U.S. says CIA responded within 25 minutes to Benghazi attack (NO Stand Down!)

page: 7
20
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 



What happened to holding an administration to account when they lie and good men die?


Who lied?

And how did that supposed lie cause anyone to die?



Now the evidence I've posted on this shows these men were left to die and staked out like goats.


No, your evidence doesn't show that at all. This is the fantasy you have built up in your head.


They really are named that and this really IS what our own government seemed to believe was superior to the United States MARINES the Consulate had been asking for.


And can you imagine the faux outrage from the Right if Obama would have sent American troops into Libya???

You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

Nothing Obama would have done would please you, admit that right now and save all the faux outrage you are pretending to have.



Again, most people don't care. How dissapointed are you going to be when after the election this story just dies and everyone forgets about the fantasy built up Rambos that the Right has created?




posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by Taiyed
Just stating the facts.

I should more accurately say, the large majority don't care.


You speak for the majority or the majority of your insignificant circle?

Post Script:

Your insignificant circle is as important as my circle.....I speak nothing of knowing what the 'majority' believes or thinks as they are individuals.
edit on 2-11-2012 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)


You don't have to beleive me, you just have to wait and see what happens.

Two weeks, no one will care.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by zonetripper2065
reply to post by Taiyed
 


OK even that aside he was stopped from deploying special forces who were ready and willing to go.


And your proof of that is the exact same blog that stated he was arrested.

And, his "special forces" team would have taken hours to get there. I never looked into all the details, but I thought there were reports that this Generals force wasn't even in the area on 9/11.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 

glad to see you finally got here ...

Heck....part of the people taking credit for the IED that blew out the side wall of the consulate well before this night happened, named themselves after the 'Blind Sheikh' the U.S. is still holding for the 1993 WTC terrorist attack
and THAT ^^^ is the Sheikh who is supposedly the "exchange value" of the purported kidnapping attempt/failure of Ambassador Stevens.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taiyed
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 



What happened to holding an administration to account when they lie and good men die?


Who lied?

And how did that supposed lie cause anyone to die?



Now the evidence I've posted on this shows these men were left to die and staked out like goats.


No, your evidence doesn't show that at all. This is the fantasy you have built up in your head.


They really are named that and this really IS what our own government seemed to believe was superior to the United States MARINES the Consulate had been asking for.


And can you imagine the faux outrage from the Right if Obama would have sent American troops into Libya???

You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

Nothing Obama would have done would please you, admit that right now and save all the faux outrage you are pretending to have.



Again, most people don't care. How dissapointed are you going to be when after the election this story just dies and everyone forgets about the fantasy built up Rambos that the Right has created?



Do you just blindly defend a man that in the least should be tried for impeachment. We vets do care and are mad as helllll.
edit on 2-11-2012 by hanyak69 because: typo



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taiyed
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 



Isn't it all "Monday morning quarterback[ing]"? Even to the points you are making, you are speculating and discerning your opinion on facts after the matter; as is everyone else. Sadly, we must rely on fragmented reports and sources because no one is speaking forthright in regards to what happened that evening.


I am offering zero speculations my friend.

I am simply re-stating the facts released by the intelligence community.

I am not the one using rumors from blogs or "sources on the ground" to create a fantasy picture of something that didn't happen.

You are doing the speculating, you have no clue if there was a communication failure. You are completely making that up in your head with zero facts to back up your opinion.


And I asked you direct questions....so either answer them or continue to state the talking points. I for one will not push the points offered by Fox News or Huffington Post or the White House until they are actually straight. You on the other hand are taking the Government's word to be gospel. I pray tell ask what you think about the original 9-11 and the government's story on that one. I would summarize that you believe that, that administration is malarkey and the story be farce but it is mere assumption at this point since you are a new member.

You have no clue that the communication was in place and that there was no breakdown of it. You are completely making that up in your head with zero facts to back up your opinion. Again, I hold no theory of conspiracy against President Obama in this matter; I do however question why the story and narrative has changed drastically since the 12th of September....



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by hanyak69
 



Do you just blindly defend a man that in the least should be tried for impeachment. We vets do care and are mad as helllll.


He should be tried for impeachment on what charge?

And sorry, vet's opinions don't matter than anyone elses.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 



You have no clue that the communication was in place and that there was no breakdown of it. You are completely making that up in your head with zero facts to back up your opinion.


I never claimed that the communication was in place and there was no breakdown.

I'm just pointing out that YOU made a claim that it was broken, even though you have no evidence to back that up.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by GrantedBail
 


How is this news? The story is becoming more and more distorted but if you've been following the news then you know the latest and greatest said the CIA ex USN SEALs came to the aid of the compound from their annex building. At first it was reported they were apart of ambassadors Stevens diplomatic team. We now are told they ignored the order to stay put and made their way to the consulate. By the time they got there the place was already on fire and ambassador Stevens already taken away and Sean Smith may have been already killed as well. Some reports say the ex SEALs saved the lives of 20 people +/-. But if they did who are these people and why haven't we heard from them but more importantly who saved them when the 2 SEALs fell? The fight is said to have been moved from the compound to their CIA annex building. Some say there was a .50 caliber machine on the roof. The battle lasted over 7 hours, not 7 hours of guns blazing, there was some down time where there was no fighting. The ex SEALs are said to have killed somewhere between 60-70 militants out of about 150 - 200.

I've also read that these two heroes died from a mortar strike while they were painting a target for bombing. It appears they were expecting some kind of air support that never came. It is clear that during the 7 hours the only US military presence was a drone in the skies above and that's it. Whether you believe there was an order to stand down or not the fact is these men got NO assistance from the US or it's allies. At best they were in radio contact with whoever they reported to.

Since day 1 the Benghazi explanations have been lies, half truths, and complete disinformation. Another 9/11 brought to you by the US Gov't.
edit on 2-11-2012 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Taiyed
 

If you ever read the material I posted earlier in this thread, We can talk more. Right now, you're arguing without even knowing what the debate is about and your replies demonstrate that. Clearly. I'd love to debate the actual security situation and how it existed, but you've shown no awareness...despite it being in this very thread to read as anyone would like.

What I linked to wasn't Fox News. That was the .gov site for the Oversight Committee of the United States Congress. Those threat reports are what was prepared by the United States Mission to Libya. You can't laugh off anything you want. You can't say United States Intelligence is trustworthy in directly contradicting the material written by the men, at the consulate compound, over the proceeding months.

This was a security situation that was falling apart....but you are focused on a gotcha question of how he lied??? How about listening to the man telling the United Nations General Assembly..himself...that the Video was to blame. It's ridiculous. His UN Ambassador was out lying and Carney was spinning the same fantasy from the White House. Now..if you'd like to say that didn't happen...I'll just say you need to review more material and do some research before debating too much more. It did happen..they did say these things and these are now known to have been absolutely false.

Some facts just stand on their own...without spinning one bit.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I absolutely love this response.

You know too much to debate me about it, classic.

How many times now in this very thread have people tried to dodge my questions to them because only they know the real facts?

You sir, are hilarious.

I'll ask you again. What did Obama lie about that caused someone to die?



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 

glad to see you finally got here ...

Heck....part of the people taking credit for the IED that blew out the side wall of the consulate well before this night happened, named themselves after the 'Blind Sheikh' the U.S. is still holding for the 1993 WTC terrorist attack
and THAT ^^^ is the Sheikh who is supposedly the "exchange value" of the purported kidnapping attempt/failure of Ambassador Stevens.

yeah...and I'll tell you Honor, I hadn't read THAT little detail until I read the whole text I posted earlier tonight. I had no idea there was a militia using that name in Benghazi and that just makes for such a SCREAMING message. I mean these threat reports were written long before this night happened, so no one had any particular reason to get all creative about it. It simply was routine reporting....and I'm kinda shocked by that.

I haven't bothered checking to see where Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman is at the moment, but I know he was right here in my area for awhile at the Federal Medical Center for Prisoners. It's a little unnerving being close to that, knowing how fixated they still are about that man and getting him back.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Taiyed
 

People are dodging you because you're trolling for a fight and no one is up for it....I'm done replying myself. I wouldn't want to think anyone misunderstood why though.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 10:34 PM
link   
I think everyone is missing the real point of all this: Why was the U.S. Compound at Benghazi so badly protected in the first place? There had been other attacks there, the situation on the ground was one of many militia's vying for power. All in all, not a safe place and not a place where you put your Ambassador in with not enough protection.

Once the attack started, it was going to be impossible to stop, given the lack of initial support at the compound. That's the main thing: Why was there such little protection of our Ambassador on the Anniversary of Sept. 11th in a less than safe country, to be generous.

My Question is why was there only a CIA support response to the attack? Shouldn't there have been TONS of military channel "chatter" and at least some attempts by them to reinforce the situation?

We don't have enough information as to all of the events that went down that night. Given the conflicting stories we have heard so far, I think further investigations into this situation are warranted.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taiyed
You know too much to debate me about it, classic.

How many times now in this very thread have people tried to dodge my questions to them because only they know the real facts?


You mean when I asked you several questions regarding the entirety of the issue at hand? How you conveniently directed your responses to another portion of my posts? Like that? It seems then you are no different than that which you claim to be holier than.

Interesting that someone with no political party affiliation questions the responses given by the administration is still treated by you as being a right wing kook; in more or less words.

In turn, you cannot prove there was a communication link throughout the whole of the situation and I cannot prove there was not; yet you proclaim your view of the events to be correct and mine incorrect. Keep moving those goal posts.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 10:58 PM
link   
You got to be a idiot to believe this. hahaha man talk about taking a million years to make up something like this. It's too obvious, ur not fooling anyone but zombies.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 11:01 PM
link   
The bottom line is they wanted the Ambassador dead, so they set him up. It's pretty simple. If they wanted to send in support they could have done it. They had bases nearby and drones in the sky, including General Ham being ordered to stand down. It's obvious the Ambassador was involved in something and they wanted him shut up for good.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by amfirst1
 


I can't say I disagree with that assessment. The compound was attacked at least twice prior to 9/11 leaving big holes in the compound walls that surrounded the 6 acre property. That's probably why it was so easy for the militants to enter and over run the place so quick. The compound requested security and was denied. The militants are said to have posted threats to the compound via Facebook, even Stevens himself posting pictures they took if him during his morning jogs while mentioning the anniversary of 9/11. Request security, denied.

It's obvious the US Gov't didn't care about anyone in that building, Stevens included.
edit on 2-11-2012 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by amfirst1
The bottom line is they wanted the Ambassador dead, so they set him up. It's pretty simple. If they wanted to send in support they could have done it. They had bases nearby and drones in the sky, including General Ham being ordered to stand down. It's obvious the Ambassador was involved in something and they wanted him shut up for good.


Look I am here questioning just as you are, but can you prove there was an order to stand down? I know there is a rumor and a possibility, but confirmed fact? No. I would even refute the title of this post claiming there was no stand down, but I would question how CIA agents already in the vicinity refute that assertion.

We will never get to the truth if both sides are cheering for themselves in this in my opinion.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrantedBail
reply to post by shaneslaughta
 


American soil? What are you talking about?


Any American embassy or consulate in any country is considered American soil by International law.





new topics
top topics
 
20
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join