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

page: 8
63
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 11:55 PM
link   
Video where reporter gives details of a conversation he had with General Ham. Ham said he was not requested to take action.


What he did not say was whether he was told to "stand down."

Likely conversation: "Should I take action"?

Response: "No. Stand down."

Who would have given the response/command/order to do nothing, the President or Secretary of Defense or both? They were together with Biden at the White House in a scheduled meeting at 5PM on 9/11/2012 and they received an email at 4:05 PM that the Libya consulate was under siege. This was 25 minutes after it began - meaning the attack just began at 3:40 PM Washington, DC time.


Obama Met With Panetta and Biden at WH As Benghazi Terror Attack Unfolded
cnsnews.com...





edit on 10/31/2012 by sad_eyed_lady because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by boomer135
A guy on my facebook wrote this up on the foxnews report www.foxnews.com... that was almost all false. Thought it was pretty good to bring up here, but I won't use his name:


While the facts may have some validity, we all have some military experience, and those with secret squirrel stories should know better than anyone, that the media will always try to turn a tragic event into some kind of conspiracy. We all know the 10% rule, and I believe that applies to this entire article. The, "Within 30 seconds/ c-130 airstrike/ f-35, f-22 missle strike" comments are what completely lost its validity with me. Someone with no CAS experience probably was overheard after the fact, asked really dumb questions about why an f-22 didn't drop a bomb, someone else was overheard explaining the concepts of CDE, and BAM! "Navy seals request for an airstrike denied!" is the headline.

thanks for the addy boomer135 and since i'm not military or CIA, perhaps you could answer a few things nagging at me.

first, there was a response ... they arrived AFTER the fighting was over.
(i can find the link if necessary)

second, Panetta claims the intel was insufficient
... my first question is since it hasn't been reported that he was present for the incoming intel {the 3 reported are Obama, Ham, Dempsey} ... how would he know if the intel was sufficient or not ?

third, i do understand the CoH amongst SF groups, so, is it likely or even possible that the men under seige would have endured a delay in delivery of an order and gone on their own ?

fourth, why would a response be called in at all (even late) if the intel was so poor ?
i thought the Panetta Doctrine prefers Force Protection


ok, given the benefit of his doubts, and the slim possibility that no stand down order was given (i don't buy that but let's just say it's so) what are the chances that General Ham acted in interests other than the lives of his men ?



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Dempsey: Africa Command change not tied to Libya


The top U.S. military officer is denying reports that Army Gen. Carter Ham's planned departure as head of U.S. Africa Command is linked to the Sept. 11 attack in Libya.

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey issued a written statement Monday calling speculation about the reasons for Ham's move "absolutely false."



Well there you have it, nothing to see here... move along.

But the question remains, why leave them to hang in the wind?

It appears that our Ambassador to Libya was working with the CIA. It appears that the CIA was providing arms to al Qaeda and other Islamic Jihadist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood for the purpose of taking down governments in the middle-east – with the President’s knowledge. How could anyone be so stupid to think that arming these Jihadists would not result in those arms eventually being used on Americans?

But run those weapons and aid to Al Qaeda and Jihad groups Obama did, and that appears to be the MOTIVE behind the cover-up of the Benghazi attack and the insistence of blaming the YouTube video for the murder of 4 Americans including Ambassador Stevens. The White House WATCHED THE ATTACK on Benghazi go down, via drone recon. They were told as it went down it was a terrorist attack and while it happened THE WHITE HOUSE WATCHED OUR PEOPLE DIE FROM THE SITUATION ROOM and then lied about it! The Obama administration owes the American people a full, honest explanation for its actions in Libya. Its rhetoric does not match reality.



Glenn Beck makes the case of Obama being a terrorist arms dealer.


edit on 31-10-2012 by wasaka because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Resurected
reply to post by Donkey_Dean
 


Link me to your official facts?


ok
www.foxnews.com...

www.google.com...
edit on 31-10-2012 by Donkey_Dean because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93

Originally posted by boomer135
A guy on my facebook wrote this up on the foxnews report www.foxnews.com... that was almost all false. Thought it was pretty good to bring up here, but I won't use his name:


While the facts may have some validity, we all have some military experience, and those with secret squirrel stories should know better than anyone, that the media will always try to turn a tragic event into some kind of conspiracy. We all know the 10% rule, and I believe that applies to this entire article. The, "Within 30 seconds/ c-130 airstrike/ f-35, f-22 missle strike" comments are what completely lost its validity with me. Someone with no CAS experience probably was overheard after the fact, asked really dumb questions about why an f-22 didn't drop a bomb, someone else was overheard explaining the concepts of CDE, and BAM! "Navy seals request for an airstrike denied!" is the headline.

thanks for the addy boomer135 and since i'm not military or CIA, perhaps you could answer a few things nagging at me.

first, there was a response ... they arrived AFTER the fighting was over.
(i can find the link if necessary)

second, Panetta claims the intel was insufficient
... my first question is since it hasn't been reported that he was present for the incoming intel {the 3 reported are Obama, Ham, Dempsey} ... how would he know if the intel was sufficient or not ?

third, i do understand the CoH amongst SF groups, so, is it likely or even possible that the men under seige would have endured a delay in delivery of an order and gone on their own ?

fourth, why would a response be called in at all (even late) if the intel was so poor ?
i thought the Panetta Doctrine prefers Force Protection


ok, given the benefit of his doubts, and the slim possibility that no stand down order was given (i don't buy that but let's just say it's so) what are the chances that General Ham acted in interests other than the lives of his men ?


Panetta was most likely involved in the intel. He was in a meeting with Obama and Biden at 5PM on 9/11/2012, 55 minutes after the first email came about the attack. See my post above. Ham was not requested to take action. Don't you think he would have asked if he should? Video above.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by boomer135
 


Why "paint" the target with a laser if no air support was promised or expected?

Speaking of FaceBook, thought this report of censorship was interesting.

www.breitbart.com...



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by wasaka
 


Then the real question is why didn't he then proceed to kick his second in commands ass? I'm sure the room was full of loyal soldier who would have stood by him.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by sad_eyed_lady
 

thanks sad_eyed_lady, but can't view videos. care to summarize ?
{not really necessary but could be helpful}

yeah, i was typing and hadn't seen your post above, yet.
until now, i wasn't aware that Biden was directly involved
and that is disturbing on a whole new level


yes, i think so but i wasn't there so i'm not gonna speculate beyond the obvious.
without some form of "minutes" of the meeting, i doubt we'll ever know for sure.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


enjoy this article on media bias in this story and I'll try to answer your questions if I can!

bostonherald.com...



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by boomer135
 

group think ... only when they're getting paid for it.
otherwise, as our WH re-iterates on a near daily basis, it's every animal for themselves.
however, beware fancy dinner invitations or one may find themself served FOR dinner.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 12:59 AM
link   


thanks for the addy boomer135 and since i'm not military or CIA, perhaps you could answer a few things nagging at me.

first, there was a response ... they arrived AFTER the fighting was over.
(i can find the link if necessary)

second, Panetta claims the intel was insufficient
... my first question is since it hasn't been reported that he was present for the incoming intel {the 3 reported are Obama, Ham, Dempsey} ... how would he know if the intel was sufficient or not ?

third, i do understand the CoH amongst SF groups, so, is it likely or even possible that the men under seige would have endured a delay in delivery of an order and gone on their own ?

fourth, why would a response be called in at all (even late) if the intel was so poor ?
i thought the Panetta Doctrine prefers Force Protection


ok, given the benefit of his doubts, and the slim possibility that no stand down order was given (i don't buy that but let's just say it's so) what are the chances that General Ham acted in interests other than the lives of his men ?


First, I have to say I'm not active duty anymore but I've seen some things like this in my life. By no means does it make me an expert...

First, yes they did arrive around 2 a.m. They had trouble with transportation from the airport to the consulate. Remember the foxnews report says that on the second email sent, the attack was over and they were sending people in to check. So why would we act on this if the attack was presumed over by the administration? Just to kill more Muslims, like some people have stated?

Second, Panetta was at the White House for a scheduled meeting so if Obama knew about this then he did as well. The first email would have been a "flash" message because it regarded the life of an ambassador. Flash messages need to be to the POTUS within ten minutes of receipt.

Third, actually the CIA safehouse/annex (see rendition/torture house) personnel did act when the ambassador was under attack and saved over 60 people. The ambassador and the three CIA agents/former SEALS were supposedly in a safe room of the building, which was in the emails as well.

Forth, I think that people were called in in the first place. As already seen, we know a group arrived at the airfield at 2. Where did they come from? How long did it take for them to get there? The emails show a team heading to the consulate to check for damage and survivors, thinking the ambassador and the three guys were in a safe room.

I'll add that General Ham probably would have resigned on the spot if given that order, which I doubt was given. If it was given, it was probably within the first hour of the fight just to see how things were gonna play out. Weeks after this happened, Obama said that the minute intel came into the White House he was doing everything he could to ensure the safety of the consulate. Why would he flat out lie about this? In a one on one interview no less?

Also, this whole thing about a live feed coming to the White House has to be seen with mixed results. We only have one aircraft that I know of that can perform this type of intel and it's the RQ-170 Sentinel, the same drone over bin Laden's compound the night of the raid. What are the chances that we had a RQ-170 around Egypt at the time? Well maybe pretty good but I don't know for sure. Also, people have questioned why we didn't have a drone armed in the area as well. That would mean that the drone was in fact probably an RQ-170. So who knows. However, I don't think that the President would flat out lie about that statement. I think that his initial intel was probably the story he told us about what happened and everything else came out after that speech. If there's an attack somewhere and I go on facebook and claim responsibility, do you think the White House would take me seriously?

Edit: I forgot to say that two drones were there I guess with the first one relieving the second one, probably because of fuel purposes. Well the RQ-170 is A/A refuelable so it probably wasn't that.

I don't know what happened there. I'm no expert, but all the FACTS we have about this tragedy point to POTUS not lying about all this. Just wrong intel. We've heard that before. Remember Iraqi Freedom?
edit on 31-10-2012 by boomer135 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by wasaka
reply to post by boomer135
 


Why "paint" the target with a laser if no air support was promised or expected?

Speaking of FaceBook, thought this report of censorship was interesting.

www.breitbart.com...


Good question but the source for that info is the same foxnews report. If it was a CIA, non-former SEAL guy, he might not have known what he was doing. We don't know if all the CIA agents were former SEALS. Again, I don't think the report is accurate. Most likely a story told to that reporter to get her out of his way or something.

I saw that report on censoring too. The original source is a radical right wing guy who is also trying everything he can to get Obama out of the White House. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I don't see facebook censoring anything like that. You can find porn on facebook. lol



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 02:18 AM
link   
reply to post by boomer135
 


Hey Boomer, I have a question and in my mind it's a huge one. There is a blog out there with yet another account of the events that night and it follows most with a few additional details for context. Who knows what's actually true..as even the timelines on critical points don't match close enough to feel they are from the same sources. However, this point is simple enough to say yes or not and establish ONE major point of the night.

What this blog explained was that the laser designator system projects a coded beam. I believe it was about it pulsing or something similar..I don't know the technical side or pretend to here, but the bottom line was....There was configuration required and it had to match the weapon being fired or the weapon wouldn't know THAT beam was the one it was supposed to be locked onto and following. That makes sense from a logical stand point..and I'd always wondered how a simple laser could be used and not spoofed..or more than one being used in LOS to the aircraft without having weapons go any which way to whatever other beam they spot.

The end point to explaining this in the blog was to note that the Seal would NOT have lased the target without not only being sure there was something above to engage it, but having communicated WITH the air crew or the drone pilot to synchronize the config settings that had to match and make it work.

I haven't seen any real debate about whether they had used the laser in lasing the mortar position. Accounts seem to agree there. So......Isn't the use of the laser designator proof in and of itself that there was an armed platform of SOME nature over Benghazi that night and in communication at some level with the guys at the annex? If THAT assumption is correct, it seems to solidy at least a few points of the story. If NOT...then it seriously shakes those same few points.

Is there anything you may be able to add to clarify that either way for whether that communication between ground and air HAS to happen before lasing a target for an attack?



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by boomer135
 

well, in case i haven't said it before, Thank You

thanks for your service and courteous response.

as for emails - nope - haven't read one yet.
have read several references to them but haven't seen the real mccoy, got a link?

as for what you said about a 2am notice about an arrival ... ??? huh
not familiar.
arrival of whom ? and who had transpo trouble ?

can't really address the other 2 questions while the above remains unanswered.

do i think there is a "muslim" agenda that may involve targeting/killing muslims ??
sure, in one form or another. there has been for many, many years, why not now ?

also, from what i've read so far, the attack was ongoing from before 10p til near dawn.
so, at 2am, why would anyone think the siege was over, especially the WH ?
{trying to understand how that's possible with live video at their disposal}

email vs live feed ?? that's a no contest and the email comes in second.

since i know nothing about Flash mssgs, i'll take your word for that unless challenged.

so, assuming Obama knew about the active danger 1.5hr after the skirmish start (still before midnight) --> what's with further delay ?? i sure don't follow that line of thinking, even politically speaking.


The ambassador and the three CIA agents/former SEALS were supposedly in a safe room of the building, which was in the emails as well
now this doesn't mesh with what i've read thus far.

here's the differences --> 2 seals at annex, upon hearing the conflict, made 1st request for assistance. (probably via flash mssg you mentioned)
after making 2 more requests for assistance and being denied, they proceeded to the "consulate" to engage.
upon arrival at the consulate, ambassador was found dead and the other seal injured and declining.

reportedly, the arriving seals collected the AKs discarded by the Feb 17 members who bailed from their posts and proceeded to kill 60 of the attackers, rescue near 20 employees and return to the annex only to be leveled by a precision mortar.

as for this ...

Forth, I think that people were called in in the first place. As already seen, we know a group arrived at the airfield at 2. Where did they come from? How long did it take for them to get there? The emails show a team heading to the consulate to check for damage and survivors, thinking the ambassador and the three guys were in a safe room.
i don't doubt "ppl" were called in, but, that doesn't say whom either.
Feb 17 were working both sides and openly admitted as much.
so why call in those you deem "terrorists" anyway ?
{perhaps aiding the enemy or enemy combatants is no longer a traitorous act ??}

also, who fed them the false intel ? (in a safe room)
remember, by 3am, they had been battling for more than 4 hrs, on video.


If it was given, it was probably within the first hour of the fight just to see how things were gonna play out.
considering the fight was nearly 2hr old when the WH was first notified, why wait ?

because he has proven himself to be a pathological liar

to Obama, lying is second nature. if his lips are moving, chances are more likely than not that he is lying through his teeth.

oh come on, i'm not that young

the situation room has been getting live feeds for years, this is not news.
just because they have a new toy equipped with better doesn't make it new tech.
(fyi, they've been getting live feeds since the 80s, early 90s)

heck, a few conflicts ago, the embedded Geraldo nearly got himself in BIG trouble over live feeds, remember?
{anything about location, location, location ring a bell? )

so, bad intel, poor video, not enough of either, sorry --> no sale.

wait a minute, the only "story" i remember Obama spewing was that 'anti-muslim movie motivated a deadly attack' or something similar.
which story are you referring to, exactly ?

as for the drone, i have no idea so i'm not speculating on that.
however, i am sure he had multiple options at his immediate disposal.
none of which were employed to support or rescue our countrymen.

i also heard that this whole mess was a pre-arranged, coordinated kidnapping gone bad.
heard anything on that front ?

Iraq freedom ? kinda, sorta but am currently a bit over-saturated with Fast & Furious Part II.

ETA: boomer, i'm getting the impression that you haven't read over this yet, have you ?
gotta copy/paste to search or just "Panetta Doctrine" (doesn't pass ATScensors)
www blackfive.net/main/2012/10/former-delta-operator-on-the-panetta-doctrine-or-also-known-as-the-dumbest-#-i-ever-heard.html
commentary from a former Delta Operator - care to share an opinion on his opinion ?
edit on 31-10-2012 by Honor93 because: ETA



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 02:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 

well done Wrabbit ... even i understand what you said there and i'm no weapons techy.
makes sense though but who am i to know any different ?

here's the question i'd like to add based on your input.
IF the active communication was necessary to achieve a lasing, wouldn't that preparation require a "stand down/abort" order to withdraw ??



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 03:10 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 03:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Ben81
 

howdy Ben, please read it again, you're mistaken.

he was fired because he didnt want to protect his people ..
NO.
Gen Ham was relieved of duty and replaced.
it is speculated that his removal was both intentional and due to his refusal to abandon his people.


this is really unpatriotic and disgusting
YES It is, anyway you comprehend it.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 03:24 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 03:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Ben81
 

well, if that's what you choose to believe, have at it.
i've certainly been called worse than crazy in my day


to me, refusing to abandon is an honorable thing.
refusing to protect is an Obama thing.
the two actions are vwery, vwery opposite.

the election ?? that's what you get from this ?

no Romney supporter here but i would like the truth about the events in Benghazi.
however, in the meantime, erecting gallows in the Rose Garden is sounding rather appealing.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 04:03 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 





new topics
top topics
 
63
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join