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: 8
59
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




That's a very loaded question. That would imply that the member in question knew the facts and circumstances behind the event, which they have already admitted they do not.


I find it very comical that you are trying so hard to discredit me.




posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 11:33 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

Thanks for the summary



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 11:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: introvert




That's a very loaded question. That would imply that the member in question knew the facts and circumstances behind the event, which they have already admitted they do not.


I find it very comical that you are trying so hard to discredit me.



You discredited yourself.

You appeal to your own authority and then try to dismiss authority when it trumps your own.



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 11:34 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Nothing Patraeus has said changes what the standing SOP is for QRF, especially when protecting American assets.



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 11:37 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

You show force. Will. Intent to see something through. Yes, I totally thought out every word of it. You let the enemy know that we are not a soft target. They may have got us but it won't happen again. If you want to test our resolve you will fail miserably.



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 11:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: introvert

Nothing Patraeus has said changes what the standing SOP is for QRF, especially when protecting American assets.



Again, you dismiss authority that has much more experience and knowledge than you, but try to use your own experience and knowledge to push your agenda.

The hypocrisy is hilarious.



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 11:41 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Look man. What about this don't you get?

The SOP for all Quick Reaction Forces is THE SAME.

All of them.

When you're dealing with SOAR assets or Special Operations Forces on QRF or just a squad of infantry dudes on QRF, the SOP is the same.

Like I also said, I've responded several times to TICs and consulate attacks while on QRF. It's what I did as an army crew chief manning a gun on an H60M. Responding to this stuff was my freaking job dude.

Spent 1/3 of my career doing that in combat.

It doesn't matter what Patraeus says. The SOP is the same now as it was then.



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 11:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: introvert

Nothing Patraeus has said changes what the standing SOP is for QRF, especially when protecting American assets.



Again, you dismiss authority that has much more experience and knowledge than you, but try to use your own experience and knowledge to push your agenda.

The hypocrisy is hilarious.


Been following this discussion. Does it help to swallow your own bull** by repeating yourself? You have 0 absolute facts. You have "thing's said," "reports," and laughable media accounts. Do you have something tangible from a 1st or even 2nd hand account? Your standing on 3rd/4th etc party information.

From PVXN we at least have a clear 1st person account of what SHOULD have happened.



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 11:42 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

I get it quite well.

You are a hypocrite.

Thanks for easily exposing yourself.



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 11:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: introvert




That's a very loaded question. That would imply that the member in question knew the facts and circumstances behind the event, which they have already admitted they do not.


I find it very comical that you are trying so hard to discredit me.


Disregard these fools. They have no understanding of what it means to protect others and defend them with your life. They see war through 4K TVs and game consoles and think lying under oath is no different than not leaving a tip at the local pizza joint.



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 11:44 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

I have facts from 8 investigations.

You have anecdotal accounts from anonymous people on the internet.






posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 11:44 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

I think most people would disagree with your assessment of how this conversation has gone.



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 11:45 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




You have anecdotal accounts from anonymous people on the internet.


I am, by FAR, not anonymous on the internet.

I can be easily found. As I invited you to do.



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 11:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: JinMI

I have facts from 8 investigations.

You have anecdotal accounts from anonymous people on the internet.





4th hand information. I stand corrected.



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 11:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: introvert

I think most people would disagree with your assessment of how this conversation has gone.


Another fallacy.

I want facts. Your appeal to the majority is worthless.



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 11:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: introvert




You have anecdotal accounts from anonymous people on the internet.


I am, by FAR, not anonymous on the internet.

I can be easily found. As I invited you to do.


I don't give a #.

Stand on your own arguments, if you can make them.



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 11:49 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

I gave them to you.

I have told you over and over again that there is standard procedures to be followed for such attacks and you dismissed them outright as "meaningless".

You don't want a discussion you want an echo chamber.



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 11:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: introvert

I gave them to you.

I have told you over and over again that there is standard procedures to be followed for such attacks and you dismissed them outright as "meaningless".

You don't want a discussion you want an echo chamber.


It appears I stand alone on this issue. It is you that has the echo chamber to back you up.

Your argument has failed.

You appealed to authority and then dismissed authority higher than you.

edit on 2-8-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 11:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: introvert

I gave them to you.

I have told you over and over again that there is standard procedures to be followed for such attacks and you dismissed them outright as "meaningless".

You don't want a discussion you want an echo chamber.




You appealed to authority and then dismissed authority higher than you.


You keep repeating it, and it's still bull. We should probably trust our president too, seeing is how we're American?



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 11:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: introvert

I gave them to you.

I have told you over and over again that there is standard procedures to be followed for such attacks and you dismissed them outright as "meaningless".

You don't want a discussion you want an echo chamber.




You appealed to authority and then dismissed authority higher than you.


You keep repeating it, and it's still bull. We should probably trust our president too, seeing is how we're American?



That makes no sense.

We're talking about an appeal to military knowledge and authority.



new topics

top topics



 
59
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join