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

Originally posted by clay2 baraka

Originally posted by Zaphod58
It's kind of interesting that he was arrested "within minutes" of disobeying the order on 9/11, but gave a press conference as AFRICOM on 9/30 in Algeria, don't you think?

www.africom.mil...

I was thinking the exact same thing. He was given a lot of freedom to make all kinds of statements following the events for a man who was arrested..

I would believe that PRESSURE from the White House and the Pentagon probably made him change his tune. Funny how the White House hasn't commented on this or that the US Mass Media has not brought it up in any news context or dialogue with the White House, particularly with the Command in Chief.

If true this General will have a mysterious disappearance. They will never give him a day in court. These are signs of a government crumbling away and they will do anything to keep it together.

so the general put his oath over washington pigs and got arrested....disgusting.

A conference room somewhere in Moscow, no not the Kremlin, a faceless, concrete, blast reinforced bunker like building, sub level ten. A group of hard faced men in military uniforms are listening to a senior officer with a big smile on his face and his feet up on the table waving a fat Cuban cigar around as he says:

"Seven hours, not thirty minutes. Seven hours!" He chuckles. "Gentlemen, we can do an awful lot in seven hours."

He adds: "It's just like they used to say about us. It's not the armed forces, it's the political leadership."

Somewhere in the Libyan desert an AK47 carrying Bedouin leads a camel across a sand dune on his way to an important meeting. He says to the camel:

"Seven hours! My generation has been praying for the seven hour window and now it has been granted. Allahu akbar!!"

The camel honks in agreement and requests a date.

reply to post by ipsedixit

Yes, the 3am phone call campaign ad that Hillary ran in the primary comes true.

And people laughed about that ad.

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
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.

Exactly. Obama wants him out, so he's out but with the least amount of attention. It wouldn't look good for Obama if it was known that he was forcing out a hero!!!

reply to post by wasaka
This being a conspiracy web site does anyone think we have a Muslim in the Whitehouse or is everyone still thinking this clown is still just an incompetent dolt.
I think and this is just me, that if the people in this country continues to belive that Obama is just an incompetent they are making a big mistake.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
OMG..... Okay..I thought I'd heard everything on this story. He was outright ARRESTED? For refusing to ignore the cries for help...and deliberately leave those men to die?! He was actually ARRESTED ON THE SPOT like a bad friggen movie?!

(chomps a carrot so hard it sounds like wood breaking)

edit on 30-10-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

The thing is, he had to make a moral decision: follow orders as he is supposed to, or "do the right thing.". Obviously, he did the "right thing", knowing full well:
A) he was disobeying direct orders from the White House and/or Pentagon
And
B) his actions could have had far more dire consequences, leading to far more deaths.

The White House and Pentagon always have more information available that officers in the field. The situation could have been that we were allowing the CIA operative (the Ambassador) to be killed in exchange for not detonating a suitcase nuke in NYC. Lr it could be he was a double-agent working for Russia and we found out.

Both of those are far-out scenarios, but my point is that the chain of command is there for a reason. The guy itching to disobey orders might cause more harm than good, not knowing the full story. Its why I would never, ever want to be in the military. Following orders "no matter what" just isn't going to happen for me. I have a hard enough time "following orders" when I agree with them. If you can't do it when you don't agree with them - then the military is not the place for you.

Again, he did the right thing morally, but I also believe he did the wrong thing based on his obligations and responsibilities.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
OMG..... Okay..I thought I'd heard everything on this story. He was outright ARRESTED? For refusing to ignore the cries for help...and deliberately leave those men to die?! He was actually ARRESTED ON THE SPOT like a bad friggen movie?!

(chomps a carrot so hard it sounds like wood breaking)

edit on 30-10-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

The thing is, he had to make a moral decision: follow orders as he is supposed to, or "do the right thing.". Obviously, he did the "right thing", knowing full well:
A) he was disobeying direct orders from the White House and/or Pentagon
And
B) his actions could have had far more dire consequences, leading to far more deaths.

The White House and Pentagon always have more information available that officers in the field. The situation could have been that we were allowing the CIA operative (the Ambassador) to be killed in exchange for not detonating a suitcase nuke in NYC. Lr it could be he was a double-agent working for Russia and we found out.

Both of those are far-out scenarios, but my point is that the chain of command is there for a reason. The guy itching to disobey orders might cause more harm than good, not knowing the full story. Its why I would never, ever want to be in the military. Following orders "no matter what" just isn't going to happen for me. I have a hard enough time "following orders" when I agree with them. If you can't do it when you don't agree with them - then the military is not the place for you.

Again, he did the right thing morally, but I also believe he did the wrong thing based on his obligations and responsibilities.

Originally posted by DaTroof
When a General breaks orders, there's really no chain of command or any semblance of calm.

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

Not true. Sun Tzu said in "the Art of War" (which is standard reading for military officers) that generals in the field are not always obligated to follow the orders of their kings. This is because the generals can see situations and events that their kings do not. Look up "Sun Tzu and the Concubines" to see what I mean.

It's a given that Benghazi is both a situation AND an event, and Obama has made it perfectly clear he didn't know what the heck was going on. "The king is only fond of words and cannot translate them into deeds" is about right.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

It's a given that Benghazi is both a situation AND an event, and Obama has made it perfectly clear he didn't know what the heck was going on.

I think that he knew what was going on, he didn't respond for one of two reasons:

1. He could not make a decision in the 5 and a half hours available.
2. This was a CIA operation and sending assistance would have compromised the operation. (as it was, the ex-SEALS may have compromised it by lending assistance)

Originally posted by Battleline
reply to post by wasaka

 

This being a conspiracy web site does anyone think we have a Muslim in the Whitehouse or is everyone still thinking this clown is still just an incompetent dolt.

It is pretty much a given that we have a Muslim in the WH...what I am beginning to wonder is if he isnt also a jihadist sympathizer.

A good link and website that I have posted in other threads. Below 2 pertaining to Benghazhi.

LINK2
LINK2

reply to post by Honor93


First Honor93, it's so nice to have a great debate with somebody with an open mind! It's hard to find that these days on ATS. Cheers!

Yeah I've been at work all night and day so I'm just checking. When I get home I have some friends that own websites, basically bloggers, but these two guys are real good at saying what they think. Ill post the stories they came up with, including one guys detailed sequence of events according to all known information, including a chronological list of the emails. Ill be done posting this in about an hour or so.

Also, you mentioned not seeing the emails. These are critical in seeing why potus acted the way he did that night. But I'll get into that in my next post.

Again thanks for the good debate brother.

Originally posted by butcherguy

reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

It's a given that Benghazi is both a situation AND an event, and Obama has made it perfectly clear he didn't know what the heck was going on.

I think that he knew what was going on, he didn't respond for one of two reasons:

1. He could not make a decision in the 5 and a half hours available.
2. This was a CIA operation and sending assistance would have compromised the operation. (as it was, the ex-SEALS may have compromised it by lending assistance)

Not only did Obama likely not know what was going on in Benghazi on Sept. 11; neither did anyone else, including AFRICOM and the Pentagon. In fact, we still have barely any idea what happened. Immediately after - or even concurrently with - the planned attack by Ansar al-Shariah, a spontaneous group of Benghazi protesters arrived at the embassy. Eyewitnesses said members of Ansar al-Shariah told those protesters that they were attacking the embassy because of the Innocence of Muslims video. Moreover, it appears that the attack had only been planned a few hours before its execution. There is still so much confusion about the exact timeline that three Congressional investigations and a State Dept investigation are underway.

Obama didn't know what was going on. No one else knew what was going on. Even today, no one knows what was going on. In the complete absence of any reliable indicators about the situation, it would have been foolhardy (and potentially dangerous) to deploy a bunch of troops, especially when a State Dept official had already e-mailed the White House and the Pentagon that Stevens was in the compound's "safe haven" with embassy security agents and that they were receiving additional security support from the Libyan militia. If the CIA was behind this, we will never find out. And, if they were behind it, I have to wonder why they didn't poison Stevens (if they were trying to kill him) or stage a much larger and better planned attack (if they were pulling a false flag).

Originally posted by dogstar23

Again, he did the right thing morally, but I also believe he did the wrong thing based on his obligations and responsibilities.

Somethings doing the "wrong" thing is the right thing. Like Forrest Gump might have said, "I always try to do the right thing, unless my conscious gets in the way."

The General took an Oath to the Constitution, not to the President, and upholding that Oath was his only obligation and responsibility. This is the basic message of the Oath Keepers, a non-partisan association of currently serving military, veterans, peace officers, and firefighters. See: www.oathkeepers.org...

From the Oath Keepers "About Us" page:

There is at this time a debate within the ranks of the military regarding their oath. Some mistakenly believe they must follow any order the President issues. But you can rest assured that many others in the military do understand that their loyalty is to the Constitution, and understand what that means.

The mission of Oath Keepers is to vastly increase their numbers. We are in a battle for the hearts and minds of our own troops. To win that battle, Oath Keepers will use written and video testimony of active duty military, veterans (especially combat vets), and peace officers to reach, teach, and inspire our brothers in arms in the military and police to fulfill their oaths and stand as guardians of the Republic.

Under the UCMJ, any order that will harm soldiers etc can legally be ignored. However, any such action (or inaction) would still need to be defended in a military court and in this case with General Ham that would most certainly create a lot of bad press for Obama. Therefore, for political reasons, (if these rumors are true) the public will like never be told the truth. You will see this fade into obscurity because government always downplays negative events participated in by the top brass or anything that might cause an embarrassment to the military or President.

You may have heard of the Oath Keeper's "10 Orders We Will Not Obey," if not, here is a link so you can read through them. You will notice they closely follow the issues which our Founders were dealing with (when they make the difficult choice to break free of English rule). Many of the same issues are confronting us again today.

Here is the link: Declaration of Orders We Will Not Obey

reply to post by buckrogerstime

Not only did Obama likely not know what was going on in Benghazi on Sept. 11; neither did anyone else, including AFRICOM and the Pentagon. In fact, we still have barely any idea what happened. Immediately after - or even concurrently with - the planned attack by Ansar al-Shariah, a spontaneous group of Benghazi protesters arrived at the embassy. Eyewitnesses said members of Ansar al-Shariah told those protesters that they were attacking the embassy because of the Innocence of Muslims video. Moreover, it appears that the attack had only been planned a few hours before its execution. There is still so much confusion about the exact timeline that three Congressional investigations and a State Dept investigation are underway.

You should probably catch up with the story.
Most of what you said about has been discounted now, by (non-Fox) MSM sources.

The video was not involved.
There was no protest.
Obama and the Secretary of Defense had a meeting 5 and a half hours before the attack was over, the info was available for them about the attack an hour before the meeting.
Real time video of the attack was available during the meeting.
They only planned a few hours before? They showed up and made raodblocks with vehicles 40 minutes before they began the attack. They brought trucks with heavy machine guns mounted on them. They also brought RPG's and mortars....Yeah, it was spontaneous.