Classified cable warned consulate couldn't 'withstand coordinated attack'

page: 1
4

log in

join

posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 06:58 PM
link   
The US Mission in Benghazi convened an 'emergency meeting' less than a month before the assault that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, because the consulate could not defend against a 'coordinated attack,' according to a classified cable reviewed by Fox News.

www.foxnews.com...
edit on 31-10-2012 by capone1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   
thanks...

I dont get how people can find out obama lied to their faces about this whole ordeal and still deny his guilt
edit on 31-10-2012 by lobotomizemecapin because: bc



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by lobotomizemecapin
thanks...

I dont get how people can find out obama lied to their faces about this whole ordeal and still deny his guilt
edit on 31-10-2012 by lobotomizemecapin because: bc


Sorry my man. I'm on my phone and couldn't copy/paste quickly. Wanted to get the headline out fast. This should be a big deal.
edit on 31-10-2012 by capone1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by capone1
 


my bad I just thought you were being one of those people lol.

I hope they actually charge everyone responsible for this



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by capone1

Originally posted by lobotomizemecapin
thanks...

I dont get how people can find out obama lied to their faces about this whole ordeal and still deny his guilt
edit on 31-10-2012 by lobotomizemecapin because: bc


Sorry my man. I'm on my phone and couldn't copy/paste quickly. Wanted to get the headline out fast. This should be a big deal.
edit on 31-10-2012 by capone1 because: (no reason given)


Who cares, Romney didn't release 150 years of tax returns. Obama supporters don't care. Facts have been against them from the start on every single issue. Democrats do not care. Period. As long as Republicans are hurt they are happy, nothing else matters politically speaking. In a recent post about Obama winning I asked a simple question, who has Obama benefited the past 4 years? Who benefits from another 4? No answer was given.

This is a big deal, but no one will care.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 10:30 PM
link   
I posted a thread a few months back stating the consulate was not up to par so this is kind of old news. If you read the article it states why they were working with what was available and had plans to build new facilities that were up to par in the future.

Post had lss than standard security
edit on 31-10-2012 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


So then we put people at risk until the new facilities are being built? While under attack we refuse aid because the new facilities aren't built? Your reply is rediculous. The only important information here is that the security threat was real, it was known, and it was not dealt with. Once an attack commenced, it was mishandled. The rest is obfuscation.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


Did you read the article and miss this?


"Someone made the decision that the mission in Benghazi was so critical that they waived the standard security requirements, which presents unique challenges to the diplomatic security service as you can imagine," said Fred Burton, vice president for Intelligence at STRATFOR, an intelligence analysis group.


Come on I like debating you but can we stay on topic? There are plenty of threads with the issue about sending in troops which I have posted in and made my case.

On this topic it states they felt they needed to be there and couldn't wait for facilities to be built. I am sure it isn't the first time to happen and it probably will not be the last. Sometimes the mission dictates the risk.

It isn't a perfect world and this was far from a perfect situation.

I have to disagree with your assertion of what this thread is about. I thought this thread was about the security of the consulate and its ability to withstand an attack if I am wrong I would rather continue debating the other topic in a thread that I have already stated my opinion.
edit on 31-10-2012 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


It was not as if the diplomat and his security team stated they were fine. Additional security WAS requested, and it was denied. The fact it was waived in the first place is meaningless. We are way beyond the initial waiving. Many months went by with no action that directly resulted in the loss of American lives.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 



As for specific threats against the U.S., the cable warned the intelligence was not clear on the issue, cautioning that the militias in Benghazi were not concerned with any significant retaliation from the Libyan government, which had apparently lost control in Benghazi. A briefer explained that they “did not have information suggesting that these entities were targeting Americans but did caveat that (there was not) a complete picture of their intentions yet. RSO (Regional Security Officer) noted that the Benghazi militias have become more brazen in their actions and have little fear of reprisal from the (government of Libya.)”

Read more: www.foxnews.com...



So let me ask you with the information provided what would you have done differently leading up to the attack?

edit to add


I am trying to wrap my head around this entire thing including the media circus probably because I am used to being in parts of the world where there is a constant threat and always risk so the whole shock over this is kind of foreign to me.
edit on 31-10-2012 by Grimpachi because: add



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 11:01 PM
link   
The timing is strange, don't you think? An emergency meeting is convened specifically to discuss the security issue and a month later they are attacked.

Smells like a leak to me.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


What would I have done?

a) Had a larger security detail, as was requested.
b) Have a conginceny plan in effect in the event the consulate does come under attack.

How are those not common sense to you like they are to me? How do you believe it is ok for them to be under attack for .. what was it, 7 hours, with no backup plan to help them? I am not a Republican. I despise both parties. Do not let your partisan goggles cloud your judgement. It is a complete no brainer this is a royal screwup the likes you see maybe 2 or 3 times in a century.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


I believe there was a plan in place there always is however no plan will ever cover every situation. There was a plan in place for the Battle of Mogadishu but that didn’t go so well.

As far as putting more soldiers there. This was not an embassy so they could have put more private security forces in but placing something like a Marine contingent would have taken some diplomacy which takes time.


My common sense is dictated by my experience in those regions which is probably different from yours.

So let me ask you this. The rapid response team was scrambled per SOP and hours later they had only made it to Sicily which is still some 500 miles and hours away the POTUs and his General advisors were receiving conflicting Intel one cable had stated the attacks were over. What would you have done?

Let’s assume it would have taken two and a half hours before the rapid response team could have landed at the nearest landing strip. That is just logistics.
edit on 1-11-2012 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


I believe there was a plan in place there always is however no plan will ever cover every situation. There was a plan in place for the Battle of Mogadishu but that didn’t go so well.

As far as putting more soldiers there. This was not an embassy so they could have put more private security forces in but placing something like a Marine contingent would have taken some diplomacy which takes time.


My common sense is dictated by my experience in those regions which is probably different from yours.

So let me ask you this. The rapid response team was scrambled per SOP and hours later they had only made it to Sicily which is still some 500 miles and hours away the POTUs and his General advisors were receiving conflicting Intel one cable had stated the attacks were over. What would you have done?

Let’s assume it would have taken two and a half hours before the rapid response team could have landed at the nearest landing strip. That is just logistics.
edit on 1-11-2012 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)


So a "rapid response" team is many many hours away? How is that rapid response? They had drones overhead, all indications are they knew exactly what was going on, can you cite this confusion? If you are watching in real time and you see what is happening how would a cable cause confusion? If you are a police officer and get a report of a burglar and you have access to security feeds and you can see the man is still in the house in real time would you accept a report from a neighbor saying he thinks the guy left?

Two and a half hours means the Americans are alive today, nothing at all means they are dead. Nothing was done. Americans died. I believe there were also assets closer which requested to engage and were denied. I believe two CIA officers went anyways and lost their lives. The response was completely inadequate. There is also a great deal of confusion over what happened because the administration intentionally created confusion for weeks rather than release the truth. It is actualy their intentional hiding of facts and trying to blame a video and a spontaneous riot for their ineptitude that truly is what disturbs me more.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 





So a "rapid response" team is many many hours away?

Yes according to reports.



How is that rapid response?
That is the designation they hold. Kind of like Delta. Are you aware of the closest base?



They had drones overhead, all indications are they knew exactly what was going on, can you cite this confusion?

A armed drone was on scene two and a half hours after the first report came in it was then relieved by another unarmed drone over four hours later.



If you are watching in real time and you see what is happening how would a cable cause confusion?

The first cable stated they were under attack and people were missing hours later another cable came in stating the attack was over. The only picture you have is from a drone with smoke from buildings interfering and communications were cutting in and out.


If you are a police officer and get a report of a burglar and you have access to security feeds and you can see the man is still in the house in real time would you accept a report from a neighbor saying he thinks the guy left
?
This is a logical fallacy argument that I will overlook and play along a little. In this scenario is the house on fire where smoke is blinding most of the camera views?

Have you forgotten that drones cannot see through smoke from burning buildings.




Two and a half hours means the Americans are alive today, nothing at all means they are dead. Nothing was done. Americans died.

So has it been released at what time they died or is this speculation?



I believe there were also assets closer which requested to engage and were denied.

This is still up for debate and has not been confirmed by reliable sources.



I believe two CIA officers went anyways and lost their lives. The response was completely inadequate.
They were providing intel which may have been part of the conflicting reports.



There is also a great deal of confusion over what happened because the administration intentionally created confusion for weeks rather than release the truth.


Yes there is confusion now and there was confusion at the time of the attack the two should be separate issues because one is dealing with the administration and the other will be essential in determining if the right calls were made.



It is actualy their intentional hiding of facts and trying to blame a video and a spontaneous riot for their ineptitude that truly is what disturbs me more.
This is what has been pushed in the media but have you given any consideration that this is what their intel was telling them at the time especially considering the demonstrations that broke out across the world?

What has disturbed me the most is the politicizing of this event and the disinformation, and opinions perpetrated as fact that the media has been releasing. I want a timeline and the truth and everything that has been put out there to distort and invoke public outcry (which is working) is only making it harder to discern what actually happened.
The information I provided is confirmed information and it has been hard to come by.
edit on 1-11-2012 by Grimpachi because: spelling



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 





So a "rapid response" team is many many hours away?

Yes according to reports.



How is that rapid response?
That is the designation they hold. Kind of like Delta. Are you aware of the closest base?The information I provided is confirmed information and it has been hard to come by.


You first stated they had been traveling for hours, and were hours away. At minimum it seems that's 4 hours away. That would still be enough time to have saved lives. It is still too long.

American lives not only could have been saved, they absolutely should have been saved. They were not because of inept decision making. The time the attack took to complete meant no US lives should have been lost. That is really impossible to argue.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


First report comes in.
Rapid response scrambles and is in route

3 hours and something later they are still 500 miles away with the best unit I would think this would be 4 hours after the first report.

I assume the report was made that they were 500 miles away ment they were on the ground probably refueling I think it was Sicily.

C-130 Max. cruising speed 348 kts / 645 km/h so it would still be hours to be on scene. They obviously wouldn’t parachute in.

Best time to be on scene would be 5 to 6 hours after the initial report there was an attack.

Have you already forgotten about the report that the attack was over? Are you saying that even though you are being told the attack is over you would send in troops and possibly reignite a new conflict?
edit on 1-11-2012 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)


This posted today


The senior intelligence official said that CIA officers in Benghazi, "responded to the situation on the night of 11 and 12 September as quickly and as effectively as possible.

"The security officers in particular were genuine heroes. They quickly tried to rally additional local support and heavier weapons, and when that could not be accomplished within minutes, they still moved in and put their own lives on the line to save their comrades," the official said.

"At every level in the chain of command, from the senior officers in Libya to the most senior officials in Washington, everyone was fully engaged in trying to provide whatever help they could," the official said.

"There was no second-guessing those decisions being made on the ground, by people at every U.S. organization that could play a role in assisting those in danger. There were no orders to anybody to stand down in providing support," the official added


www.reuters.com...
edit on 1-11-2012 by Grimpachi because: add link
edit on 1-11-2012 by Grimpachi because: text



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


So you think 6 hours for an emergency rapid response team to get there is proper planning? If so I don't see the point in continuing this discussion.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


Well considering this thread was never meant for this discussion I think that would be wise.

As far as response time goes I would like to see it faster but we cannot sustain soldiers in every part of the world realistically. I do not think we need more bases but maybe faster cargo planes. Are you suggesting we can be everywhere at all times? Maybe you are suggesting we need more bases or Navy carriers? I am pro military and open on this issue for discussion but perhaps we should start another thread.
edit on 2-11-2012 by Grimpachi because: refrase





new topics
top topics
 
4

log in

join