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

originally posted by: Agit8dChop

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

You are missing the whole point, they lied until after the election, he then let Rice take the fall as he hung her out to dry.

Oh and Clinton said it was lightly guarded because Republicans would not fund it. Lol, so many levels of failure, all the time, but you keep believing....

originally posted by: Agit8dChop

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!

Well,...so you think this public outrage is over the fact that "white" people were killed?
Dude, your racism is showing!

originally posted by: oldetimehockey4
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?

Because the D's are held to a different standard than the R's.

The D' are the party of can't do anything wrong, never do anything wrong.

As to Clinton he got impeached, and made millions from being 'Potus'.

a reply to: Agit8dChop

I assume that you must be connected to Nation of Islam.

Your seething hatred for "white people" is pretty disgusting, but what ever floats your boat I guess.


And......the topic is not what Bush did.
Using Bush as an excuse is an elementary level of debate I would expect over at GLP.

oh boy; I cannot wait for yet another benghazi investigation..
This time surely there will find what they're looking for, and it won't end in yet another wild goose chase ultimately doing nothing and going nowhere.

a reply to: IAMTAT

WHAT????

SO...AS EVIDENCE THAT THIS WAS A SOPHISTICATED TERRORIST ATTACK...YOU SUGGEST THEY USED STATE DEPARTMENT PHONES TO CALL THIER LEADERS????

WHAT??? REALLY?

Can you imagine that call?

"Hello?"

"Operation embassy attack is going great!"

"Why are you calling me on a cell!! You idiot! Want to wake up to a drone hovering outside your door!"

"No worries boss...it's not my phone, I am using the State Departments cell line!"

WTF?? So Osama Bin Laden refused to use a cell phone for almost a decade...but these terrorists CALL THEIR BOSS...FROM STATE DEPARTMENT PHONES??????

Stupid...Stupid claims.

Back this crap up.

a reply to: Indigo5

If you read the OP you'd see the claims seem to originate from a former United States Air Force Major on this story. Eric Stahl. Who reported hearing and learning of this from the men that night who directly handled it. Other sources are referenced, but that is the specific name which jumps out at me.

Looking into it a bit further, I found he'd also NOT been among those to offer testimony to the State Department investigation. Interesting on that, and I'm sure it'll be looked into for how that oversight could have occurred. Who knows...right?

Perhaps all those other investigations weren't quite 100% complete after all. well....maybe this next one with the Select committee will be.

I'm interested to hear more about what an USAF Major who was directly involved with events has to say on the matter though, and these are the people I've really been wondering about silence from. The many "little people" involved at all levels of a thing like this.

Well, lets hear from them now that they're leaving service and have more latitude to discuss things.

ok.
so they want us to believe the terrorists
suddenly forgot who to kill?
so they look for a phone to ring the boss!???

"hay boss, did you say take them prison or kill them?
KILL THEM! oh and boss tell my wife I will be late"

you relay believe they needed to ring the boss?
this info is being set up to play some game???

a reply to: Indigo5

The use of cells phones are very very common in the ME. They are used all the way from simple calls, to IED triggers to signaling devices.

Maybe some here should study the different types of cell networks there are.
Other countries operate using an Ad Hock style system, where small wireless based antennas and base stations are used to hop the signal from close proximity to another. Some don't even touch a cellular based network.

And again, it is a cultural thing to take what is around and use it. Cell phones off dead Americas not excluded.

a reply to: buddha

I'd say it suggests these guys were so confident in their safety and window of time to do whatever they were there to do, they didn't have an issue with using phones laying around, and obviously American. I'd guess they picked them up, verified they worked and said 'screw it..what are they going to do?'. Think about where they were and what they were doing at that moment, and they had a real good point if that was their thinking. Not a thing...was the answer.

It's also VERY possible their command element somewhere else had a much better overview of what was happening and if any American assets were being moved, as well as when. That's definitely a thing people in the middle of over-running a compound wouldn't have time to get themselves but would sure want to know if a handy way appeared to call and ask.

I'm sure it wasn't their only communication, but apparently they are opportunistic. Who'd have thought it?

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Indigo5

The use of cells phones are very very common in the ME. They are used all the way from simple calls, to IED triggers to signaling devices.

Maybe some here should study the different types of cell networks there are.
Other countries operate using an Ad Hock style system, where small wireless based antennas and base stations are used to hop the signal from close proximity to another. Some don't even touch a cellular based network.

And again, it is a cultural thing to take what is around and use it. Cell phones off dead Americas not excluded.

Notice the cell phones in these following images...

Warning, these are graphic disturbing images of ambassador Stevens after the attack...

johnbrislinshow.com...

The images were probably taken with a cell phone. One of the persons "helping" Stevens has one in his mouth.

Curious.

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.

In the words of Hillary Clinton... "what difference does it make?"

a reply to: MrWendal
Terrorists on both sides have never had a sophisticated attack. Even with the millions they get they operate like idiots. They crash helicopters. miss targets, and kill the wrong people all the time. 9 out of 10 of these guys have mental disorders. Box cutters. real sophisticated weapons there, Habib.

originally posted by: earthdude
a reply to: MrWendal
Terrorists on both sides have never had a sophisticated attack. Even with the millions they get they operate like idiots. They crash helicopters. miss targets, and kill the wrong people all the time. 9 out of 10 of these guys have mental disorders. Box cutters. real sophisticated weapons there, Habib.

Because terrorism is the antithesis of modern warfare.

Current modern military operation is coordination, precision, surgical strikes etc, that really does give a eff about collateral damage.

Terrorism is barbaric blunt force trauma to 'scare' the infidels in to submission, and don't care the more 'innocents' that die. The better it is for them.

That is why it is 'effective', and has been used so much over the ME for the past 50 years.

I believe this was a coordinated plan between the POTUS and terrorists to kidnap Ambassador Stevens so that he could be traded for the terrorists later released for Bergdahl. The Marines who defied orders to stand down messed up the whole episode. That's why the hurry up to make a awful cover story and the off the wall excuses made by the administration. This was the initial attempt to empty Gitmo.

originally posted by: neo96

Current modern military operation is coordination, precision, surgical strikes etc, that really does give a eff about collateral damage.

Terrorism is barbaric blunt force trauma to 'scare' the infidels in to submission, and don't care the more 'innocents' that die. The better it is for them.

That would be quite funny if it wasn't about something so serious.

Read any account of modern wars from the point of view of a bystander or victim.

They are very different from accounts by "embedded" journalists.

The terrorism you describe is closer to "shock and awe" than the hearts and minds stuff of the suicide bomber.

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: Indigo5

If you read the OP you'd see the claims seem to originate from a former United States Air Force Major on this story. Eric Stahl. Who reported hearing and learning of this from the men that night who directly handled it. Other sources are referenced, but that is the specific name which jumps out at me.

Looking into it a bit further, I found he'd also NOT been among those to offer testimony to the State Department investigation. Interesting on that, and I'm sure it'll be looked into for how that oversight could have occurred. Who knows...right?

If Fox has it's story straight, he was the C-17 pilot that transported the deceased and survivors. I imagine he is as informed as a Taxi driver involved in general chit-chat. Any information (if any)..through his own admission ...is not first hand knowledge and derived from those he transported. So him being "NOT" included in "those offering testimony" is not mysterious? They had those that actually had first hand knowledge testify? And certainly the survivors that Maj. Dahl claimed to have heard it from? Why would they call the C-17 pilot to testify on matters that he was not witness too?...but rather "heard"...when they had everyone that was on that plane entering testimony?


The witness list was assembled by Issa as well as others...you think Issa is working for Obama?

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: Indigo5

I'm interested to hear more about what an USAF Major who was directly involved with events has to say on the matter though, and these are the people I've really been wondering about silence from. The many "little people" involved at all levels of a thing like this.

He flew a plane...if that is even accurate...I don't categorize that as "direct involvement". His claim is hearsay...there are easily 100 others that were more directly involved...From the Embassy personnel...to the CIA team on the ground...to the two separate Spec Ops teams deployed..to the CIA and State Dept. Managers.

a reply to: Indigo5

You clearly don't have any clue or understanding as to the relationship between pilots that transport or "taxi" SF groups around.

Nor does it seem that you have any clue as to how the Govt operates their telecom network.

The phones don't exactly have Dept of State stamped on them. So, the terrorists wouldn't exactly know they are tied back to any agency.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Indigo5

The use of cells phones are very very common in the ME. They are used all the way from simple calls, to IED triggers to signaling devices.

And water is wet. WTF does that have to do with anything?? The use of unsecured cell phones to discuss terrorist plots is not SOP for terrorists. ...LET ALONE...using State Department cell phones (KNOWN TO BE RECORDED) to call their leaders during an attack! "Hey boss...how's it going...Just calling you from a US State Department phone to discuss the ongoing attack you requested...and to identify you in case they had any problems finding you"....For effs sake...this claim is ridiculous.

a reply to: Indigo5

I imagine he is as informed as a Taxi driver involved in general chit-chat. Any information (if any)..through his own admission ...is not first hand knowledge and derived from those he transported.

You may be right, or not. I imagine we're all going to learn when the select committee gets him before their people to testify under oath as to what he does know, does not know and in what context he knew it.

I'm looking forward to seeing how this unfolds with more people available to give context and background for the big picture here.