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.


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

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 08:22 PM
reply to post by Destiny10

It absolutely flies in the face of the military axiom to "leave no one behind." I can just imagine how angry our military guys are right now. I don't know how anyone could serve under this president. All those "Obama's got your back" lies..

Our military needs to stand together on this and speak out and they need to do it NOW!

posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 08:23 PM

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by MsAphrodite

Generals have been fired, and replaced almost immediately with a temporary commander, until a permanent replacement was installed by Congress. Look at Gen McChrystal. He was fired, and Gen Patraeus almost immediately replaced him. McChrystal's predecessor, Gen McKiernan was fired, and McChrystal replaced him almost immediately.

The article in Rolling Stone wasn't published until November, but Gen McChrystal was fired June 23rd. General Patraeus arrived in Kabul on July 2nd to take command. So don't tell me that they couldn't fast track a change of command, and had to leave him in command if he had done something wrong.

I know that you didn't say that he was arrested, but all the articles that were online stated that he had been detained "almost immediately" by his second in command. If it was bad enough that he was detained, then they wouldn't give him the opportunity to continue to be in the spotlight as the AFRICOM commander, in any capacity.

When there is a cover up going on they have to keep it on the down low. As if they'd follow through with an arrest and the splash the headlines the next day about how an "American General was arrested for disobeying a command to stand down and allow four Americans to be killed." Come on now, you sound ridiculous! If he'd to perform in his position for a few more weeks, come out and make a few public appearances and then quietly be removed from command. That's how it all fits into the whole cover up thing. And just coincidence that an Admiral is also removed who commands the navy in the same region, huh? It's pretty scary when you think about Obama putting all the pieces together. He's getting rid of generals that disagree with his policies and replacing them with more liberal thinkers. This has been going on for a while now.

posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 08:24 PM
Notice most of the poeple hyping this up right wingers or anti Obama people...

Really you have to wonder why they are taking rumor as fact and you really wonder what happened to ATS?

lol Pretty easy to figure out what happened here. A group of people where looking for something to buy, someone stood up and sold it to them.

posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 08:27 PM
reply to post by Rezlooper

You know this guy was in the armed forces for almost 40 years right? If anything happened the most likely thing to go on would be lack of action and a premature retirment instead of taking away everything the man worked for over 40 years.

Had this man really went rougue, being fired would be the least of his issues to deal with.

posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 08:28 PM

Originally posted by wasaka

Originally posted by FreebirdGirl

Has anyone read the article to know that whatever side you are on He was not arrested. He was relieved of command. I repeat he was not arrested. The arrest part was only used to grab your attention. The OP should be ashamed. Political trolls. Nov 6th can not come soon enough. This site is being over run by crazies.

This is a conspiracy website, not a news site. Attention grabbing headlines are the norm.
Having said that, the OP was not a "conspiracy theory" but facts as they have been reported
by main stream media sources, namely the Washington Times.

The OP also include the term "9/11" and yes that was to grab attention... but the fact is this
did happen on 9/11 and I maintain the term "arrested" is equally as valid. You choose to see
the OP as a "crazy political trolling" when all I did was ask one simple question and make one
simple observation. Here they are again:

A) Is a General losing his job for trying to save the Americans besieged in Benghazi?
B) Sounds like the story line for Last Resort (the new TV series on ABC)

Tell me again, what exactly should I feel ashamed of ???

The source I linked to reads:

Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command.

I read "apprehended" as arrest. I could be wrong, mistaken, or misinformed
but that is why I posted this to ATS, so we could all get to the bottom of this.

To my mind, being arrested means you are not free to leave (like when the
police detain you). That arrest may only last a few moments but in this case
its hard for me see how a General being relieved of his command after he
disregarded a direct order from the White House is not a proper use of
that term. Again, I could be wrong, so you decide for yourself.

Apparently General Ham is not the only member of the armed forces who
attempted to respond and who has been relieved of his command.


"The Navy said Saturday it is replacing the admiral in command of an aircraft carrier strike group in the Middle East, pending the outcome of an internal investigation into undisclosed allegations of inappropriate judgment.

Inappropriate judgment eh? Like, perhaps, deciding that he was going to go do his job when our people were under attack through an act of war on U.S. soil by known belligerents and terrorist? There isn't much that’s “inappropriate” in my view under such circumstances in terms of rapid response, but the CIC (that would be Obama) apparently sees things differently.

Under the UCMJ, any order that will harm soldiers etc can legally be ignored. However, it would still need to be defended in a military court. You get arrested and then you defend your actions, however in this case no one want to see that happen because it would get a lot of bad press... you can bet this will fade into obscurity as do all stories about negative events participated in by the top brass.

Just remember, our Government (the Marxist Obama administration) lied to us directly, "eyeball to eyeball", for an extended period of time. They blamed a YouTube video when we know, without having to look at rumors, that communication where taking place that made it clear that NIGHT it was an organized attack and never a spontaneous event by unruly protesters. The big question is why the stand down order given?

Imagine, pre-9/11/12, that you were responsible for arranging the defense of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Would you have considered American interests and personnel best protected by bringing in a local security outfit called the February 17 Martyrs Brigade?

Question: If the Federal government has been caught lying to the American people about Pearl Harbor, 9/11, Korea, Vietnam, the Gary Frances Powers U-2 shoot-down over Russia, the Bay of Pigs fiasco, the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the Watergate break-in, the October Surprise, the Iran-Contra scandal, the BCCI scandal, the invasion of Iraq, and the hunt for al Qaeda in Afghanistan -- what on earth would cause any thinking American to blindly believe that the Federal government is not lying through its teeth right now about running arms to al Qaeda in Libya and Syria?

The bottom line is the OP used arrested to gain attention knowing no such arrest happened. The idea that this thread continues with very few realizing that simple fact speaks volumes.

posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 08:30 PM
reply to post by Resurected

Which part of this do you understand to be rumor and which truth? Your post was too general to decipher what questions you have.
edit on 30-10-2012 by MsAphrodite because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 08:31 PM
reply to post by Rezlooper

Except it would make a lot more sense for them to announce his retirement within a couple of weeks of the incident, not a month and a half later. Or even to announce that he was moving to a different position, or any of a number other excuses that could be used, instead of leaving him where he is the most highly visible person in theater.

posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 08:32 PM
reply to post by FreebirdGirl

Thats one of those "want" to believe things.. If this where a story on the MSM they would question it all and tear it apart.. In this case its something they want to believe, so no questions. Just roll with it.

posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 08:35 PM
reply to post by Zaphod58

I think exactly the opposite is true. The guy who has already been chosen by Obama to replace him (General Rodriguez) is his second in command. Ham could not do anything without being reported. It would have drawn significantly more attention to announce his retirement without putting some space between that announcement and the Benghazi incident. You certainly would not move a 4 star general with an exemplary record from his command. Now that would really raise questions.

posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 08:37 PM
CIA stood down and thats a fact. CIA also killed Kennedy!

CIA is at fault!

posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 08:38 PM
reply to post by Donkey_Dean

Link me to your official facts?

posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 08:38 PM
Topic Only, Please

Speaking generally, and not to any specific post, let's please focus on the topic and refrain from "meta" commentary about other members or ATS as a whole. That's not what this forum is for, and further comments along such lines will be subject to removal.


P.S. Lest I be misunderstood, there's nothing wrong with questioning the veracity of any source or challenging the opinions of other members, and there never will be. But insulting any member for expressing their opinions, or the community in general, runs in direct opposition to what ATS is about, and is something we should all work against.

edit on 10/30/2012 by Majic because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 08:41 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift

Admin Note: Please see the previous post. -- Majic

edit on 10/30/2012 by Majic because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 08:53 PM
Is there any other source besides this blog that confirms this story?

I have searched and the only thing I can find is this blog and speculation as to what might have happened, but nothing official anywhere.

posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 08:53 PM
reply to post by DaTroof

This just further proves how inept the entire military is from top to bottom.

No it proves how corrupt, thoughtless, and un-American Obama is to abandon his own and fail to protect soverign US soil and personnel. It also proves that military people are of a family, not prone to sit still while their brothers are killed before their own eyes.

If you were under attack, who would you want in charge. The General who got relieved, or the Kenyan in the White House? Answer honestly, if you are able.

posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 08:57 PM
reply to post by MsAphrodite

Even if they didn't move him, he could have come out and said he had health problems, or something with his family. There are a number of excuses that could have been used that would never have tied him to what happened. They could have waited a few weeks, and then had a family member get sick, or whatever. Or they could have moved him into an office where someone else was leaving that appeared to be either a normal lateral move, or even somewhat of an upgrade to his current position.

The point is that there are a huge number of ways they could have gotten him removed from his position without raising eyebrows, besides just leaving him there for months on end, after quietly firing him. And if he really was fired, there would be something showing up on the grapevine, besides one or two blogs that sensationalized things to the point people are calling BS on them. One thing that can't be stopped, no matter how hard they try is the military rumor mill. It's also the fastest communications system in the world.

posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 08:58 PM
reply to post by LifeIsPeculiar

The General who got relieved, or the Kenyan in the White House? Answer honestly, if you are able.

It's impossible to answer honestly to a question that uses false premises.

Answer me this, do you still beat your wife?

posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 09:23 PM
reply to post by Zaphod58

Even if they didn't move him, he could have come out and said he had health problems, or something with his family. There are a number of excuses that could have been used that would never have tied him to what happened. They could have waited a few weeks, and then had a family member get sick, or whatever

I wish I knew where I heard it, it was on the radio within the past two days, but I heard the excuse given that he had planned on stepping down from his position due to an illness (terminal) in his family. I believe that they said it was his daughter.
I am going to look, see if I can find anything.

ETA: I found a reference to it in a blog, here.
They are saying it was on the Glenn Beck show, and it was stated that his wife is terminally ill. I know I heard it somewhere else too, because I don't listen to Beck.
edit on 30-10-2012 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 09:26 PM
reply to post by Zaphod58

Or they could be doing this exactly the way that they are. The way that raises the least eyebrows and provokes the least questions. If he lied about his reasons there are many who would know better, think about it. Besides he has a spotless record and is said to be a man of honor. I'm sure he is leaving quietly, but on his terms.

posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 09:29 PM
reply to post by Taiyed

H ere have at it and get back to us. I've spent hours on this already. The google search alone says something is up. About 30,300,000 results (0.25 seconds)

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in