn't the only state responsible for what is happening in at the moment. The game they played with the USSR fucked over a great many people but in trying to concoct another 'great' enemy to duel the USA created the War on Terrorism, which directly lead to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, that has now lead to rise to the ISIS (or is IS nowadays?). Like honestly if you want to look at how the modern Middle East came to be you'd have to look all the way back to the Mongol invasion during the mid-1200s (1256 I think, I'd google it but my pride won't let me) and then all the successive states after it. But at the moment the USA is last barbarian horde knocking at the gate so to speak and thus are at least partially responsible for the suffering of the Iraqi people at the moment (other's obviously being the ISIS who the vast majority of the blame can be placed upon and the asshat of a PM that recently stepped down--Nouri al-Maliki).

Sure, we could go back all the way to the big bang, if we trace the causal pathway through design space. However, the fragile and unstable balance, if that, we had leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq was mostly a result of the cold war, a war that left nations, groups and movement armed by either the USA or the USSR. We can simply ignore that and start counting from 2003-onwards, but then we would have a hard time understanding the dynamics between the Kurds, the Syrian state, the Western countries, and even Russia's efforts in regards to the IS. Old, cold war, alliances are once again playing up, such as relations between Iraqi Kurdistan (one of the main opponents of the IS), Israel and Western countries, such as the USA.

Sure, the 2003 invasion was devastating, but the Middle East was already to be a time bomb far prior to that.

For the record, I'm not a supporter of the foreign policies of the USA, some of their policies are truly unethical.

[EmperorMagus]

Morgoth, on 15 August 2014 - 06:49 AM, said:

I do not think it's reasonable to claim that ISIL (IS now, I guess) exist in a vacum. The middle east has been the playground of every major power since Rome, and was no less exploited by, say, the Ottomans than the British. Or the Americans. Or the Persians for that matter. The Middle East we have today still looks much like the administrative regions of the Ottomans.

You can easily point to the unlawful invasion of Iraq combined with the US support of Saudia Arabia and other regimes in the region as the cause of what's happening right now. To some extent that would be correct too. However, even without US meddling something like IS was bound to emerge eventually. The ironing out of borders. The creation of nation states. It requires conflict. If the Middle East is to stabilize I believe the region needs to work out a more organic system of borders. Maybe that's possible without conflicts. There are examples I believe (though even in cases such as Norway and Sweden there were conflicts, just not particularly violent ones), but I find it very doubtful that anything but all out war will settle the issues of that region.

It was only a matter of time before Iraq split into several pieces. The Americans certainly were a catalyst in the case of IS, but not the root cause of the conflict.

@ EM – I understand why you feel such anger towards the US, and if anyone here is justified in that anger it would be someone born in Iran. However, I think you're letting your biases drag you too far into the anti-american camp. For one, how much in the way of arms do you believe the US, or the west in general for that matter, have supplied the rebels? If you think ISIL were successful because of western weapons you might want to examine your sources.

I'm also curious as to how you believe imperialism created Wahabism?

I completely agree that I am biased against US, unfortunately that is not something that I can currently do anything about, hopefully in a few years I will get older and my hate will mellow.

The US and its allies in Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Gulf region have been practically funding the war while simultaneously helping the rebels in anyway they could. I am absolutely sure that If the US hadn't taken the side of rebels at the beginning of revolution it would have been impossible for them to survive for more than a few months against the Syrian Army.
If it is not understandable for people here, I'm strongly against any sort of violent revolution, because it has far more negatives than positives.

The Wahhabi thing is something I said in which I was mistaken. What I said was presented to me as fact in a "History" class. After searching for a while I could not find any reliable source that said "Wahhab was actually a British agent which created his sect because he was paid to do it." I apologize for my mistaken and incorrect statement. (Although I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand, there are a lot of things which our government claimed, everyone called them crazy for it and later they were proved correct)
There is a book called "Confessions of a British Spy" which I believe was the source of the claim in our history book.

http://consortiumnew...fundamentalism/
This is an article that I found particularly insightful. I don't know how reliable the site is but I complety agree with it.

[Cause]

EmperorMagus, on 19 August 2014 - 03:28 PM, said:

Morgoth, on 15 August 2014 - 06:49 AM, said:

I do not think it's reasonable to claim that ISIL (IS now, I guess) exist in a vacum. The middle east has been the playground of every major power since Rome, and was no less exploited by, say, the Ottomans than the British. Or the Americans. Or the Persians for that matter. The Middle East we have today still looks much like the administrative regions of the Ottomans.

You can easily point to the unlawful invasion of Iraq combined with the US support of Saudia Arabia and other regimes in the region as the cause of what's happening right now. To some extent that would be correct too. However, even without US meddling something like IS was bound to emerge eventually. The ironing out of borders. The creation of nation states. It requires conflict. If the Middle East is to stabilize I believe the region needs to work out a more organic system of borders. Maybe that's possible without conflicts. There are examples I believe (though even in cases such as Norway and Sweden there were conflicts, just not particularly violent ones), but I find it very doubtful that anything but all out war will settle the issues of that region.

It was only a matter of time before Iraq split into several pieces. The Americans certainly were a catalyst in the case of IS, but not the root cause of the conflict.

@ EM – I understand why you feel such anger towards the US, and if anyone here is justified in that anger it would be someone born in Iran. However, I think you're letting your biases drag you too far into the anti-american camp. For one, how much in the way of arms do you believe the US, or the west in general for that matter, have supplied the rebels? If you think ISIL were successful because of western weapons you might want to examine your sources.

I'm also curious as to how you believe imperialism created Wahabism?

I completely agree that I am biased against US, unfortunately that is not something that I can currently do anything about, hopefully in a few years I will get older and my hate will mellow.

The US and its allies in Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Gulf region have been practically funding the war while simultaneously helping the rebels in anyway they could. I am absolutely sure that If the US hadn't taken the side of rebels at the beginning of revolution it would have been impossible for them to survive for more than a few months against the Syrian Army.
If it is not understandable for people here, I'm strongly against any sort of violent revolution, because it has far more negatives than positives.

The Wahhabi thing is something I said in which I was mistaken. What I said was presented to me as fact in a "History" class. After searching for a while I could not find any reliable source that said "Wahhab was actually a British agent which created his sect because he was paid to do it." I apologize for my mistaken and incorrect statement. (Although I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand, there are a lot of things which our government claimed, everyone called them crazy for it and later they were proved correct)
There is a book called "Confessions of a British Spy" which I believe was the source of the claim in our history book.

http://consortiumnew...fundamentalism/
This is an article that I found particularly insightful. I don't know how reliable the site is but I complety agree with it.

Is your own country not the product of a violent revolution?

[EmperorMagus]

Exactly why I don't agree with violent revolution.
Nothing got better and mostly everything got worse after a revolution.

[EmperorMagus]

Quote

The full extent of US co-operation with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar in assisting the rebel opposition in Syria has yet to come to light. The Obama administration has never publicly admitted to its role in creating what the CIA calls a 'rat line', a back channel highway into Syria. The rat line, authorised in early 2012, was used to funnel weapons and ammunition from Libya via southern Turkey and across the Syrian border to the opposition. Many of those in Syria who ultimately received the weapons were jihadists, some of them affiliated with al-Qaida. (The DNI spokesperson said: 'The idea that the United States was providing weapons from Libya to anyone is false.')

In January, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report on the assault by a local militia in September 2012 on the American consulate and a nearby undercover CIA facility in Benghazi, which resulted in the death of the US ambassador, Christopher Stevens, and three others. The report's criticism of the State Department for not providing adequate security at the consulate, and of the intelligence community for not alerting the US military to the presence of a CIA outpost in the area, received front-page coverage and revived animosities in Washington, with Republicans accusing Obama and Hillary Clinton of a cover-up. A highly classified annex to the report, not made public, described a secret agreement reached in early 2012 between the Obama and Erdoğan administrations. It pertained to the rat line. By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi's arsenals into Syria. A number of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of Australian entities. Retired American soldiers, who didn't always know who was really employing them, were hired to manage procurement and shipping. The operation was run by David Petraeus, the CIA director who would soon resign when it became known he was having an affair with his biographer. (A spokesperson for Petraeus denied the operation ever took place.)

The operation had not been disclosed at the time it was set up to the congressional intelligence committees and the congressional leadership, as required by law since the 1970s. The involvement of MI6 enabled the CIA to evade the law by classifying the mission as a liaison operation. The former intelligence official explained that for years there has been a recognised exception in the law that permits the CIA not to report liaison activity to Congress, which would otherwise be owed a finding. (All proposed CIA covert operations must be described in a written document, known as a 'finding', submitted to the senior leadership of Congress for approval.) Distribution of the annex was limited to the staff aides who wrote the report and to the eight ranking members of Congress – the Democratic and Republican leaders of the House and Senate, and the Democratic and Republicans leaders on the House and Senate intelligence committees. This hardly constituted a genuine attempt at oversight: the eight leaders are not known to gather together to raise questions or discuss the secret information they receive.

The annex didn't tell the whole story of what happened in Benghazi before the attack, nor did it explain why the American consulate was attacked. 'The consulate's only mission was to provide cover for the moving of arms,' the former intelligence official, who has read the annex, said. 'It had no real political role.'

The whole text.
http://www.lrb.co.uk...nd-the-rat-line

When I said US had been arming the rebels, I meant this.
It can also be found in this and this.