It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


"Stand Down!!" - Here's Why

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 02:08 PM
This incident really reminded me of the movie

Except in this film the guys got in trouble for firing into the "unarmed crowd of women and children"

The film opens with Operation Kingfisher, a disastrous American advance in the Vietnam War, and shows Lt. Terry Childers (Samuel L. Jackson) execute an unarmed prisoner to intimidate an NVA officer into calling off an ambush of American marines, thereby saving the life of Lt. Hays Hodges (Tommy Lee Jones).

The movie jumps to 1996; Childers and his Marine Expeditionary Unit are called to evacuate the United States Ambassador to Yemen from the embassy grounds, after a routine demonstration against American influence in the Persian Gulf turns into rock-throwing and sporadic fire from nearby rooftops. After escorting the ambassador to a waiting helicopter, Childers returns to the embassy to retrieve the American flag; meanwhile three Marines are killed by the Yemeni snipers on nearby rooftops. Childers, after appearing to see something in the crowd below, orders his men to open fire on the crowd below and "waste the mother#ers", resulting in the death of 83 civilian protesters and injuries to over 100 more.

Back in the United States, the National Security Adviser decides to proceed with a court-martial to try to deflect negative public opinion about the United States, shouldering all the blame for the incident onto Childers, and salvage American relations in the Persian Gulf. Childers finds Hodges, whose life he saved, is now serving in the JAG Division and asks him to be his defense attorney at the upcoming tribunal. Hodges is reluctant to accept, knowing that his record is less than impressive, and Childers needs a better lawyer. But Childers is adamant, because he would rather have an attorney who has served in combat before.

Most of the evidence is stacked against Childers, especially because the National Security Advisor, Bill Sokal, is determined for him to be convicted, and at one point burns a videotape of security camera footage showing that the crowd had indeed been in possession of weapons, supporting Childers' claims. He also blackmails the ambassador Childers rescued, Ambassador Mourain, into lying on the stand and saying both that the crowd had been peaceful and that Childers had been violent towards him and his family during the evacuation. However, at the trial, Hodges presents a shipping manifest proving that a tape from an undamaged camera which had been looking directly into the crowd—the tape Sokal had burned—has been delivered to Sokal's office, but has failed to show up at the trial, arguing that this tape would have been damning evidence against Childers if it had shown the crowd was unarmed. Also, when the prosecution presents the Vietnamese Colonel, Colonel Cao, who witnessed Childers execute a POW in Vietnam (In violation of Rule 404 of the Rules of Evidence concerning character evidence which prohibits evidence of a person’s character or character trait to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait. Rule is applicable to military courts.), as a rebuttal witness, Hodges gets him to testify that, had the circumstances been reversed, he would have done the same thing.

The film ends with Childers being found guilty of the minor charge of breach of the peace (for having disobeyed his order to just show his Marines' presence), but not guilty of the more serious charges of conduct unbecoming of an officer and murder. A final titlecard reveals that no further charges were brought against him, and that he retired honorably from the Marines. Sokal is found guilty of spoliation of evidence and forced to resign, while Mourain is charged with perjury.

posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 03:39 PM
reply to post by ararisq
Seems like an awful lot of Conservatives are coming on here pretending to know more about Benghazi than the rest of the nation is being told. Including the father of the young (Navy Seal) man who was killed. But the idea of either Obama or Biden being "cold fish" or in any way disengaged from the troops or the CIA or anyone else hurt in that attack is certainly something I do not believe. I'll put that down to a father's grief. But the idea that the father would go on Glenn Beck to talk about this shows that there is yet another Conservative/NeoCon agenda to these attacks...Some people want Obama gone. He's a radical Muslim, a Communist, A Fascist, A secret Socialist, blah, blah, blah...Whatever. When you have to engage in this sort of divisiveness it means your points are NOT valid. In no way was the Benghazi a "terrorist attack that Obama needed to engage the American Public." I believe it was fomented and orchestrated by top American, and other International Neo/cons. I believe the film that was released to confuse the issue was released on purpose. And I believe that the American People are being manipulated and used to try and discredit the Obama Administration. But let's face it. 3000 people being killed on American Soil, with thousands of more dying from just the FUMES of 911, when the president at the time was an Arch NeoCon puppet, is not even being explored here. Oh, no. Four military/government people who went into harms way and were killed, are somehow more important that 3000+ innocent people, who, upon losing their lives, were used by the NeoCons to support an eight year raid on the treasury and housing markets and who STOLE trillions of dollars! But are they in jail? Did Bush lose his presidency immediately over the death of 3000+ people? Even when they wanted to refuse First Responders aid? Come on. Politics plays no part in this Benghazi thing, except to make Obama look inept. But I believe when, in the debates, he says he is investigating and will get to the core of the matter, he is saying "I know who you #ers ARE and I am coming for you!" This wasn't a "terrorist attack" in that no terror organization is taking the credit for it. It was a concerted, conservative run military style attack on American Soil. A terrorist attack kills innocents, not Navy Seals and CIA operatives! They are trained to be put in harms way and are in no way to be equated with 3000+ workers, firefighters, women, children and seniors, who were decimated on 911. Bush and Guiliani took that and ran campaigns based on it. No one is going to run a campaign based on Benghazi. And 911 was our Reichstag Fire. It was used to be manipulated to bring the NeoCons into power and manufacture two wars...(Even Afghanistan...we attack and entire country because some terrorist cells trained there and we didn't like the Taliban? And we haven't got rid of either foe, for all the time we've been throwing our weight at them!? It's another Vietnam. And would be viewed as such if there were a draft involved. We have not won any wars...Not in years.) Benghazi cannot be used in that way. All Consulates are CIA bases of operations, under military command. And when the commanders tell people to stand down, they MEAN it. If some innocent live were saved by the brave SOLDIERS who did not stand down, all well and good. But that is their duty and their prerogative as Soldiers. Someone is trying to make this attack into something it should not be, a political football. Shame on you.

posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 03:55 PM
reply to post by whisperindave

our military/government people who went into harms way and were killed, are somehow more important that 3000+ innocent people

First Bush has nothing to do with the current situation or the 3,000 plus souls.
This embassy was denied extra security protection, the entire administration knew the attack was under way and the people at the embassy were denied military support during the siege, which most likely would have prevented these deaths.
The line ends with Obama...he is the POTUS.

posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 11:30 AM
On CBS Sunday Morning, Bob Schieffer asked the $1 Million Dollar Question. Was the drone flying over the Benghazi consulate armed with missiles or weapons?

Originally posted by alternateuniverse
Now, Obama denies he lied about Benghazi.

President Barack Obama on Friday forcefully denied deliberately misleading Americans about the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in the Libyan city of Benghazi, telling radio host Michael Smerconish, "I've always been straight with the American people

Same BS.

Asked whether the administration's shifting explanation for the September 11 strike reflected the intelligence he was receiving, Obama replied: "What's true is that the intelligence was coming in and evolving as more information came up.

More BS.

And Republicans have questioned the president's truthfulness after the administration spent days, they say, blaming the assault on reaction to an Internet film that ridicules Islam. Yahoo News reported in late September that American officials had concluded on Day One that terrorists were behind the siege. But The Wall Street Journal reported on Monday that Obama's presidential daily brief from the CIA tied the assault to a spontaneous protest linked to the video—despite intelligence contradicting that scenario.

$64,000 Question Ignored.

Obama was not asked about, and did not bring up, a report by Fox News Channel that American officials repeatedly asked for military help during the assault but were rebuffed by CIA higher-ups. A spokesman for the president's National Security Council did not acknowledge a request for comment on that report.

Obama rebuts claims he’s lying about attack on US Consulate in Libya By Olivier Knox

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by ararisq

Then why did he, his administration, Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton lie for weeks afterwards?

I could see your OP as a possibility if they stated it was a terrorist attack right away.

Why blame the youtube video for weeks afterwards???

posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 02:28 PM
If it were planned to give Obama a bump then the Americans would have been saved. It was the anniversary of 9/11 and the American people could have understood the attack. Instead he did nothing and tried to tell the American people that the elephant in the room is not really there. Either his thought process was totally screwed up or he was trying to hide the fact that his policy of apology to the terrorists of the world did not work. Personally i see the elephant in the room.

posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 03:58 PM
reply to post by ararisq

Who said, "Never waste a good crisis" ?

posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 04:00 PM
reply to post by alternateuniverse

Yes and he didn't get an answer. I saw that and the man looked truly uncomfortable when he was asked that question. There was a little squirming going on for sure.

posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 04:55 PM
reply to post by ararisq

NOthing will come of this. The political party will take care of their own even if they have to sacrifice some people. bau

posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 05:34 PM
reply to post by alternateuniverse

Great stuff. Deserves its own thread. thanks...

posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 05:55 PM

Originally posted by randomname
they were to told to stand down because 2 c.i.a. officers running to the embassy while it was attacked would only accomplish getting themselves killed.

even 25 seals would have been killed, despite what the movies and the media like to portray, they wouldn't have stood a chance against 400 fanatical and armed protesters.

and its common knowledge around the world that americans can't fight without massive air support.

Mogadishu '93 would tend to disagree with you there. 160 Rangers and SFOD-D operators versus 4,000-6,000 Somali militia members. Final tally, 18 Americans dead, 73 wounded. 1,500-3,000 Somali casualties estimated.

On-topic: do I think there was more going on here than they're letting on? Yes. Do I think the president himself had anything to do with it? No way in hell. This was probably a repeat of the same issues seen during Gothic Serpent, where the military brass denied support for fear of looking "too aggressive."

posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 09:56 AM

Originally posted by Logarock

Well the story was still shaping up and taking on a life of its own outside the political contest.......and that was a good place to keep in now in hind sight.
edit on 26-10-2012 by Logarock because: b

I agree. There are certainly questions worth asking and that need answering, but not at the expense of further lives and blowing CIA operations all for political purposes.

Rep. Issa's (R) release of unredacted emails that included Libyan's that have been helping the US on the ground there already put families at risk and the CIA had to pull thier teams from Libya.

Investigation? Yes, but it needs to be done seperate from political agenda, in a non-election climate both to assure we have unspun truth and that it doesn't cost lives and operations all for a political agenda.

posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 02:47 PM
reply to post by MsAphrodite

Apparently there's not enough blame to go around. Obama now says "there was a big breakdown, and somebody didn't do their job, they'll be held accountable" in an interview.

President Barack Obama said in an interview that if the investigation into the Sept. 11 attack on the American compound in Libya finds that "there was a big breakdown, and somebody didn't do their job, they'll be held accountable."

With this statement, he's definitely hiding something. Didn't the President say he was ultimately responsible for Benghazi?

Obama: Benghazi may have been ‘big breakdown’ By Olivier Knox

top topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in