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.

 

BOMBSHELL! Obama Administration Heard Terrorists Using State Dept. Phones During Benghazi Attacks

page: 4
53
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Good point, but no proof of that.

It could also be just as it appears, which is incompetence that led directly to peoples deaths. To say I'm not impressed by the current management is an understatement.



You know I really really hope youre right that its just incompetence, because the alternative is something I dont want to entertain........

But between this and turning 5 terrorist loose and the gun running in mexico and the handing weapons over to militant Extremist in Syria, im starting to think.................mmmmmmm Maybe not....




posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 05:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: Blaine91555




They had no idea how long that would go on, or how much time they had to get there to maybe save even one person,


Unless they did know.........and THAT is what people need to see the dots connecting here.......

I think they did know, and I think its more nefarious then just not sending help........I think this was a good way to get rid of who was left that knew about the gun running once they were done with them......


I tend to agree here. I posted in another thread that it was entirely too convenient. Not just the reaction lapse but in the days following the lack of urgency getting in there and protecting possible evidence. It seems to me someone wanted to give the crime scene ample time to be corrupted. Blaine has a great point that there is no direct evidence of corruption but I cannot believe we could not have inspected that embassy sooner.



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Progressive bottom line...if we can use it to gain or keep power, no number of deaths are too many. And if you think that is a joke, or sarcastic...you are sadly wrong. Obama, Hillary and their gang wouldn't care one bit if thousands of men, women and children died to keep them in power. Nothing else matters to these people. They honestly believe that the end justifies the means even when life is at stake. And their religion is power. If there was ever an evil...they, are it.



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 06:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Seriously....tell me Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton wasn't told of...or aware of the fact that terrorists were actually communicating on State Department cell phones DURING THE ATTACK.


Yes, it's very likely that she wasn't aware of it during the attack, and wasn't told until later, if at all.

Here's a hint. The U.S. Government is not a Borg Hive Mind. Just because somebody "in a spy agency" is intercepting something doesn't mean that the information is instantly transmitted to the Borg Queen.

Especially "in a spy agency" (they mean NSA signals intelligence), there are some pretty strict protocols for giving out information, especially re sources and methods.

The U.S. Secretary of State is not the boss of the NSA. Clinton would have no power to demand any information or be permitted any information except at the discretion of the NSA---or if ordered by their bosses, i.e. head of DNI and ultimately the President.

People at the top of the pyramid in the US government are not all-powerful Pharoahs, quite to the contrary, they have to wheedle, negotiate, convince and sometimes threaten to get information from large and aggressive bureaucracies, and the NSA is the most difficult of them all.

And so what exactly is the scandal? That public relations people (the last ones to know) were saying something wrong for a few days?


edit on 12-6-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Well Obama did say, 'He's got a pen, and a phone', and it is a 'party' line.

Not surprising to hear this.

I wonder if Obama ever thought that bombing the hell out of Libya, and killing Gaddafi wasn't such a 'great' idea.

Those 'terrorists' came.

They saw.

4 Americans died.

Obama lied.

And those terrorists got free calls.



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 06:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
a reply to: MrSpad

I have to agree. Who would be dumb enough to "out" their terrorist leaders by using a cell phone from a State Department worker?

That's not very smart.

A question though: Why is this piece of the story significant? Perhaps I am missing it's importance.


The 'war on terror' is over.

The Potus says so.

On the other hand ?

It is over when they stop.

Doesn't end with just a 'king's decree'.



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 06:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Seriously....tell me Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton wasn't told of...or aware of the fact that terrorists were actually communicating on State Department cell phones DURING THE ATTACK.


Yes, it's very likely that she wasn't aware of it during the attack, and wasn't told until later, if at all.



So you're saying that while an ongoing terrorist attack was taking place at an American embassy, you actually believe that the Secretary Of State...:" wasn't aware of it (real-time intel) during the attack, and wasn't told until later, if at all".



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 06:38 PM
link   
I think, if this is even true, that the key word here might be DURING. And another key thing might be that and early THEORY (well known to most of us here, aren't they? theories?) about a film being a spark and their using cell phones during the attack aren't exactly mutually exclusive. Bombshell? Seriously? Stretch a little harder...good for the glutes if nothing else, molehill.


edit on 6/12/2014 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 06:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Seriously....tell me Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton wasn't told of...or aware of the fact that terrorists were actually communicating on State Department cell phones DURING THE ATTACK.


Yes, it's very likely that she wasn't aware of it during the attack, and wasn't told until later, if at all.



So you're saying that while an ongoing terrorist attack was taking place at an American embassy, you actually believe that the Secretary Of State...:" wasn't aware of it (real-time intel) during the attack, and wasn't told until later, if at all".


Yes, very much so! Not only is it possible, this is standard for nearly all fast-moving events.

Real life is not like superhero movies. There's no Master Control Program. No all-seeing Vulcan High Command. No Minority Report vid screens. It's meetings, powerpoints, budgets, protocols, weaseling, confusion, a #ton of CYAing, and that's from the good guys---the embedded little emperors and psychopaths make things much worse.

Real life in the national security complex is Dilbert, but with 200 pointy haired bosses who are arguing and stabbing each other in the back, and 25 billionaire Catberts with wicked thoughts on their minds.

Even when you're Secretary of State. You can successfully order around about 10 people who do have to do what you want otherwise they get fired on the spot. That's it.

Much of the time, lack of coordination is incompetence and bureaucratic rules. But sometimes it can be malevolence and jealousy. If the NSA has the information and State doesn't, the NSA will want to "get" something in return for giving out information. It's quite possible that political or bureucratic rivals would intentionally withhold pertinent information in order to embarrass other people and organizations.

Anything involving NSA "sources and methods" will come out very very very late, if at all. There are always excuses in the rule book which can be invoked at any time. There's always "we have to check with our internal counsel first".
edit on 12-6-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-6-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-6-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

But it starts again when the next one says it. The war on terror is not over, if anything it's probably just began which is a very scary thing to think.



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 07:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
I think, if this is even true, that the key word here might be DURING. And another key thing might be that and early THEORY (well known to most of us here, aren't they? theories?) about a film being a spark and their using cell phones during the attack aren't exactly mutually exclusive. Bombshell? Seriously? Stretch a little harder...good for the glutes if nothing else, molehill.



Here lies the problem with the so called cause 'The video'.

1. Libya would have to be the most wired country in the middle east.
2. where were the other protests about the 'video' in other countries ?

We have never gotten the truth out of what happened there.

Not looking like we ever will.



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

Translators weren't available?

We thought it was prank callers?

What difference does it make?

They were calling to complain about a YouTube video?

I'm sure they can come up with talking points that will work into the new narrative.




posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

I hear you. It's getting harder and harder to not think the worst.



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Anybody thinking Hillary and Obama were not "notified" right away is naive.

The Benghazi affair was one of these:

I bet they were in fact monitoring a deal in progress and it got botched.




Shortly after the October 2011 death of Qaddafi, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced in Tripoli that the U.S. was committing $40 million to help Libya “secure and recover its weapons stockpiles.” Department of State Assistant Secretary Andrew Shapiro confirms DOS had a weapons buy-back program in Libya that was also supported by the UK who gave $1.5 million, the Netherlands gave $1.2 million, Germany gave about $1 million and our neighbor to the north, Canada gave $1.6 million to purchase the deadly arsenal that went missing after the fall of Qaddafi.

The State Department was specifically looking to acquire the 20,000 MANPADS (they are commonly known as man-portable air shoulder-fire missiles) that went missing once Qaddafi was killed.




Did CIA and State Department Run Illegal Arms Trafficking in Benghazi? (Dec 10, 2012)


OOps !!!


edit on Jun-12-2014 by xuenchen because:




posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 07:25 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

It is part of that "Obama Phone" tax that is listed on the bottom of each phone bill. Why should only the US moochers be the only ones who have "free" phones? It is mind blowing the things Washington makes us pay for.



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Well, we were ready to oust Clinton after the whole Lewinsky scandal, so can anyone tell me why there doesn't seem to be anywhere near the outrage over Obama's indiscretions?



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 11:18 AM
link   
A few little things I'm wondering about.
Did the terrorist take Selflies and could the NSA access the phones remotely?
I can see terrorist wanting to take a selfies with a dead ambassador, morbid but possible.
And how long were the phones active after the attack? did they have GPS enabled?
Could the NSA have triangulated their position based on cell phone towers being used?



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: mash3d
Great questions.

I'm assuming they all had tracking...but the terrorists probably used them quickly during the attack and dumped them quickly.
The State Dept. must've known where they were at the time they were used.

I'm sure others here would know better than I, however.


edit on 13-6-2014 by IAMTAT because: comment added

edit on 13-6-2014 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 11:38 AM
link   
clutching at straws aren't you?

No ones doubting that armed men, a group of armed men attacked the embassy.

They were probably a mixture of Lebanese, Saudi, Somali.. I don't know grab an atlas take a pic.

Libya was awash with guns and weapons long before Gaddafi was sodomized. No one needed to be armed.

So this group of terrorists has attacked the lightly guarded embassy. Killed a white American and caused hysterical Americans to bare kittens.

The report says they heard the attackers making phone calls. It doesn't say I was listening in on those phone calls.
Regardless, if a dozen armed men over ran a security perimeter that fled in panic, I can imagine many scenarios where CIA communications could have been left on, or in transmit mode, with various voices/people being heard talking.. or making phone calls.

I'm not saying this voids Obama and co of all responsibility, but I think its an absolute rubbish of a claim to use as argumentative ammunition.

But the people calling for his impeachment, his trial, court martial.. his public lynching.. are you that out of touch with reality?

an American died in a warzone, a government official. 1, white, western American!

On a daily basis, your nation is bombing civilian area's. Your murdering lieutenants, foot soldiers, leaders and 2nds in command so often, that FOX NEWS struggles to keep up with the USA #1 Bullplop.

.. and you want to lynch the President because a white American died in a war zone?

Sergio Vieira was blown to bits because President Bush lied to the world and invaded Iraq. You let him walk away with a retirement fund and security! Guess being whites, ok!



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

1...the administration had ALWAYS said this was a terrorist attack, it was the motivation that was under question.


When was the first time they used the word terrorist after the attack, and who directed Rice and Clinton on their spin campaigns?

Even check factcheck.org to get all of the timeline and what was said and when. You must be a totally blind Obama follower to actually suggest he called it correctly before the election. Geez...




top topics



 
53
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join