"Rogue" U.S. General Arrested for Ignoring 9/11 Bengzahi Stand-Down Order

page: 12
63
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


Obama was relatively careful to not jump to any conclusions immediately after the attack. The day after the attack, he told 60 Minutes that it didn't "sound like your normal demonstration."

"We're still investigating exactly what happened," Mr. Obama said. "I don't want to jump the gun on this. But you're right that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what happened in Egypt. And my suspicion is, is that there are folks involved in this, who were looking to target Americans from the start."

www.cbsnews.com...

The CIA, the Pentagon, and Libyan military intelligence were all responding to the attack. How many other agencies did you want to consult? Health and Human Services? The IRS?

Which people on the scene said there were drones for the entirety of the attack?

edit on 2-11-2012 by buckrogerstime because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by MsAphrodite

FYI:

Buckrogerstime joined us on 10-31-12

Interesting to note that we have a newbie with so much propaganda.


I wish I was disinfo. I could use the money.



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by boomer135
 

i didn't say that fact was false, just incomplete and presented falsely, as it was and still is to this day.

most anyone who listened, left with the impression that the terrorist in Obamas eyes was the video author, not the attackers.
(and, let's not forget how the administration hassled the guy either)
l




you open with ...

Obama referred to the attack as an "act of terror" on 9/12 and 9/13
and at this point, just about EVERYONE knows that's a bold-faced lie.
{it's not surprising that you fail to include a link}


Sorry, bold-faced lie is false to me. My bad. I didn't leave with the impression that it was the author.


Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by boomer135
 

look, the CIA is just as much a part of government as the military.
If Gen Ham can be relieved of duty, so can the CIA and its operatives.

at this point, from all of what i've read, it would be the CIA who provided the greatest response and assistance during the crisis, not the WH or any department of it.



They are just as much a part of government. However, we won't come out and say the CIA was running guns to terrorists in the Middle East would we? According to the info released today, SECDEF ordered U.S. Military forces into Sicily, plus two special forces teams were forward deployed to Sigonella, Italy.

The problem with this though, is it says "within a few hours" they were deployed. That's a bit too long unless the messages were correct. IF the emails are correct, and the second email was sent less than an hour after the FLASH message, then it makes sense because the second message said the attack was over. So why forward deploy at that time?
abcnews.go.com...


Little said that within a few hours of the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta ordered U.S. military forces to move to Sicily in preparation for an uncertain situation in Libya. “This department took swift action,” said Little. “It did respond, the secretary ordered forces to move. “We were prepared for a range of contingencies in the course of this very tragic incident,” said Little. “We were ready for the need to augment security measures at our facilities in Libya, if called upon. We were prepared for the possibility, for instance, of a hostage situation, as well. These were all the things that we were looking at for an event we did not know was going to happen in Benghazi that night. ”


With that being said I would like to point out that the teams sent to the region didn't fully arrive until after the attack was over. So too little too late in my opinion. Maybe they could have helped if the second message wasn't sent, according to that theory. If it's a fake, then there's no excuse.

To Be Continued...



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 12:27 AM
link   

And we don't know if he waited until the scheduled meeting to discuss it.

actually we do or the CRG would have been convened.

and, let's not forget, from the time it's reported the FLASH was sent, Obama had it for more than an hour without ANY response at all ... not even convening a meeting with the CRG. (i may have that abbreviation wrong but it's the Counter-Terrorism Response team - whatever their alphabet designation is)

i don't deny some form of communication may have been established but any actions resulting from it certainly don't reflect Obamas statement of (paraphrased) "we're expending all available resources to assist our personnel" ... if it did, we wouldn't be talking about it now.


Close, it's the CSG-Counterterrorism Security Group. And this is interesting to me. I’m glad you brought this up cause I was stumped until this article showed up. The CBS news article I found here www.cbsnews.com... points out both sides of the argument:


CBS News has learned that during the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, the Obama Administration did not convene its top interagency counterterrorism resource: the Counterterrorism Security Group, (CSG). "The CSG is the one group that's supposed to know what resources every agency has. They know of multiple options and have the ability to coordinate counterterrorism assets across all the agencies," a high-ranking government official told CBS News. "They were not allowed to do their job. They were not called upon."


Good info for your case, however:
Same Article:


As to why the Counterterrorism Security Group was not convened, National Security Council Spokesman Tommy Vietor told CBS News "From the moment the President was briefed on the Benghazi attack, the response effort was handled by the most senior national security officials in governments. Members of the CSG were of course involved in these meetings and discussions to support their bosses."
Absent coordination from Counterterrorism Security Group, a senior U.S. counterterrorism official says the response to the crisis became more confused. The official says the FBI received a call during the attack representing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and requesting agents be deployed. But he and his colleagues agreed the agents "would not make any difference without security and other enablers to get them in the country and synch their efforts with military and diplomatic efforts to maximize their success."


So, are they really throwing the FBI under the bus by saying that Hillary called the FBI and ask that agents be forward deployed just to get the FBI to disagree and not let them? This article contradicts itself in so many ways. But it says the moment POTUS was briefed, the response effort was handled by the most senior national security officials in government. Sooooo, was the CSG used like they should have been? Hell no! But the high ranking officials or designee’s were there to give their support.


hey now, i was quoting you ... "hard visual evidence" ... you asked if there was any.
i haven't seen any but if it exists, it will leak eventually.


Fair enough, touché.


regarding the UAVs (drones?), i am taking the word of those who were there that day, as i don't know enough about them to really argue either side but if those fighting said they were there, then i'm believing them until proven otherwise.


We now know that the drone didn’t arrive until 90 minutes after the start of the attack from the same abc source as above. Also, no AC-130 was within a continent from the attack, according to Pentagon spokesman George Little:


Little reaffirmed that no other American aircraft were involved over Libya the night of the attack beyond the unarmed surveillance drone that arrived 90 minutes into the attack. As for reports that an AC-130 gunship could have been dispatched over Libya at the time of the attack, Little was clear that “there was no AC-130 within a continent’s range of Benghazi” that night.


Unarmed surveillance drone flying in Libyan air space in my Air Force opinion would be the RQ-170 Sentinel. It wasn’t a predator, and if it was a global hawk or some other craft, then we finally have another drone that provides real time video of the attack (which by the way wasn’t stated anywhere in any source I’ve read. Pure speculation based on the bin Laden raid, in my opinion. Just because we had it for that raid doesn’t mean we had it in this attack, unless of course it was an RQ-170).


it'd be kinda hard to hold anyone accountable/responsible without the truth, wouldn't it ??


Totally agree with you. Hopefully we will know the full truth someday and end all speculation.
Honor93,Great job looking stuff up. I look forward to your responses and the future debates we can have!

edit on 3-11-2012 by boomer135 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by buckrogerstime
 

ya know, if you guys want to discuss the details available, great, if not, save this nonsense for the newbs, of which i'm not.
to answer this question ...

Which people on the scene said there were drones for the entirety of the attack?
does it matter, which people ??
i'm not searching the 'eyewitness' accounts at this time, however, this should suffice ...

truth-out.org...

According to a report in the Daily Beast on Oct. 12, administration officials are studying a videotape of a live feed from the drone that "saw" at least the last hour of the assault that led to the killing of the US ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, and the deaths of three other US personnel in and around the Benghazi consulate.
now, we can dispute IF there is footage all day long.
that doesn't change the obvious fact that it exists.
since a drone was admittedly present and some footage is admittedly being reviewed and the reports that a drone was deployed early in the event, i guess i'm just reaching at straws, right ??

in case you need more ... www.canadafreepress.com...
www.state.gov...
{the creative descriptions in this briefing are the direct result of visual information (video) ... not paper/digital intel}

or this ... blogs.cfr.org...

Shortly before that call, at 4:30 p.m., the Pentagon’s command center had alerted Defense Secretary Panetta and others to the attack. Minutes later, the U.S. military’s Africa Command redirected an unarmed drone from its surveillance mission over militant camps to Benghazi. When the drone arrived at 5:11 p.m. Eastern time, cameras captured images of burning buildings, helping officials in Washington pinpoint which facilities had been targeted by militants. But the images didn’t help the CIA team on the ground respond to the attacks, officials said.



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 01:13 AM
link   
reply to post by boomer135
 

i think i missed a post or two along the way, but this is where i picked up so, if out of sequence, i apologize.

ok seriously, is this my comprehension error or do you see what i'm reading here ?
from your quote of CBS ...

From the moment the President was briefed on the Benghazi attack, the response effort was handled by the most senior national security officials in governments. Members of the CSG were of course involved in these meetings and discussions to support their bosses."
Absent coordination from Counterterrorism Security Group, a senior U.S. counterterrorism official says the response to the crisis became more confused.

"were of course involved" ... assumes they were participants
whereas ... "Absent coordination from Counterterrorism Security" clearly indicates that any coordination was absent/non-existant.
so, which is it ??


But the high ranking officials or designee’s were there to give their support
do you really believe that ??

as for which drone was flying that day, i'm not one to even guess.
was armed or not, i do not know ... however, something was being coordinated for an airstrike or there would be no need to lase a target in preparation of one.

now, please don't take this the wrong way but i have not read all of the msm blubs/stories on this event, simply because i don't trust any of them.
point is, arguing about their printed material or lack thereof is not what i hope to achieve.

thanks for the compliment, right back at ya

it is refreshing to discuss a topic rather wade through all the bickering nonsense so often seen these days 'round here. |~| cheers boomer135

fyi, i am not convinced a target wasn't lased, hence, the need/necessity for a 'stand down/abort' order.
perhaps, without this factor in conjunction with Gen Ham's relief, i might be inclined to believe otherwise, however, the moves have been made and we are left to interpret them
(isn't chess fun ?)



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by boomer135
 

really ???
Obama made some off the cuff remark about how 'no act of terror would shake the resolve of this country' or something along that line ... which wasn't even close to indicating this attack was a terrorist attack.
heck, he went on several talk shows and dodged the question repeatedly but that isn't what this topic is about, so ... i thought we were sharing information here ?

with this ...

With that being said I would like to point out that the teams sent to the region didn't fully arrive until after the attack was over.
i'm guessing you haven't even opened my link, let alone read it


from the link provided many pages ago

world.time.com...
About 3.2 km away from the compound, at the February 17th Brigade’s headquarters, militia members heard the battle raging. “We got in our vehicles in less than five minutes,” says Wisam, a militia fighter. “There were about 18 of us in five pickup trucks.” Within minutes they arrived on the road leading to the mission. There they found the attackers organized in large groups. “There were too many people and we couldn’t resist them,” Wisam said. When the militia told the besiegers that they were trying to reach the mission to verify that their comrades were safe, an attacker fired off two warning shots at their feet. “We were a clear target so we turned around and headed down the street.” Once out of range of the attackers’ small arms fire, the militia set up a position and bombarded the mob with longer-range weapons. “We started shooting back with [Russian anti-aircraft] Dushkas and RPGs. It was a 90 minute firefight.” The militia contingent was reinforced with other February 17th fighters who set up a perimeter along the streets surrounding the U.S. compound.

and then there's this ...

same link

About 45 minutes into the fighting, a quick reaction team composed of six Americans from what was called the “annex,” an unofficial, low-key “safe house” for U.S. security forces approximately two kilometers away. They came barreling down to the mission in a BMW sedan and a Mercedes Benz SUV. There they encountered Wisam and about 40 other February 17th members, some of whom helped escort the Americans into the compound. “We jogged alongside the cars,” Wisam said. “There were 12 of us. We didn’t know what to expect inside.”

seriously, give it a read ... it pokes numerous holes in the msm tales thus far.



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 05:05 AM
link   


i think i missed a post or two along the way, but this is where i picked up so, if out of sequence, i apologize.

ok seriously, is this my comprehension error or do you see what i'm reading here ?
from your quote of CBS ...

From the moment the President was briefed on the Benghazi attack, the response effort was handled by the most senior national security officials in governments. Members of the CSG were of course involved in these meetings and discussions to support their bosses."
Absent coordination from Counterterrorism Security Group, a senior U.S. counterterrorism official says the response to the crisis became more confused.

"were of course involved" ... assumes they were participants
whereas ... "Absent coordination from Counterterrorism Security" clearly indicates that any coordination was absent/non-existant.
so, which is it ??



But the high ranking officials or designee’s were there to give their support

do you really believe that ??


I do because of the reasons you listed above. It sounds to me like although they didn't officially activate the CSG, they had some of the members there to give advice to the president, i.e. give their support. I'll admit that it's a sketchy paragraph in terms of wording, but that's what I interpret it to be.



as for which drone was flying that day, i'm not one to even guess.
was armed or not, i do not know ... however, something was being coordinated for an airstrike or there would be no need to lase a target in preparation of one.

now, please don't take this the wrong way but i have not read all of the msm blubs/stories on this event, simply because i don't trust any of them.
point is, arguing about their printed material or lack thereof is not what i hope to achieve.


Well I can agree with the first sentence. We don't know which one it was, I was just taking an educated guess considering the airspace and the technology it has with the live feed. Your second story is from the same fox news article that was proven to be mostly bunk. So you don't trust any of the msm stories and blurps, but you use that SEAL story about the lasering in your post. The SEAL also asked for an F-35 or F-22 airstrike, a plane still in development and one that wont be sent into Libya because of it's technology. If his story was real, and he was using the laser on a target, then he wasn't too bright when it came to military airstrikes while wasting alot of time and energy holding up a laser instead of shooting a rifle. If we believe that there was in fact an AC-130 in the area, and an airstrike was told to stand down, then a record of the takeoff and landing would be public knowledge. The plane watchers would have said something by now. Nobodys came forward about this. Also, these guys are former SEALS, the elite of the elite. They would know how to order an airstrike and what plane would be appropriate for the situation. So I agree with most people when they say that story is bunk as well.


fyi, i am not convinced a target wasn't lased, hence, the need/necessity for a 'stand down/abort' order.
perhaps, without this factor in conjunction with Gen Ham's relief, i might be inclined to believe otherwise, however, the moves have been made and we are left to interpret them
(isn't chess fun ?)


Agreed. I don't know for sure either. But until the truth comes out which the Pentagon has stated no AC-130's were even on the continent that night (if you choose to believe the Pentagon spokesman who was quoted by abcnews, a msm member I know) then we will always wonder. Although it seems that the general consensus on ATS is that all members of government lie all the time about everything.


thanks for the compliment, right back at ya

it is refreshing to discuss a topic rather wade through all the bickering nonsense so often seen these days 'round here. |~| cheers boomer135


Right back at cha Honor!


One last thing before I continue. You stated this:

now, please don't take this the wrong way but i have not read all of the msm blubs/stories on this event, simply because i don't trust any of them.
point is, arguing about their printed material or lack thereof is not what i hope to achieve.


Normally that would be a fair argument for anyone. But you continue to use these same sites for your points when they are pro to your theory, while dismissing the other facts in the same article that go against it. Not trying to personal attack you or anything, so please don't take this the wrong way! But you've used several sites to support your conclusions including truth-out.org, cfp.com, state.gov(good source though), and blogs.cfr.org. Why would you believe some of the source but not other parts? I'm in the conclusion that yes msm lies, but when they cover the spokesman for the CIA, they are just transcribing his words into paper. Is he lying?



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 05:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 

Moving on…I just want to touch on this a little:

really ???
Obama made some off the cuff remark about how 'no act of terror would shake the resolve of this country' or something along that line ... which wasn't even close to indicating this attack was a terrorist attack.
heck, he went on several talk shows and dodged the question repeatedly but that isn't what this topic is about, so ... i thought we were sharing information here ?

We are. I meant no disrespect. However, it was a lie that you told when you said that most people left thinking Obama was talking about the author of the movie and not terrorists. That was your opinion, which you are entitled to, but it’s not fact. I challenge anybody who reads these two paragraphs exactly drawn from his speech on 9/12 verbatim to point out to me anywhere where he mentions the author of the movie.


”As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe”.
“No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.”

Oh one more sentence in the speech:

”And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.”

Well I may have busted my challenge. In Obama’s 5 min 30 plus second speech, these two sentences might be what people are talking about when they say Obama blamed the video:

“Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.”

Yep that must be it…
That’s it. Please read a transcript or watch the video. Here’s a link: www.dailykos.com... Yes a liberal website, but pick whatever site you would like. They didn’t change the speech. Also I want to say before somebody says that “No acts of terror” is not the same as terrorism to read a dictionary. www.thefreedictionary.com... . Check out d and e…


1. Terror-
a. Intense, overpowering fear. See Synonyms at fear.
b. One that instills intense fear: a rabid dog that became the terror of the neighborhood.
c. The ability to instill intense fear: the terror of jackboots pounding down the street.
d. Violence committed or threatened by a group to intimidate or coerce a population, as for military or political purposes.
e. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) terrorism

Pretty self-explanatory, but if someone is going for the” Obama called it a terrible act not a terrorist act”: www.thefreedictionary.com... . Notably letter c and the adjective.


1. terrible
a. very serious or extreme a terrible cough
b. Informal of poor quality; unpleasant or bad a terrible meal a terrible play
c. causing terror
d. causing awe the terrible nature of God
2. Adj. terrible - causing fear or dread or terror; "the awful war"; "an awful risk"; "dire news"; "a career or vengeance so direful that London was shocked"; "the dread presence of the headmaster"; "polio is no longer the dreaded disease it once was"; "a dreadful storm"; "a fearful howling"; "horrendous explosions shook the city"; "a terrible curse"



But I digress…Back to the real topics



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 05:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 



Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by boomer135
 

with this ...

With that being said I would like to point out that the teams sent to the region didn't fully arrive until after the attack was over.
i'm guessing you haven't even opened my link, let alone read it


from the link provided many pages ago

world.time.com...
About 3.2 km away from the compound, at the February 17th Brigade’s headquarters, militia members heard the battle raging. “We got in our vehicles in less than five minutes,” says Wisam, a militia fighter. “There were about 18 of us in five pickup trucks.” Within minutes they arrived on the road leading to the mission. There they found the attackers organized in large groups. “There were too many people and we couldn’t resist them,” Wisam said. When the militia told the besiegers that they were trying to reach the mission to verify that their comrades were safe, an attacker fired off two warning shots at their feet. “We were a clear target so we turned around and headed down the street.” Once out of range of the attackers’ small arms fire, the militia set up a position and bombarded the mob with longer-range weapons. “We started shooting back with [Russian anti-aircraft] Dushkas and RPGs. It was a 90 minute firefight.” The militia contingent was reinforced with other February 17th fighters who set up a perimeter along the streets surrounding the U.S. compound.

and then there's this ...

same link

About 45 minutes into the fighting, a quick reaction team composed of six Americans from what was called the “annex,” an unofficial, low-key “safe house” for U.S. security forces approximately two kilometers away. They came barreling down to the mission in a BMW sedan and a Mercedes Benz SUV. There they encountered Wisam and about 40 other February 17th members, some of whom helped escort the Americans into the compound. “We jogged alongside the cars,” Wisam said. “There were 12 of us. We didn’t know what to expect inside.”

seriously, give it a read ... it pokes numerous holes in the msm tales thus far.

Ok on this, I was talking about the teams that SECDEF, POTUS and other generals sent to the region from other places, not people already in the city volunteering to help. These guys did a great job keeping as many people safe as they could. I merely meant the two special forces teams forward deployed to Italy and the team from the US that arrived the next morning.
The ABC news report from the Pentagon spokesman George Little: abcnews.go.com...

Little said that within a few hours of the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta ordered U.S. military forces to move to Sicily in preparation for an uncertain situation in Libya. According to Little, Panetta ordered forces to move towards the naval air station in Sigonella, Italy, after conferring with Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Gen. Carter Ham, the commander of U.S. Africa Command who was in Washington for regularly scheduled meetings.
Among the units ordered by Panetta on the night of the attack to Sicily, which is less than 500 miles from Libya,were two special operations teams that were moved to Sigonella.
As previously reported, one of the units came from a U.S. military base in “Central Europe.” And Little disclosed that Panetta also ordered another team from the United States to head to Sigonella. Little refused to describe what kind of unit was sent from the U.S., though it was presumably a special operations team trained for hostage rescues.
Little said both the units “did not arrive until after the entire sequence of events was complete. … They were in Sigonella many hours after the attacks.”

I was just stating that these forces didn’t arrive until after the attack was already over, but if they didn’t get the second message saying the attack had stopped, they could have sent them in early, that’s all I meant by that.
Boy long night. Look forward to another day on ATS!!!



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by boomer135
 

well ok, i can accept what you say so long as you can accept that i thoroughly disagree.

I do because of the reasons you listed above. It sounds to me like although they didn't officially activate the CSG, they had some of the members there to give advice to the president, i.e. give their support. I'll admit that it's a sketchy paragraph in terms of wording, but that's what I interpret it to be.
to me, absent cooperation is just that ... no extras, no fluff, no cooperation, period.


So you don't trust any of the msm stories and blurps, but you use that SEAL story about the lasering in your post
no, the seal story about target lasing came from audio in that link ATS censors prevent from linking properly here ... search: Penetta Doctrine.
{i sure hope we haven't reduced this conversation to nitpicking sources ? i have included a wide variety in an attempt to appease everyone who shows preferences}

i am not claiming to believe one thing or the other, however, when info is being systematically ignored (such as the lasing) there is usually more to the story where those who'd prefer it doesn't get out, wind up getting their way.

my question for you would be this ... how could the attackers land a precision mortar without having a sightable target in advance ?
{it was 3am and this was supposed to be an undisclosed location}

do you really think the seals would have intentionally revealed their position with a laser unless a strike was imminent ?


then a record of the takeoff and landing would be public knowledge
surely you aren't insinuating that military/artillery movements are public knowledge ??

pentagon spokesperson ??
nope, i don't believe them for a NY minute.
gotta be a spin expert to get that job.

i may fit into that concensus description but if i think real hard, i could probably recall one or two occassions that they were forthcoming or honest but it'd take a while.

wait a minute ... state dept, .gov, .mil links and msm together = i side with msm ???
huh ? how did you come to that conclusion ?


what other types of links do you suppose this info would be available ?

you didn't really just ask me that did you ?

I'm in the conclusion that yes msm lies, but when they cover the spokesman for the CIA, they are just transcribing his words into paper. Is he lying?
:LOL: Quite likely, most anytime his/her lips are moving since the dawn of Hoover's CIA.
( well ok, how 'bout more likely than not, fair ?? )

here's another question for you ... since Benghazi (according to State Dept cables) is still classified as a "Diplomatic Outpost" ... what does the CIA have to do with any of it besides the operation going on there ?
State Dept means the military should have been involved, not private contractors or local militia as primary guards. If they desired the status of a consulate/embassy, they should have designated it as such, shouldn't they ?



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by boomer135
 

as for the details presented/included in the audio, i admit, i am clueless.
that is exactly why i was hoping others would discuss it, rather dismiss it.

fyi, i am trying to listen to it again while reading your commentary about the contents and ... for whatever reason, i cannot get it to load or play. {why isn't that surprising ?}

for those who may have missed it, please give it a try and if it works for you, perhaps you can tell me what i can do to fix my playback

soundcloud.com...

the play button flashes when clicked but nothing happens, no buffer, no playback, no hangup ... ??? help

if more ppl cannot access it, would it then be fair to claim "it IS a conspiracy" ??



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by boomer135
 

so you're not in the group of "most people", how does that make what i said a lie ?

Obama did point a finger (figuratively) at 1 person, by name, as responsible and it wasn't any of the attackers.
and what's worse, when he finally did get around to naming a terrorist group they thought responsible, that said group spoke up publicly and said 'it wasn't us' (paraphrased).

so, we can argue semantics til we're blue in the face, let's resolve to agree you have your opinion and i have mine. i do believe his presentation of the issue from the onset was directed to fuel perspective, not tell/reveal the truth about any of it.

i really didn't want to link this particular piece cause the title irked me when i saw it the fisrt time, so i apologize in advance for anyone who suffers similar. www.breitbart.com...
see the date ??
i never said he blamed the guy in either of the speeches you posted but that doesn't mean he didn't finger the guy publicly and punish him anyway, does it ?
{ i would have been exceptionally alarmed if he had id'd the guy that soon
}

This is where the rubber meets the road for the Obama administration. They’ve spent the entirety of the last week playing movie critic to a YouTube video that presents an offensive take on Islam.
a whole week ?? 3 days ppl, 3 days.


same link
The attacks last week, especially in Libya, were well-planned and coordinated beginning months ago, as the Libyan President stated this morning.
so, the statement of the Libyan President has no bearing on this investigation ??
what about the team that flew in from Tripoli and were delayed by the Libyan government from reaching their objective until it was too late?

and let's not forget, the first scape-goat was Hillary ... www.breitbart.com...

Quoting senior diplomatic sources, the paper reports, “the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted.” Nonetheless, “no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and ‘lockdown,’ under which movement is severely restricted.”

It gets worse. According to security sources, the State Department had greenlit a “health check” at the consulate I preparation for 9/11. Nonetheless, the attackers broke the perimeter within 15 minutes of the Libyan mob forming.
the problem here is, back then, ppl really weren't paying attention and so we've evolved to the fiasco that are the stories of today.

gonna have to respond to the rest laters, i couldn't continue when you went to the dictionary

if i could link a facepalm, i would



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by boomer135
 


not people already in the city volunteering to help
kinda hard to separate the two when they are the same ppl who were "contracted" ie. paid to provide security isn't it ?

the Feb 17 Brigade was no small group and their loyalties were not to the American outpost.

we don't have any idea what or IF SECDEF or POTUS sent anyone anywhere, that's what all the fuss is about.
disclosure has been anything but full and forthright.

(well, it may be in the cables i haven't read yet)
however, you aren't posting it either so if it exists, please share.
(and in this case, no, msm and spokesmen aren't sufficient)


These guys did a great job keeping as many people safe as they could.
considering the circumstances, i couldn't agree more but one question nags at me in that respect as well ... a 7hr siege and none of them was killed ??
not that i wish death upon anyone that day, but i do find it (no losses) odd to say the least.

yes, i read the spokesman's statement, however, even those movements did nothing to assist those in danger, when they were in danger. so, i really don't see how that matters to the situation as a whole. (sounds more like deflection and soothing talk to me)

so, reading a bit closer i see they prepared for a hostage situation hours before the attack began ?? and, that's not supposed to be alarming to anyone ??

maybe i've read too much but i would tend to think a pending volatile situation would require much more than hostage negotiators ?
i guess that equates to an ... ok, whatever ... moment.
{ya know, after letting that one sink in, it tends to lend credence to the "kidnapping" theory being tossed around ... hmmmm
}



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by boomer135
 

i am not claiming to believe one thing or the other, however, when info is being systematically ignored (such as the lasing) there is usually more to the story where those who'd prefer it doesn't get out, wind up getting their way.
my question for you would be this ... how could the attackers land a precision mortar without having a sightable target in advance ?
{it was 3am and this was supposed to be an undisclosed location}
do you really think the seals would have intentionally revealed their position with a laser unless a strike was imminent ?


Ok, I'm writing the rest of my responses out right now but I just wanted to clarify this so-called laser story so that it's all out there. The CIA at the annex were using Mark 48 machine guns that were equipped with a PEQ-15 laser that has two different types of laser's: a passive laser that when used with a head mounted sight will allow the shooter to laser a target without giving away a location, and a visible laser that that put the familiar red dot on the target. This can be seen by the enemy.

Foxnews came out with a story at first that said this:

They requested assistance several times and were denied. They had AQ mortars painted via laser and requested a C130 attack on the target or a missile strike via a F-22 or F-35. Feedback was they did not want collateral damage of friendlies that may have taken to the streets.

Source: www.foxnews.com...

When writing some other posts, I cut and pasted the entire articles of several different sources into a word document. Well here's the funny thing. If you go to that source on the internet now, a funny thing happens. That entire paragraph is deleted, along with other bits of information that foxnews lied about. That reporter, Jennifer Griffen, is the same person that said she got her information from "someone" on the ground that night. The two "senior diplomatic officials" that gave an interview this week with a extreme right wing host on radio, were proved to be lying, and most likely not even there.

Here's another Jennifer Griffen story released today on foxnews.com: www.foxnews.com...

The entire article is about what laser capabilities the CIA and SEALS had that night. She wrote this because during the Pentagon's release of the timeline earlier this week, foxnews didn't get invited to the briefing. (hahahaha). But lets see the so called "facts" about their capabilities that night...


Fox News has learned the guns were fitted with PEQ-15 lasers. CIA agents were equipped with Mark 48 machine guns and had two types of laser capability. Each weapon had both a “passive” as well as a “visible” laser that could be used against the Libyan attackers.


So lets review. PEQ-15 laser:a lightweight, rugged, simple to use aiming system designed for use with or without aimage night vision device. Features co-aligned visual and IR lasers, so the laser sight is still useful during the day however, is best used at night in conjunction with a night vision rifle scope. Here's a pic of it mounted on a gun...

Um, I don't think that's what you laser targets with although I could be wrong...but read farther into that article and you come to this:

The Annex team also had Ground Laser Designators, or GLD. This kind of laser equipment emits code and signal when there is overhead air support, unmanned aerial surveillance, drones or Spectre gunships, for instance.
Oh so now they had GLD's, as CIA agents, former SEALS, etc...
Pic of the most up to date GLD...

That's a big arse difference. So this SEAL(if we believe foxnews) was lasering the mortar team this whole time with a GLD? Well it had to have been because if they were using the PEQ-15 they simply could have used the passive system that can't be seen by the enemy. But i don't think you can laser a target for aircraft with it. The GLD on the other hand can laser a target for aircraft, and is invisible!

A laser designator is a laser light source which is used to designate a target. Laser designators provide targeting for laser guided bombs, missiles, or precision artillery munitions.When a target is marked by a designator, the beam is invisible and does not shine continuously. Instead, a series of coded pulses of laser-light are fired.

The only people that deploy with this system is the Air Force Joint Tactical Air Controllers and the marine equivalent. Like I said earlier, they prob didn't have this system, and that story was made up by ms griffen.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by boomer135
 


Continuing, I believe that there is no way that the former SEALS, current CIA agent was lasering a target that night with an AIRCRAFT laser system. He probably had the personal laser on his gun, but if he's firing his weapon and trying to lase a target, then he's a pretty good cat. Either way, unless he was using the "red dot" feature on the gun laser, he would not have given his position away. The fact that he called for an F-35 strike in the initial report further tells me that this story is false. Unless I'm way of the beaten path and the F-35 is out of development phase already and is combat ready...

Bottom line, nobody lased a target that night. Foxnews needed some fuel for the right wing party and made up a wild story about ex-SEALS being on top of a building lasing a target with hopes that an AC-130 or an F-35 would bomb the hell out of an angry crowd filled with terrorists and civilians alike. DONT BELIEVE THE HYPE PEOPLE!!!



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by boomer135
 

fyi, i didn't read any of the Fox stories, except here.
not sure what THEY have to do with the audio source i linked.

the story, as i've come to know it, originated with Mr Woods.(father)

so, why are you posting "fallacies or falsehoods" on purpose ??
if that story has been proven wrong/retracted, leave it.

it's one story and it's not the one i encountered or linked.
{mine was from an interview with the father of the fallen Woods}
which, btw, was long before ANY Fox story was published.

all i've ever heard or read about in this event has been "laser designators" ... not sure why the other would enter this discussion, especially if it is invisible to the target.

from my understanding, it was the pulse lasing (airstrike) that revealed the seals location enabling mortar to be precision-fired to strike and kill them.
and, considering the two positioned themselves on a rooftop, yes, it's quite possible they had and were using such equipment.

CIA operatives don't have access to such equipment ?? BS
the military may have designated user/uses but the CIA ?? not buying it.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by boomer135
 


We now know that the drone didn’t arrive until 90 minutes after the start of the attack from the same abc source as above
yet, i previously linked sources indicating the drone arrived at 5:11p EST, approx, 41 minutes after fighting began around 4:30 ... not 90 minutes as your source says.

have you read this ?

blogs.cfr.org...

Shortly before that call, at 4:30 p.m., the Pentagon’s command center had alerted Defense Secretary Panetta and others to the attack. Minutes later, the U.S. military’s Africa Command redirected an unarmed drone from its surveillance mission over militant camps to Benghazi. When the drone arrived at 5:11 p.m. Eastern time, cameras captured images of burning buildings, helping officials in Washington pinpoint which facilities had been targeted by militants. But the images didn’t help the CIA team on the ground respond to the attacks, officials said.

or this ?

blogs.cfr.org...
John McCain, Kelly Ayotte, and Lindsay Graham,
Letter to Leon Panetta, David Petraeus, and Eric Holder,
October 26, 2012.

We are writing to you to request the immediate declassification of all surveillance video in and around the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi for the two days—September 11 and 12, 2012—that it and related U.S. facilities were under attack. It has been reported that the Department of Defense, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Department of State had assets, both air-and ground-based, that recorded the events of those fateful days, and we understand that video is now in the possession of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and has been classified Top Secret.

It is vitally important that the American people know all of the facts surrounding the attack in Benghazi last month, and this surveillance video can shed important light on the nature of the attack and what kind of response could have been effective while it was ongoing. Many of our constituents are demanding answers to these and other important questions, we need the best possible information to fulfill our responsibilities to our fellow citizens. We therefore request that you declassify this video immediately.



then we finally have another drone that provides real time video of the attack (which by the way wasn’t stated anywhere in any source I’ve read.
then you should find this one of interest


According to a report in the Daily Beast on Oct. 12, [color=amber]administration officials are studying a videotape of a live feed from the drone that "saw" at least the last hour of the assault that led to the killing of the US ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, and the deaths of three other US personnel in and around the Benghazi consulate.

and, in case you haven't read over these ... Oversight hearings
oversight.house.gov...

i will not say what did or did not happen in Benghazi as i wasn't there.
however, i am not blindly stepping into the overwhelming pile of dung this Admin has dropped.
we should be sharing info not discounting one or the other as they are all hearsay.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by boomer135
reply to post by boomer135
 


Continuing, I believe that there is no way that the former SEALS, current CIA agent was lasering a target that night with an AIRCRAFT laser system. He probably had the personal laser on his gun, but if he's firing his weapon and trying to lase a target, then he's a pretty good cat. Either way, unless he was using the "red dot" feature on the gun laser, he would not have given his position away. The fact that he called for an F-35 strike in the initial report further tells me that this story is false. Unless I'm way of the beaten path and the F-35 is out of development phase already and is combat ready...

Bottom line, nobody lased a target that night. Foxnews needed some fuel for the right wing party and made up a wild story about ex-SEALS being on top of a building lasing a target with hopes that an AC-130 or an F-35 would bomb the hell out of an angry crowd filled with terrorists and civilians alike. DONT BELIEVE THE HYPE PEOPLE!!!

now, i've already admitted that i have no real knowledge about the armament, equipment, what's issued, what's deployed or any other such details.

so, in the spirit of learning ... i'm curious why you said this?

Unless I'm way of the beaten path and the F-35 is out of development phase already and is combat ready...
a quick google search revealed the F35B achieving successful air-start tests.
is this the plane you are referencing ?
defensetech.org...

i'm pretty sure the F35A would be much farther along in it's combat ready status, wouldn't you agree ?

guess what? i was curious enough to look and check this out ...

ex.democracydata.com...
* Since December 2006, F-35s have flown 3,043 times and accrued more than 4,808 cumulative flight hours.
* On September 4, the Edwards Air Force Base team launched six aircraft (AF-1, 2, 7 and 3 chase) to the Sea Test Range with tanker for three separate missions.

F-35 Deliveries
* 37 F-35s have been delivered to the Department of Defense:
o 12 System Development and Demonstration (SDD) aircraft
o 25 Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) aircraft, including two international F-35s
* This includes 3 LRIP aircraft that have completed DD250 at Fort Worth
there's more info at the link but i'm not sure if this means they were available or not
(although, i tend to think so)

since i have no way of knowing what potential strike power was available in Benghazi, i cannot discount the possibility of an F35, can you ?

i could be wrong here but ... 37 units delivered to the DoD does mean they are combat ready, correct ?
edit on 4-11-2012 by Honor93 because: format



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93

Originally posted by boomer135
reply to post by boomer135
 


Continuing, I believe that there is no way that the former SEALS, current CIA agent was lasering a target that night with an AIRCRAFT laser system. He probably had the personal laser on his gun, but if he's firing his weapon and trying to lase a target, then he's a pretty good cat. Either way, unless he was using the "red dot" feature on the gun laser, he would not have given his position away. The fact that he called for an F-35 strike in the initial report further tells me that this story is false. Unless I'm way of the beaten path and the F-35 is out of development phase already and is combat ready...

Bottom line, nobody lased a target that night. Foxnews needed some fuel for the right wing party and made up a wild story about ex-SEALS being on top of a building lasing a target with hopes that an AC-130 or an F-35 would bomb the hell out of an angry crowd filled with terrorists and civilians alike. DONT BELIEVE THE HYPE PEOPLE!!!

now, i've already admitted that i have no real knowledge about the armament, equipment, what's issued, what's deployed or any other such details.

so, in the spirit of learning ... i'm curious why you said this?

Unless I'm way of the beaten path and the F-35 is out of development phase already and is combat ready...
a quick google search revealed the F35B achieving successful air-start tests.
is this the plane you are referencing ?
defensetech.org...

i'm pretty sure the F35A would be much farther along in it's combat ready status, wouldn't you agree ?

guess what? i was curious enough to look and check this out ...

ex.democracydata.com...
* Since December 2006, F-35s have flown 3,043 times and accrued more than 4,808 cumulative flight hours.
* On September 4, the Edwards Air Force Base team launched six aircraft (AF-1, 2, 7 and 3 chase) to the Sea Test Range with tanker for three separate missions.

F-35 Deliveries
* 37 F-35s have been delivered to the Department of Defense:
o 12 System Development and Demonstration (SDD) aircraft
o 25 Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) aircraft, including two international F-35s
* This includes 3 LRIP aircraft that have completed DD250 at Fort Worth
there's more info at the link but i'm not sure if this means they were available or not
(although, i tend to think so)

since i have no way of knowing what potential strike power was available in Benghazi, i cannot discount the possibility of an F35, can you ?



I can absolutely discount an F-35 being available that night or any other night because the F-35 is still in development and testing. The 37 planes delivered thus far are strickly for system development and training purposes to get our crews ready to fly the jets. They are not available to forces around the world yet. Check with anybody on this issue. The F35A, B, and C models are being built at the same time. The different variants are for different types of the plane. The A model is your standard air force plane. The B model is for STVOL which is short takeoff and vertical landing (think harrier). The C model is the Navy variant for carriers. So no the F-35A isn't farther along than the B or the C. None of them are ready to go yet. They don't even have the damn helmet working to fly the jet yet. They are using a backup helmet to conduct flight tests.

Here's a page for ya. www.jsf.mil...
Even wikipedia has a good write up on it. en.wikipedia.org...
Here's a recent one...www.businessweek.com...

Bottom line is the F-35 hasn't even reached Initial Operation Capability yet, much less combat status. No this plane was not available to anybody anywhere anytime. This is actually a little something I know about too. It's kind of my specialty here on ATS.





top topics
 
63
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join