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.

 

MUST WATCH: Retired Lt. Col. and Special Operations Planner for 15 years, Obama ordered no response.

page: 9
49
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


No problem. No harm no foul. I somtimes miss things too.

Thank you for reviewing it.
edit on 28-10-2012 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


No problem. No harm no foul. I somtimes miss things too.


Fair enough! Thanks!



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
The thing is with these guys "retired", "former" cannot say what was or wasn't ordered because they are not in the chain of command. They also cannot say what was or wasn't part of the intel.


Agreed...SOP's change so damn quick these days....I know I was deployed 2 times back to back and the SOP's for one were a little bit different than another. I believe retired guys and help give insight to how things are ran, but ya we are out of the loop nowadays. Good point.



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by MsAphrodite

Can you please verify your statistic with a credible link, thank you.


Touche'

Of course not. since pseudonymous posters are unverifiable, there can be no definitive statistic as to how many of them are asserting false credentials and knowledge.... which is exactly the problem. My statistic was hyperbole.

But the problem remains. People who ask us to take us at their word that they are experts and have special knowledge or experience should be dismissed until they prove their experience. If you want your expertise to be taken seriously prove it's real... that's not asking too much. If you want to post with a pseudonym, don't expect anybody to take your word for anything. Just post relevent links and back up your assertions with sound arguments. It's really one or the other.



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
reply to post by Swills
 


....or some people don't have the ability to watch the video. It wouldn't be a bad idea for the OP to summarize what Rush and the caller said.

Plus a lot of people don't like Rush.
edit on 27-10-2012 by TheLieWeLive because: (no reason given)


Then go to the Rush Limbaugh website and read the transcript.

2nd line.



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Like I said, whether you think he is a fraud or not he is absolutely right about the situation. Once the CIA agents radioed in the attack a message was sent out and the White House receives it immediately. Lets say for some reason the CIA agents were in complete communications blackout totally unable to report the attack & ask for assistance, once that US drone arrived Washington knew of that attacks. Funny how that drone showed up, no? The battle lasted for seven hours. Word was out, decisions were made, and cover ups enacted.



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Swills

Originally posted by KeliOnyx

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by TheLieWeLive
 


This happens to be a video where Rush isn't relevant at all. The most important points are made by the caller.

The thread title explains what the caller has to say. But most important are the details of why he believes this is true.

I understand now you can't see the video, but I strongly suggest you get to a place where you can watch it. In my opinion, it's that important.


SO in other words he wasn't there and didn't really know anything but we are supposed to waste time listening to what he thinks happened. That would be like listening to Todd Akin teach sexual education.


No, in other words the Caller is telling you how the system of communication works and that it is impossible for the POTUS and Washington DC to claim they didn't know about the attack when it was happening in real time. There is a system in already in place to for urgent message/intelligence to be sent and received. During the seven hour battle there was most definitely a call for help from those who were on the ground (the deceased CIA agents) during the fight but it was ignored and or denied.


This is all quite true, as anyone in the military who has dealt with such traffic can tell you. That the administration did not see the traffic as it was "buried in all of the emails" is a boldfaced lie. "Flash" traffic halts all other traffic. You cannot avoid a flash message if you are awake.


Thank you! Finally someone else who knows. People just want to argue with me about this left and right!



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Putyournamehere
It's a 12 minute clip and more then likely boring, could ya give us a little more info please.


yes.. and in other words..

i'm lazy ..and can you spoon feed me plz.......



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Tom Clancy worked closely with US military and intelligence to get his stories "right" - you should try reading them some time.



No he didn't. He was an insurance salesman without a clearance and had never worn the uniform in his life. He is a techno-geek who said he has read all of Jane's cover to cover and his information was cool when it came out, very technically accurate as he devoured all of the public domain information, but he had no "inside scoop" and nobody was feeding this insurance salesman classified information.


and where did I say anythign about classified information??

You should stop inventing crap!

Her's teh sort of research he did:


However, Clancy claims that most of his research involves talking endlessly to the types of people he wants to write about....

For Red October, he interviewed former submariners who were operating the Baltimore Gas & Electric nuclear power plant near his home in Huntingtown, MD. At his publisher’s request, the finished manuscript of Red October was read by two submarine officers, who found only a few mistakes. For example, Clancy had put valves on the bottom of the ballast tanks, rather than the top.


From here



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swills
reply to post by loam
 


Absolutely, apathy, laziness, and distraction is a major epidemic for Americans.

There are also people who will violently dismiss the truth because they can't handle it.



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swills

Originally posted by NavyDoc

This is all quite true, as anyone in the military who has dealt with such traffic can tell you. That the administration did not see the traffic as it was "buried in all of the emails" is a boldfaced lie. "Flash" traffic halts all other traffic. You cannot avoid a flash message if you are awake.


Thank you! Finally someone else who knows. People just want to argue with me about this left and right!


what nonsense - "FLASH" is a priority for the receiving station - it does not necessarily go straight to the Whitehouse - it has to be dealth with ASAP for sure, but it is not a pipeline into the Oval office!

The receiving station will deal with it in accordance with its own policies and procedures - albeit quickly. It may or may not receive a "FLASH" priority for onforwarding after that.



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375
No response and only 4 people died. Obviously a response wasn't needed.

edit on 28-10-2012 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)

It did strike me as odd that so few died after reading the testimony of Charlene Lamb.

But yea, FOX News is pretty sad. I prefer Democracy Now.

edit on 28-10-2012 by gentledissident because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Swills

Originally posted by NavyDoc

This is all quite true, as anyone in the military who has dealt with such traffic can tell you. That the administration did not see the traffic as it was "buried in all of the emails" is a boldfaced lie. "Flash" traffic halts all other traffic. You cannot avoid a flash message if you are awake.


Thank you! Finally someone else who knows. People just want to argue with me about this left and right!


what nonsense - "FLASH" is a priority for the receiving station - it does not necessarily go straight to the Whitehouse - it has to be dealth with ASAP for sure, but it is not a pipeline into the Oval office!

The receiving station will deal with it in accordance with its own policies and procedures - albeit quickly. It may or may not receive a "FLASH" priority for onforwarding after that.


You're telling me how a FLASH message works? What nonsense? Have you worked with such message traffic? FLASH is a priority yes, the top priority, as in you stop whatever it is you're doing and give this message your complete attention. That is the only way to deal with a FLASH message, doesn't matter what part of the world you receive it in that is the protocol. Have you heard of a place called the Situation Room? It has computers that are connected to the DOD classified networks. These computers are most definitely manned by a watch team who monitor and send message traffic. But lets go off into fantasy land where the Situation Room doesn't exist and for some stupid reason the White House isn't connected to the DOD networks, there are still plenty of other places in Washington DC that are connected, like the Pentagon just to name one.

And just to point out, the FLASH message that went out would most likely never have been downgraded to an IMMEDIATE priority. Attack on a US Ambassador by terrorists does not get downgraded


So the bottom line is, when word got out there was an attack at the Benghazi compound a message went out and Washington DC was fully aware of it. What is it exactly that you keep arguing against? You don't think POTUS, the White House, or DC knew the attack was going down in real time? That they gave no order to stand down?
edit on 28-10-2012 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link   
I'm not inclined to believe this. First it's on rush limbaugh. He his nothing but a blovating entertainer. Second, the good lt. col. is a media whore. If I recall correctly, e first gained attention claiming that bush knew about 9/11. The story he's selling now sounds strangely familiar. He's also made other claims such as the pentagon burning his books. He's got an agenda and it's to sell his books and to sell himself as an "expert."



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by SweetChild
I'm not inclined to believe this. First it's on rush limbaugh. He his nothing but a blovating entertainer. Second, the good lt. col. is a media whore. If I recall correctly, e first gained attention claiming that bush knew about 9/11. The story he's selling now sounds strangely familiar. He's also made other claims such as the pentagon burning his books. He's got an agenda and it's to sell his books and to sell himself as an "expert."



You're not inclined to believe it? Good lord. You don't believe it because it was on RL? So what you're saying is RL made all of this up? This caller is a really all part of RL's script? Seriously? I don't like RL and I never listen to him but that doesn't stop me from watching the video.



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Swills
 


Actually, I'm saying that Shaffer is selling himself as an "expert." Rush is just a "media" outlet with a target audience more inclined to purchase Shaffer's books. If you publish a cook book, you go on Martha Stewart; publish a book criticizing the sitting president, you go on Rush. PR 101.



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by SweetChild
reply to post by Swills
 


Actually, I'm saying that Shaffer is selling himself as an "expert." Rush is just a "media" outlet with a target audience more inclined to purchase Shaffer's books. If you publish a cook book, you go on Martha Stewart; publish a book criticizing the sitting president, you go on Rush. PR 101.


Shaffer? What's Shaffer got to do with any of this? The Lt. Col who called in on Rush's show is a guy named Doug, not Tony Shaffer. And selling books? Lt. Col. Doug isn't selling a book. Books?

Oh I see. You are brand new. Well my new friend, you didn't pay attention to the details, which is funny because in the very beginning of the video you see Rush takes a call from Doug on Open Line Friday



edit on 28-10-2012 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Swills
 


Same principles apply. The caller positioning himself as an "expert" and is selling something he wants rush's listeners to buy.



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 


Interesting the attackers waited for the Turkish guy to leave. Accident?



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by SweetChild
 


The caller gave enough accurate details to establish himself as being credible. He had nothing to gain from what he did in calling. He just called things as he knew they should have gone down. His call was designed to be helpful.




top topics



 
49
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join