It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Benghazi: The American People Want The Truth

page: 3
22
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2014 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: rickynews

Good videos


Hard to argue with the words of the wicked themselves.





posted on May, 6 2014 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian


Since 2002, there have been 23 attacks on embassies and consulates and an attack on a US compound in Riyadh.


How many of those resulted in the over-run and total destruction of the facility with the resident Ambassador murdered in the process?

It's not HOW MANY died..and this thing some have for saying body count defines the level of proper reaction may sound fine, unless you're among those related to the bodies being counted. I'm not, here. Not even close. However, I can relate to how much it means. More than that, the loss of a full rank Ambassador and the whole facility is ALMOST unprecedented. Almost......

It's also very important to recall something else. Those who were there when the mob took the compound, died there. 2 didn't make it out from that location with the spur of the moment rescue effort sent from the CIA annex a little over a kilometer away.

Had those guys not come over (and 2 of them died later later in the fighting to defend the annex), we wouldn't be talking about a mere 4, with 2 being US security forces. We'd be talking closer to 2 dozen.

Now...recall how many the United States ACTUALLY lost in Somalia, in Mogadishu, vs. the estimated body count we inflicted to keep the remainder alive through the long night? This would have seen more dead, without that impromptu effort.

Made up or political scandal has to be one of the worst things the families of those 4 men could hear repeated over and over. Their loved ones didn't die in sufficient numbers to consider it more than politics to want to know WHY a militant group risked annhialation to attack.



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: BobAthome

I did not miss it.

The way I found ATS is because of the theories surrounding 9/11, years afterwards.

I am not satisfied with the answers from that tragedy. The only solution the Bush Admin could come up with was the Patriot Act and taking innocent american freedoms away. And Bush gave up trying to get Bin Laden.

Until people are impeached and imprisoned for that failure and the useless wars, the republicans have no credibility on any foreign issue or tragedy.



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000



with the resident Ambassador murdered in the process?

He was raped too.

Plus, the terrorists blew a hole in the wall previous to the 'demonstration', in a test run against security there at the compound. It wasn't if there weren't warning bells that went unheeded.



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: rickynews

I see you didn't read the report. The CIA was found to be behind the talking points attributing the attack to protesters. This wasn't a far fetched assumption considering that there were 30+ large protests/riots ongoing around the world, including Benghazi, over the video Innocence of Muslims.

The assertion that the attack was carried out by protesters was dropped within a couple of weeks as details emerged.



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

I won't even go there without 100% confirmation. Others may, I suppose, but I won't. I've barely mentioned it more than a couple times since the day this happened and it's just TOO inflammatory to American society to really throw out there without being certain.

His body, being dragged through the streets, did not look abused. Not that way, anyway. That doesn't mean nothing happened, but nothing I've seen says it did, either. If that's changed and medical or other solid evidence has come out, I'd be very interested in hearing about it.

I have no doubt Stevens died hard. Probably..very hard. He sure didn't die among friends. I'm just not prepared to go that far in speculation myself, for a lot of reasons. Decency being just one.



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: rickynews

About the only thing left is for President Obama to post a confession, written in blood, on all the billboards in the whole country.
He would state his complicity in the planning and exicution of the riots and attacks that night.

Does anyone really think this would be sufficient?

How many inquiries and investigations will it take before the right is able to get down to doing it's job in service of the people of the United States?



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: BobAthome

I did not miss it.

The way I found ATS is because of the theories surrounding 9/11, years afterwards.

I am not satisfied with the answers from that tragedy. The only solution the Bush Admin could come up with was the Patriot Act and taking innocent american freedoms away. And Bush gave up trying to get Bin Laden.

Until people are impeached and imprisoned for that failure and the useless wars, the republicans have no credibility on any foreign issue or tragedy.


your quote:
"I am not satisfied with the answers from that tragedy"
unquote.

But you are satisfied with the Bengazi answer's?,



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Oh, and you're absolutely right about the wall being blown out. The group claiming immediate responsibility named themselves after demanding the release of Omar Abdel-Rahman. You may recall the Blind One from the 1993 attempt on the World Trade Center. Near as I can tell, he's still safe and sound in a Federal Medical Facility (no longer the one in my general area, thank God.) but it IS a small world, isn't it?

The guards which the State Department insisted were plenty for security of the compound and everyone inside......just watched that bomb get planted and then watched the bomber casually walk back and drive off in a pickup truck. (They got pictures of it, too. Very clear ones from the mounted cameras). No attempt to intervene or interfere. Some security.....and these are the same guys the staffer who was murdered at the compound had texted out earlier, saying at least one was among the attackers against the compound.

Oh..yeah..there is A LOT left to answer for, and most? LONG before Obama rightly even enters the picture for his level of control.
edit on 6-5-2014 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: BobAthome

No. I don't know why we are even over there. They all hate americans. Ambassadors are not the military. They get to go where they want and are always in danger from home territory. Goes with the job.



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Video: Former Deputy Director of CIA Michael Morell believed both Spontaneous Protest and Terrorist Attack



Video: Mike Morell's Changes talking points, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and President Obama "anti-Muslim" video.

What did they know, and When did they know it?







edit on 6-5-2014 by rickynews because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-5-2014 by rickynews because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

actually the Amb. and Company were getting along well, with the local Libian's.
It was the out of towners that caused the firestorm.



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: BobAthome

The official cables and communications for months leading up to that night tell a very different story. A number of the major nations had already pulled out for the deteriorating security situation. Things like a Gov't transport helicopter flying in voting materials, as I recall the situation report from the documents, taking fire seemingly just because it was something to shoot at. It almost crashed for it, too.

Bombings and issues with the locals at checkpoints are among the things reported back..again..for months before the fatal night came.

Folks focus on that night like it's the start and end of this and I can see why that is. The media is single minded in IT'S focus for either investigating or forgetting about that night, depending on the channel.

The fact is, the bad conduct and bad faith decisions being made start long before Stevens died, at least in part, as a result of them.
edit on 6-5-2014 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: BobAthome

Well, see, from your own statement. This whole Benghazi thing is a dog chasing its tail. It would seem there were several factions, each with it its own intent of violence and murder. Nothing was going to stop it. Our ambassadors should stop the Rock Star mentality and realize they are not home.



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: rickynews

Then you are suggesting a spontanious protest could not degrade into an attack by some terrorist factions?
Or maybe it was not a spontanious protest, just a parade used to get the attackers into the proper positions.
That would explain a lot of the cunfusion. Most of which could be cleared up if we would just ask those Americans who were there what they saw. This may be the basis of what Ms. Clinton was talking about when she asked, "What difference does it make how or why it happened? "



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000


Made up or political scandal has to be one of the worst things the families of those 4 men could hear repeated over and over. Their loved ones didn't die in sufficient numbers to consider it more than politics to want to know WHY a militant group risked annhialation to attack.


I'm with you right up until here. The early intelligence briefs incorrectly attributed the attack to protesters angry over the video. That was cleared up in about two weeks time. "WHY?" Aren't "militant groups" (why not call them terrorists, what are YOU trying to cover up?) by definition, militant? Does it matter if it was the Innocence of Muslims video that was the impetus or Ayman al-Zawahiri's call for revenge over the death of Abu Yahya al-Libi (or maybe both)?

What about the attack and the circumstances preceding the attack hasn't been detailed to your satisfaction?



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: BobAthome

Well, see, from your own statement. This whole Benghazi thing is a dog chasing its tail. It would seem there were several factions, each with it its own intent of violence and murder. Nothing was going to stop it. Our ambassadors should stop the Rock Star mentality and realize they are not home.


well if by ROCK STAR mentality u mean,,



his lifestyle, then hey why didn't the lgbt commune go after this, injustice???

i guess l dont understand American politics.



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 12:50 PM
link   
It's disappointing how little people seem to know of what happened, even though we have testimony from people who were there and escaped. There's much rage and anger, it's hard to know if it is faux or simply ignorant.

What is your complaint? Two common ones:

1) The President lied about the reason for the attack.
Who bloody well cares? No, really - is he supposed to be psychic within a couple of days of the tragic attack? How is he supposed to know instantly who did it for whatever reason? These things take time to know, but people demand answers instantly. Get a grip on reality. As more facts were uncovered, it became apparent that the video was unrelated.

2) These four men were abandoned and killed brutally crying for help that did not come.
Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith died of smoke inhalation due to the fire, in roughly 30 minutes of the first attack (one person with them escaped the smoke-filled 'safe room' where they were last seen alive). Their deaths may have even been accidental, but they weren't brutally killed or shot. The two security men who died were killed by mortar fire in the second attack, and the CIA compound was abandoned.

Stevens was widely respected by Libyans, and they were the ones who found him and brought him to a hospital in an attempt to save his life - he was not found by U.S. forces from the CIA compound. The images and video of people carrying him through the streets were of his attempted rescuers - not his killers. This was at a small consulate - not an embassy - and Stevens had just returned on the 10th of September (after nine months of absence), so far as I can tell. There were two large attacks with some fighting and an hours-long lull in between.

Mr. Hicks in Tripoli later stated that Mrs. Clinton wanted to make the small consulate a permanent State Department mission, amongst other things (like SOCAFRICA denying a response team). Of course, this same Mr. Hicks was the one who hung up on Ambassador Stevens' attempts to request help, before finally answering the third call (he justifying it by saying it was an unknown number). Frankly, I'm not sure I trust Hicks' testimony on anything.
edit on 12Tue, 06 May 2014 12:52:11 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago5 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 12:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: teamcommander
a reply to: rickynews

Then you are suggesting a spontanious protest could not degrade into an attack by some terrorist factions?
Or maybe it was not a spontanious protest, just a parade used to get the attackers into the proper positions.
That would explain a lot of the cunfusion. Most of which could be cleared up if we would just ask those Americans who were there what they saw. This may be the basis of what Ms. Clinton was talking about when she asked, "What difference does it make how or why it happened? "

Do you think that the spontaneous protesters were the ones that planted the bomb that blew the hole in the wall on June 6th?
Or is it possible that any thinking person at the State Department might have looked at the bombing as a precursor to a terrorist attack?



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 12:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: theantediluvian


Since 2002, there have been 23 attacks on embassies and consulates and an attack on a US compound in Riyadh.


How many of those resulted in the over-run and total destruction of the facility with the resident Ambassador murdered in the process?

It's not HOW MANY died..and this thing some have for saying body count defines the level of proper reaction may sound fine, unless you're among those related to the bodies being counted. I'm not, here. Not even close. However, I can relate to how much it means. More than that, the loss of a full rank Ambassador and the whole facility is ALMOST unprecedented. Almost......


Almost my ass! Is this the information you're looking for?

www.huffingtonpost.com...


The Benghazi attacks (the consulate and the CIA compound) are absolutely not unprecedented even though they're being treated that way by Republicans who are deliberately ignoring anything that happened prior to Inauguration Day, January 20, 2009.

January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al Qaeda attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of "Bali Bombings." No fatalities.

February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al Qaeda terrorists storm the diplomatic compound, killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.

July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.

March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name "David Foy." This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what's considered American soil.)

September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting "Allahu akbar" storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.

January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.

March 18, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.

July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.

September 17, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.


I'd guess the answer would be "Way more than four!"




top topics



 
22
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join