U.S. Drone CAM was watching Benghazi attacks

reply to post by Destinyone


Add this to the FACT that they had many hostile actions in that area for weeks, or months, prior, and that those stationed there repeatedly asked for better security, and the State Dept. refused the request, and this starts to look more and more like a set-up. Plus, it has to be pointed out that our government helped over throw the leadership in Libya not too long ago, and is thus responsible for all of the unrest to some degree. The only thing I don't get is why anyone not associated with a terrorist group would want this jerk reelected.....

Originally posted by Swills
reply to post by DerepentLEstranger

 

I agree.

I remember reading some where they didn't even see the footage that night because the SEALs weren't broadcasting, or something like that. Bottom line is, that pic is BS. I think this info came out with that recent book by the SEAL who shot OBL.

Navy SEAL Author Rejects the Pentagon's Legal Threat

I have saved that pic to my computer in the past, and opened with a photo editing program. You can clearly see where it's altered, from the pixel changes! Whatever that picture was actually of, O wasn't there at the time, and was added in. Then there is the business of disposing of the body so fast, before anyone could examine it. Makes one wonder who they really shot.....

Originally posted by freedomSlave
I was listening to a am radio talk show about a month ago ( at work) here is Canada and they were talking how it was a planned al qaeda member from a prisoner from guantanamo bay released to the Libyan government flaming the american government on the lies they were perpetuating weeks later the msm in america made their shocking report about what more or less really happened .

Still none of it makes any sense why would the Americans hand this guy over to the Libyans was it all pre planned did this diplomat know something that made him a liability .

My first Impression when the incident happened was the American government wanted they guy off'ed . With them watching the attack with drones more or less seems more plausible

You aren't alone in that initial impression. My very first thought when hearing about this was, "What did this guy know...?" That they had him killed. Everything we have heard since only reenforces that initial impression. Plus, there are now reports (in the NYT) that Obama is secretly working with Iran on pausing their nuclear development till after the election, so that he will look better. If true, and they are willing to work with him, then who else might be willing? There is a LOT this guy is trying to keep secret, and as he said himself, "The only people who don't want to disclose the truth, are people with something to hide." - Barack Obama.

No vile action on his part would surprise me.

Originally posted by randomname
reply to post by Destinyone

 

first, do you want obama to launch a drone strike and blow the entire embassy.

how that look, "obama kills four diplomats".

assets? there are no nearby assets in libya. unless they are clandestine c.i.a agents.

hardly equipped to take on 400 armed protesters.

Strikes like that can be very precise. A drone in the area (and drones can and do kill - as O's hit list proves) could easily have targeted the attackers and left the embassy safe. Heck, helicopters in previous wars provided air support for besieged forces many times. We are a lot more accurate now.

Plus, we can't forget the fact that survivors have reported that some of the guys there supposedly to protect the place pointed out the secret safe house/CIA location/whatever it actually was to the attackers. This was a very professional, planned hit, and the White House and our State Department did nothing to prevent it. Then they lied for weeks. People lie to cover their errors. At the least,m they allowed this. Maybe they did more than that.

oh yea I so agree with the OP they should have sent in the SEALS and killed everyone, no game plan, no tactics, just a massacre.

Moron.

There were two groups of people. Instigators and participants. A response needs to target the instigators. The people who planned the attack and resulting violence. Not the people who were pissed and got caught up in it.

Sending troops in would have grown the conflict. People died it sucks but to start another war for ego is idiotic.

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy
*snip*For whatever reason, it's justified for us to slaughter thousands of civilians, but we can't handle the slightest taste of blowback.
*snip*
I often wonder why it is that countries who don't meddle in Middle Eastern issues don't suffer from "terror threats." Oh wait, that's right! Common sense prevails!*snip*
On a final note, if you had blown up a crowd of rioting people, the repercussions could be huge...*snip*

Terrorists are not civilians. There was no crowd of rioting people. Those there were the attackers, and killing them was the ONLY sensible option. Now, name some country that doesn't get terrorist attacks.

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy

Originally posted by bloodreviara

well im rambling and have gotten off the OP topic, in summary here more could and
should have been done, we must protect those who work in other countries to
promote peace, even if it means sacrificing looking good politically, honestly if
obama had reacted rapidly things may not have ended any different but at the
very least the families of those affected could take some solace in knowing
their family members were priority number 1 at that time and we as a nation did
all we could to bring them home and punish those who committed this crime.

How twisted is it that we'd consider killing dozens of people the right thing to do politically? While I agree that Obama could and should have done more, he's not entirely to blame. The whole plot seems like a Republican set-up; if I recall correctly, Republicans pulled the security forces from the embassy leaving it vulnerable to attack. Had the embassy been better guarded, an attack could have been thwarted; it was not. However, this doesn't mean that a preemptive drone strike would have been a feasible option. In terms of numbers, better 4 dead than 40; race and nationality aside, we're all people.

Killing dozens of terrorists would always be the right thing to do. Not just politically, either. They are killers, and taking them out is the only logical option. No, not "better 4 dead than 40", when the four are our people, and the 40 are attacking terrorists. Yes, a drone strike would have been a viable option. Yes, additional security before the fact, as requested and denied by the State Department, led by Democrat Hillary Clinton, would have helped. I can't even imagine where anyone would get the idea that some Republicans were somehow responsible for withdrawing forces.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes


All of Libya is in complete turmoil as a result of the 2011 civil war. People are displaced, the Gov't is corrupt (Muslim Brotherhood) & weak, the police force is weak, the military is spread thin (& doesn't work well with the police), and worst of all terrorists in Libya are abundant. They first arrived in guise of freedom fighters. They freed fellow terrorists from Libyan prisons during the NATO led civil war. The rebel leader was a terrorist and more terrorists are freely coming over the Libyan borders and are met with little to no resistance. Recently the Libya people took justice into their own hands and over ran militant bases (terrorist bases), drove the terrorists out and set the place ablaze.

So with that, that's why there have been so many attacks since 2011 and continue to grow. The Benghazi consulate was attacked at least twice resulting in them requesting actual security from the US. The security provided was courtesy of the weak and corrupt Libyan Gov't. Notice you don't read about any Libyan security guards dying.

Ex-SEALs, online gaming maven among Benghazi dead

A few hours earlier, Smith had posted, "assuming we don't die tonight. We saw one of our 'police' that guard the compound taking pictures," he recounted.

So these militants, aka terrorists, attack the consulate twice in the past, clearly testing it for a future attack but for some reason Washington DC just can't give them the much need security they requested. What makes matters worse is its obvious the attack was coming because of a few factors;

1. Libya is housed with the Muslim Brotherhood but more importantly Al Qaeda.
2. Two attacks were already made in the past.
3. September 11th's ten year anniversary
4. The terrorists posted the attacks were coming on Facebook
5. They had a drone filming the event. Maybe not for the entire attack, but you never know. We are constantly fed half truths and lies.

Add more fuel to the fire,

1. When the attack came on that day the White House and the MSM were all blaming protests over an anti Muslim movie and continued to push that story for weeks.

- Truth was there was no protest at the consulate, the drone and security cameras prove this. More truth, the protests in Egypt were over the release of the Blind Sheik, not the movie. So the Gov't and MSM caught in a lie yet again.

2. When the truth came out that this was a terrorist attack Washington DC lied again when they said they had no money for security for the consulate. There is at least 2 billion ready to go for security. Then Washington began to play the blame game of "he said, she said" between the "two" parties.

3. Washington DC is blaming the intelligence communities failure to see this attack coming but as I've pointed out above, how could you not see this coming so I propose Washington DC is lying and that they and intel agencies were well aware of the on coming attack.

So add all that up and there is no doubt our Gov't let another terrorist attack happen, much like the 9/11/01.

Do you guys pick up what I'm putting down?

That's because we set up the attack to get rid of that ambassador. He was crap anyways and innocent people died because of him and his gun running to the rebels. He was the link, and now, the link is gone. The movie came out MONTHS prior to this, if they had rockets, grenades, bombs, guns, ect ect, IM sure they wouldn't wait 3/4 months to pull this off they would have just gone and done it.
So now we know obama and his staff are lying, who sent him to that post at the specific time. HE WAS SET UP BY HIS OWN PEOPLE. Period. Terrorist attack my ass. just another 9/11 syops missions to do some closet cleaning is all and get the american people all riled up, christ im surprised they didnt say Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wasnt storming the walls with a nuke in hand to take over the embassy. nothing surprises me any mor when they try to sell men taking over a plane with box cutters.(and people buying it HA!)

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes


Strikes like that can be very precise. A drone in the area (and drones can and do kill - as O's hit list proves) could easily have targeted the attackers and left the embassy safe. Heck, helicopters in previous wars provided air support for besieged forces many times. We are a lot more accurate now.

didnt we crash a 120 million dollar helicopter into a wall supposedly getting bin ladin?lol just food for thought ^^

reply to post by ~widowmaker~


What kind of UAS was it? That's the one thing I haven't seen asked. If it was anything other than a Predator/Reaapor, then there was nothing they could do with it unless they wanted to crash it into the attackers. Then you have the problem of having just lost your ability to know what was going on until you either got another UAS into the area, or had boots on the ground.

reply to post by Zaphod58


i think you replied to wrong person, i didnt mention drones ^^

im pretty sure it was there to make sure "he did die" ^^

reply to post by ~widowmaker~


Yeah, it's not easy sometimes trying to reply half asleep driving down the road.

reply to post by Zaphod58


im pretty sure thats why they made it illegal to text and drive heh ^^ well at least where i live.

im half dead most of the time anyways so i feel yah lol, it bring out my creativity ^9

reply to post by Swills


Excellent points, all! yes, they knew there was a threat, and they have lied at every turn! Everything we learn about this situation (learn in spite of all efforts by the administration) shows that they lie, that they knew of a threat and did, at best, nothing. At the least they allowed the attack. I am not sure it isn't worse than that. Honestly, I think it is, and have since Day One.

Originally posted by ~widowmaker~
*snip*

didnt we crash a 120 million dollar helicopter into a wall supposedly getting bin ladin?lol just food for thought ^^

Hard to say, isn't it? Way too much about that entire incident that was lied about. The picture posted in this thread is but one example. The way the body was dumped is another. You just don't dump a body like that unless you have a very good reason. Something to hide. I have to wonder if they actually got him. Maybe they didn't. No, not saying the Seals were lying, by any means! Suggesting that this could have been a double ( a not uncommon practice), and that the administration knew it wasn't the real guy, and so they had the body dumped, and then lied about the DNA. No way to get more, when he's at the bottom of the ocean. No way for a close examination.

In any case, aircraft do crash on occasion, but that doesn't mean we should not have acted in this case.

reply to post by Destinyone


Why are dead Americans considered to be so much more important than dead Afghans, Iraqis, Libyans, Pakistanis, Somalis etc. etc.?

Originally posted by furono
So they watched it or recorded it, so what? Doesn't mean they weren't concerned about. All you right wing homophobics and white supremacists just grasp any straw right? Stick to watching Fox , that's what sheep like.

Right wingers are grasping at straws? What are you doing by calling them white supremacists and homophobic? You do realize there are quite a few left wingers who are homophobic and put on a show that we should love all? Come on buddy. The main point is the administration acted oblivious to the situation and now info comes out that they were aware of it. They tried covering it up and actually had to back track on that. So it's not grasping for straws when MSM is now questioning a liberal administration. You, my friend, are sick and one of many who will cause the mass hysteria if Obama would lose.

Originally posted by squarehead666
reply to post by Destinyone

 

Why are dead Americans considered to be so much more important than dead Afghans, Iraqis, Libyans, Pakistanis, Somalis etc. etc.?

edit on 23-10-2012 by squarehead666 because: More Victims!

Because we live in America. Why is your dead family so much more important than someone you barely know?

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes


Oh I totally agree that's why I think they had a hand in it, and it was following to make sure the job got done. Its just the image of the black hawk hanging off a wall, brought a funny image of "accuracy" is all heh.