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

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
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.

I'm asking simple questions to people who are claiming they have a firm grasp on the situation.

And yet no one seems to be able to answer them.

This is what happens when people pretend like the understand what is going on based on rumors they read on blogs. When confronted with facts and logic, they turtle up and don't want to talk about it anymore.

Continue on with your fantasy world, where two Rambo like ex-Navy Seals defied orders to take on hundreds of terrorists single handed. Don't let the facts get in your way that this isn't what happened at all.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


You asked me exactly two questions. I didn't answer them because I don't have the answers, no one does, and I don't claim to be all knowing or have secret information like some on here do.

Here were your questions.

Do you still think this was a spontaneous outburst of Muslim outrage due to a video that was poorly made? Why no outrage when the makers of Southpark made a complete mockery of the prophet of Islam?

My answers.

I don't know.

and

I don't know.


Now, go ahead and prove your claim that there was a communications breakdown. And please note that by me asking you to prove your claim does not mean that I am making a positive assertion counter to it.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

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.

But was it actually an embassy or consulate? The State Department never officially stated it was/is. According to the State Department it was a diplomatic outpost. Semantics I know, but it is what it is, not an embassy or consulate, rather an outpost utilized by the diplomatic mission to Libya.

Which begs the question: What was it?

Oh, wow, I didn't know this thread would still be going. What exactly is there to still be arguing over? I mean...

Fox News publishes an unsubstantiated account of the events at Benghazi from 'sources' who may or may not have been there, and who may or may not even exist. Their account portrays the Obama admin as purposefully letting Americans die for whatever reason, and, oh, John Rambo is in there somewhere (no disrespect to the actual dead, but Fox and disciples certainly, shamelessly capitalized on the 'two ex-Navy SEALs alone against waves of terrorists' imagery). Conspiracy theorists, anti-Obama partisans, and anti-Obama conspiracy theorists drop everything they're doing and latch on to the story without any question, because any story that puts Obama in a negative light must be true.

Then, some of the people who would actually know what happened in Benghazi are forced to release their version of events due to Fox News rousting their demos. These people-who-are-actually-in-the-know's version of events paints an entirely different picture.

Reasonable people realize that Fox News pushed a very shaky story for the sake of partisan politics, if they didn't outright fabricate it. Conspiracy theorists who value their own conclusions more than truth and reality decide it's all a lie, sheeple.

So it's a total non-story. The people who 'get it,' well, get it, and the people who willfully refuse to acknowledge that Obama didn't personally stop any intervention will never change their minds; not for facts, not for anything.

Pearls before swine, basically. I know I'm not wasting another minute reading through this absolutely futile thread, but kudos to those with the willpower to keep fighting the rational fight, I guess.

reply to post by Taiyed


And I respect your acknowledgement that you are not sure to those answers, but why would the administration latch upon them, when on September 12th, President Obama himself even stated he wasn't sure because of lack of information?

This event runs deeper than if there was a "stand down" order -- which until Congressional investigation confirms or refutes, is all speculation either way -- or if there was a communication breakdown or not. You or I cannot answer in the affirmative on either other than to offer our interpretation on what we receive. If I receive all my information from a right leaning source, then of course it will be skewed towards there was a clear dereliction of duty. The same if you receive all your information from a left leaning source, it would proclaim this is nothing but a vast right-wing conspiracy.

Remaining neutral has its benefits. In this, I see no conspiracy but I see a lot of unanswered questions that are continually being dodged. In my estimation, they are dodged for political expediency because of the elections, but that is my opinion. Healthily questioning doesn't place anyone in a neat little compartment and I understand your frustration regarding posters replying in emotion; but emotion runs deep on both sides it seems.

A steady hand and constitution in this matter will bring out the truth and burn away the ardent blind support from President Obama's supporters, along with the incessant attacks from his detractors.

Originally posted by CyberTruth

Originally posted by milominderbinder

Originally posted by CyberTruth
Actually I thought it was because of a spontaneous protest.

You are aware that it IS possible to have a spontaneous protest which in turn inspires a terrorist attack, right?

Why does it need to be one or the other? All it took is for one of the Libyan goofballs to have seen on twitter that people were rioting elsewhere in the Middle East and decide that him his good ol' boy Libyan buddies would go wage their own little jihad w/ that RPG that they found last week.

What's the big mystery?

Its seems apparent that there was no protest and White house Officials have already acknowledged this however only after letting the media run rabid for weeks with the story of a protest over a movie nobody even knew about. But you have raised an interesting question. What was the motive of the attackers?? Still havent even heard a reasonable hypothesis from our government. Maybe that is where the real story lies. no pun intended.

There were all kinds of protests going on throughout the Middle East. Just because there wasn't a riot in progress at that specific instant doesn't mean that they didn't see them on TV or online.

The motive for the attackers? How about putting down our rabid dogs for us? Chris Stevens was responsible for starting a civil war that killed 50,000 innocent civilians. Do you suppose that anybody might be a wee bit ticked off about losing a family member?

I know I would be.

reply to post by butcherguy

You say that we 'got our man in that operation'.

Yes, we killed Osama Bin Laden. That was the entire reason Bush sent us to Afghanistan.

Here's the question: Is al Qaeda finished? Is there any work left for the CIA to do with regard to the terrorists operating in Pakistan, or the rest of the world.

No, considering the fact that the CIA is involved with Al Qaeda:

Overall, the U.S. government looked favorably on the Arab recruitment drives. ... Some of the most ardent cold warriors at Langley [The CIA headquarters] thought this program should be formally endorsed and extended. ... [T]he CIA "examined ways to increase their participation, perhaps in the form of some sort of international brigade" ... Robert Gates [then-head of the CIA's Directorate of Intelligence] recalled. ... At the [CIA's] Islamabad station [station chief] Milt Bearden felt that bin Laden himself "actually did some very good things" by putting money into Afghanistan.

Citation

We got our man, eh? The operations of the CIA in regard to al Qaeda did not stop with bin Laden's death.

People like to justify their jobs to keep employment, and maintain fear. Take a look at recent antics of the FBI and "terrorism":

The FBI says the methods it uses to trap terror suspects are all part of “the war on terror,” but many legal experts believe those operations are really entrapment.

The majority of the 500 terror cases since 2001 have relied on evidence from FBI informants within the Muslim community. In many cases, the informants encouraged individuals to commit terrorist acts as a way of gaining their trust. Subsequently, informants, with the help of FBI agents, helped those same suspects devise elaborate terror plots they might not otherwise have ever thought of.

American Free Press

Hold on to your 'duh' and the deflectionary use of a crashed chopper that the Chinese went over with a fine-toothed comb.

Deflectionary? That's not even a real word. My point is that the certain facts of that operation are, and will remain classified. The Osama operation was also a planned mission, with months of intel behind it.

I'm sorry that the military isn't like you see in video games and movies.

I would say that by bringing China into this, you my friend, are being "deflectionary".

So you are saying that Al Qaeda is basically nothing more than a real life Call of Duty clan?

No. I'm saying they are just like any other organized crime syndicate, gang, or terrorist organization. Not every single schmuck in the outfit is master of strategy and intrigue. The backbone of ALL of these organizations are usually more or less just a half a cut above common street thug. Not all of them are former CIA assets like Bin Laden was.

They just all get together ad hoc and wreak havoc on some unsuspecting group? No need for any planning. Just pick up that RPG and go to town, huh?
LOL

Sometimes. I believe the British will agree.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by ownbestenemy

But was it actually an embassy or consulate? The State Department never officially stated it was/is. According to the State Department it was a diplomatic outpost. Semantics I know, but it is what it is, not an embassy or consulate, rather an outpost utilized by the diplomatic mission to Libya.

Oh heck... As trivial or even silly a question as this might seem on the surface, it's not funny at all. I went back to looking through the papers, emails and cables sent in and out of Libya regarding Benghazi and damned if this wasn't actually a VERY real issue regarding the security situation leading up to the fall of the ...... Yes.. Indeed.. What WAS it?

State Department records, cables, Emails and security reports

Page 2 and the second half of Page 6 (pdf count) for an Email. The first one mentioned the status and the second one specifically notes the uncertainty of status as to why more Diplomatic Security people aren't being assigned. Indeed.. There are layers over layers to what happened here.

Originally posted by milominderbinder

I haven't spent any part of my life thus far in a false political dichotomy...so I would say the answer would be no.

In fact, my general loathing for wild assumptions that have absolutely ZERO evidence to substantiate them is largely indicative of my resistance to a false political dichotomy. Hence...my feelings on the Benghazi nuttery that we've been seeing.

What's your point?

In a nation with a transparent government there is no need for wild assumptions.

And that is my point.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I have a feeling if the CIA wasn't involved, things would be a little easier to decipher.

One thing I have learned, is that the location of the "Annex" was classified. If that is so, it would have been quite a bit of red tape to overcome to send help (via the regular US Military).

The more and more I learn about this -- the more messy it's becoming. Tiny bits of information here and there, and people covering their own collective butts.

This is par for the course for this administration, remember Bin Laden, one false twisted story after another, go to some of the older topics on international issues and the press reports this administration puts out as fact,

They tell so many different stories, people that are not paying attention get lost in their tangled web of lies.

reply to post by MystikMushroom


I haven't seen this much CYA since I left the military to be honest. But that is politics, especially during the last few weeks of an election. Sadly, the truth gets buried and in a vacuum, the void gets filled. While honesty is typically the best path, not so with our farce of American politics.

If all was tried and attempted to handle the situation, then present what you did. If not, be open and honest about the mistakes and take the hit; but the lure of power is great and such forwardness is hard to come by in Foggy Bottom.

Originally posted by shaneslaughta

Probably the same reason it took the Obama Administration over three weeks to get actual investigators onsite in Libya.

At best, it would be because they are bumbling fools. Anything else is criminal.

Its simple as Obama failed to protect american soil......he did not uphold his oath, and its not the first time.

edit on 2-11-2012 by shaneslaughta because: (no reason given)

It wasn't US soil, it was a CIA base pretending to be a US diplomatic mission/compound involved in gun-running operations.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by milominderbinder

I haven't spent any part of my life thus far in a false political dichotomy...so I would say the answer would be no.

In fact, my general loathing for wild assumptions that have absolutely ZERO evidence to substantiate them is largely indicative of my resistance to a false political dichotomy. Hence...my feelings on the Benghazi nuttery that we've been seeing.

What's your point?

In a nation with a transparent government there is no need for wild assumptions.

And that is my point.

Well...right. But in this case...what's there to be "transparent" about? I dislike the Obama administration as much as the next guy...but at no point through all of this Benghazi hysteria did I find anything that didn't add up along the way. Did you watch the big "hearing" on CSPAN? It was a joke. Michele Lamb and Pat Kennedy kept giving the exact same, clear, concise, and succinct answers and the Issa & Co were getting all bent of shape because they had nothing more than the wisps of their imaginations.

Everything was made more or less perfectly clear from day one. I really don't understand what all the "confusion" was about.

reply to post by Swills

if you believe all of what you typed, perhaps you should review this account of events ...
world.time.com...

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.

not quite, read the above.

“I went to the C villa and saw people stealing stuff from inside,” said Tamir. “One of the thieves stepped on the legs of someone who was lying on the floor and [the thief] started yelling.” Tamir and others quickly went to the bathroom where they found a tall American on his back breathing very heavily. “Some of the didn’t want to help him. They said ‘just let him stay there and die. He insulted Islam and the Prophet.’” [color=amber]Tamir and six other men carried the American’s body outside C villa. They washed his ash-covered face before taking him to the main entrance where a group of men placed him in a car and headed towards the Benghazi Medical Center. Later, Tamir called Fadil and described the man to him. “That’s the ambassador,” Fadil replied. Stevens would succumb to smoke inhalation and be pronounced dead at the hospital.

the fact is these men got NO assistance from the US or it's allies

ummm, they did ... just not enough and not when they asked for or needed it.

otherwise, i agree with the majority of your post.
however, if details matter, you're missing quite a few. (read above)

reply to post by Taiyed

since you have to ask such a silly question repeatedly, i guess it deserves an answer.

What did Obama lie about that caused someone to die?

he lied about a video being provocative enough to stimulate such a deadly reaction (4 dead)
[remember Cairo ??]

reply to post by milominderbinder

I see.... All a joke.. and nothing to worry about. Hmm.. So what is your opinion about the Russian Embassy being over-run in Tripoli well before this event as well as the Chinese Embassy being directly attacked? Even Tripoli was a very dangerous place...and Benghazi was worse. As the reports of security incidents show..clearly.

Security on others nation's diplomats were dramatically higher than our Ambassador in Benghazi...before many left entirely. The fact we even still had him there is a very good question although it's outright stated in the State Department communications that the Election Season is a factor to the thinking.

If folks take the hour or two it requires.....all the answers to better than half the questions are sitting right there in what the Issa committee has released in formerly sensitive material for public review. It's damning....it's a litany of bad judgement and terminally foolish decisions and it's text book incompetence.

Of course, the hearings only covered a small part of what the evidence contained in the documents actually show in black and white. ....it just takes the actual reading time to learn the full scope of the horror of what was done here.

The Senators and Congressmen who are PISSED OFF....like I've honestly not seen them before...aren't pissed over nothing. People need to stop trying to make believe this isn't a real issue because it is absolutely not going away.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

thanks for adding to the collection of good info
not sure if you've read this yet, but i would recommend it (all of it before it disappears)
world.time.com...
now you're getting the picture as "they" aren't the only ones willing to get him back.

from another thread (there are so many), i will share this info again.
it seems as though many are missing the bigger picture and preferring to bicker over miniscule details.

truth-out.org...
According to a report in the Daily Beast on Oct. 12, administration officials are studying a videotape of a live feed from the drone that "saw" at least the last hour of the assault that led to the killing of the US ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, and the deaths of three other US personnel in and around the Benghazi consulate.

now, we can dispute IF there is footage all day long.
that doesn't change the obvious fact that it exists.
since a drone was admittedly present and some footage is admittedly being reviewed and the reports that a drone was deployed early in the event, i guess i'm just reaching at straws, right ??

in case you need more ... www.canadafreepress.com...
www.state.gov...
[the creative descriptions in this briefing are the direct result of visual information (video) ... not paper/digital intel]

or this ...

blogs.cfr.org...

Shortly before that call, at 4:30 p.m., the Pentagon’s command center had alerted Defense Secretary Panetta and others to the attack. Minutes later, the U.S. military’s Africa Command redirected an unarmed drone from its surveillance mission over militant camps to Benghazi. When the drone arrived at 5:11 p.m. Eastern time, cameras captured images of burning buildings, helping officials in Washington pinpoint which facilities had been targeted by militants. But the images didn’t help the CIA team on the ground respond to the attacks, officials said.

or just read through the latter pages of this thread ... www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Honor93

I did see it..and it's absolutely something to keep in mind as hearing commence and more is learned. It's also very important to keep in mind that one of the people who died that night did message out that one of their own guards was a part of those photographing them. These guards. The Feb 17 Martyrs Brigade.

I find it damning that none of them were killed. They put up a real fight guarding our people... Indeed. This is why the U.S. should NEVER EVER use local people on the INSIDE perimeter of U.S. facilities. EVER. One even admits he ran off and hid until found....IF that's not just the lesser of bad stories if can manage to tell. I don't trust any of them after reading the pages and pages and pages of security incident reports sent out by the Benghazi mission.

You know, it shows we were also paying $70,000 per month leases on each of the Villas. I believe we need a refund, at the least. Security by the landlord was lacking....

^^ That's not to say they all may have been dirty..BTW..or that they may not have solid information to add. It's just a big question mark... Good info to index with everything else tho!