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.

 

The father of a Benghazi victim destroys CNN's Costello's attempts to deflect for Hilary.

page: 4
59
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




Unless the people at the embassy were involved in a classified operation and SOP did not apply.


That doesn't make any sense at all.

Teir 1 operations are not exempt from SOP.

Especially not when it comes to protecting American assets.




posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 06:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: introvert




If it was a classified operation, what would Obama and Hillary do? They would lie. I don't like that idea, but I am not beyond that consideration.



That is understandable.

But not providing support is NOT.


Let's also not forget that two of them men killed were Foreign Service employees and two were CIA operatives.

How does SOP apply there?
edit on 2-8-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 06:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: projectvxn

Intent has nothing to do with it.

It appears the point went over your head.

It's quite possible that something else was going on in Benghazi and they had to lie to cover their asses.

Why? It may have been a classified operation.


BFD!

They still didn't get anyone there to even secure the scene!

What, they caught 1 guy that was in the attack? ANd he practically gave himself up!

Obama and hillary's "no boots on the ground" policy, has bitten them in the ass. Many times.




posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

It doesn't matter.

There was a Delta detachment in the area with the security clearance to deal with just about anything.

There were also SOAR assets to transport them.

There was also Air Force Pararescue available.

There was a contingent of MARSOC.

US Army SF.

The list goes on.

Plenty of people with the necessary equipment and training could have been called. It doesn't matter if they were CIA assets or not. The EMBASSY is not a Tier 1 asset. It is designated as a protected asset and no protection was ever provided.



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn



The EMBASSY is not a Tier 1 asset.


So it is not a Tier 1 asset, which contradicts your previous statement.

Can we therefore conclude that it may be exempt from SOP?



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 06:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: introvert




Do you have any inside information about what happened in Benghazi?


All I can speak to is the operational side.

I know for a fact that SOP was outright ignored in this situation.

I too have responded to embassy attacks in Afghanistan. The SOP for an attack on an embassy is the same everywhere.


Unless the people at the embassy were involved in a classified operation and SOP did not apply.


Great, no exit plan? No plan B if it went wrong?







posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 06:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: introvert




Do you have any inside information about what happened in Benghazi?


All I can speak to is the operational side.

I know for a fact that SOP was outright ignored in this situation.

I too have responded to embassy attacks in Afghanistan. The SOP for an attack on an embassy is the same everywhere.


Unless the people at the embassy were involved in a classified operation and SOP did not apply.


Great, no exit plan? No plan B if it went wrong?






I don't know. Do you?

Seems to me the 8 Benghazi investigations would have figured that out.



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 06:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: introvert




Do you have any inside information about what happened in Benghazi?


All I can speak to is the operational side.

I know for a fact that SOP was outright ignored in this situation.

I too have responded to embassy attacks in Afghanistan. The SOP for an attack on an embassy is the same everywhere.


Unless the people at the embassy were involved in a classified operation and SOP did not apply.


Great, no exit plan? No plan B if it went wrong?






I don't know. Do you?

Seems to me the 8 Benghazi investigations would have figured that out.


Except that when you have people lying and hiding stuff under oath, and no justice department willing to prosecute lying under oath, one can get away with near anything.



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Once again you're showing you do not understand the difference between Tier 1 assets and operations and the protected class that embassies fall under.

While on duty a UH60M helicopter operating with SOF units is a Tier 1 asset.

The US embassy regardless of what kind of operations it is running, is not a Tier 1 asset. It has its own protection class for a reason.

Top priority goes to protecting embassies. They CAN use Tier 1 assets to protect it. There were plenty around and chose not to.



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace

That doesn't mean much. I cannot comment on that.



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn



There were plenty around and chose not to.


Chose not to? That implies a deliberate decision was made not to support them. Can you prove that?

The 8 investigations couldn't.
edit on 2-8-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




Chose not to? That implies a deliberate decision was made not to support them. Can you prove that?


Ignoring SOP for 12 hours says everything I need to know.



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 07:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: projectvxn



There were plenty around and chose not to.


Chose not to? That implies a deliberate decision was made not to support them. Can you prove that?

The 8 investigations couldn't.


Couldn't what? Prove they were lying? Or prove there was no decision?

Eight investigations with possible Clinton involvement couldn't prove the sky was blue or that gravity held crap to earth.



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 07:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: introvert




Chose not to? That implies a deliberate decision was made not to support them. Can you prove that?


Ignoring SOP for 12 hours says everything I need to know.


So you can't prove your own claim.

That's all I need to know.



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 07:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: introvert




Do you have any inside information about what happened in Benghazi?


All I can speak to is the operational side.

I know for a fact that SOP was outright ignored in this situation.

I too have responded to embassy attacks in Afghanistan. The SOP for an attack on an embassy is the same everywhere.


Unless the people at the embassy were involved in a classified operation and SOP did not apply.


Great, no exit plan? No plan B if it went wrong?






I don't know. Do you?

Seems to me the 8 Benghazi investigations would have figured that out.



Well, obviously they didn't.

Which is derelict, to me as a layman.

projectvxn can give you more tech details than I.





posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace

Again, doesn't mean much. I cannot comment on your inability to comprehend the question.



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Nice deflection.

You are arguing from a position of ignorance.

I'm speaking from a position of operational knowledge.

Let me know when that sinks in.
edit on 2 8 16 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 07:08 PM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy

If I am not mistaken, dereliction of duty only applies to US Military members.



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 07:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: introvert

Nice deflection.

You are arguing from a position of ignorance.

I'm speaking from a position of operational knowledge.

Let me know when that sinks in.


No, you are not. You said yourself you have no knowledge of the facts behind this operation.

Your entire argument is based on a logical fallacy and has no place in a factual, logical debate.

I mean that in the most respectful way, and thank you for your service...for what it's worth.



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




No, you are not. You said yourself you have no knowledge of the facts behind this operation.


Yes I am. This operation is no different than any other embassy protection or response situation. It should NEVER have gone down the way it did. PERIOD.




Your entire argument is based on a logical fallacy and has no place in a factual, logical debate.


Explain? I'm giving you operational details on how these situations are supposed to be handled.

Consulate of Herat This was my unit that responded to that as soon as the call went out.

That is SOP. You don't wait for local forces and you sure as hell don't wait for 12 hours while people are dying.




I mean that in the most respectful way, and thank you for your service...for what it's worth.


Don't patronize me.




top topics



 
59
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join