It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
because the order could not have been delivered from any other source.
But you then jump to the assumption that someone indeed denied/refused the aid and suggest it was then the WH. How do you jump to this conclusion?
absolutely not unless you can provide protocol that would instruct the men under attack to avoid requesting assistance.
Ever think that the reports that aid was denied are false? No, of course not
guess that would depend on what you deem credible, wouldn't it ?
Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Destinyone
No opposing views allowed?
You could always provide a credible link.
kudos Gen Ham ... no good deed goes unpunished.
Africom commanding officer U.S. General Carter Ham, [color=amber]after being ordered to essentially surrender control of the situation to alleged Al Queda terrorists and let Americans on the ground die, made the unilateral decision to ignore orders from the Secretary of Defense and activated special operations teams at his disposal for immediate deployment to the area.
According to reports, once the General went rogue he was arrested within minutes by his second in command and relieved of duty.
- snip -
A General who made the decision to assist diplomatic and intelligence assets on the ground has been arrested and will likely be retired or worse, while those who ordered the removal of embassy security details and ordered U.S. forces to stand-down are left to go on about their business and likely risk more American lives in the future.