Someone's Wrong: CIA and State Dept. Accounts of Benghazi Contradict Gen. Dempsey’s Explanation

page: 2
13
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by jibeho

Just admit that your initial argument failed miserably so you just invented another one along the grounds of semantics.


9-11 was an attack...Fullujah was a battle. The general specified the Battles...not the attack. Still don't know the difference? If you think that an "attack" and "battle" are the same thing...then I can't help you.

CNS and you by extension "para-phrase" aka change his words..then shout about how those words don't match with other timelines...I showed clearly his ACTUAL words did.


Originally posted by jibeho

Wonder why the Generals story is different from the accounts of the CIA and the State Department.


Thats cuz it's not different...only different when YOU change what he actually said...get it? Of course you do...
edit on 5-2-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)


You are hilarious. You should have quit when you knew you lost several posts ago.... I cannot possibly explain things in a more simple manner for you. My OP was a summary and if you read the whole article you would see that CNS properly quoted the General's "battle" statement at multiple points in the article.

Just give up. The timeline is different and contradictory... Furthermore, I changed nothing about what the General said. I took it all directly from a properly quoted and referenced article. All information that your found yourself from other sources because you can't accept CNS.



CNS and you by extension "para-phrase" aka change his words..then shout about how those words don't match with other timelines...I showed clearly his ACTUAL words did

So did CNS. Again read the article ....




posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 



9-11 was an attack...Fullujah was a battle.


Benghazi was a battle provoked by an offensive ATTACK and subsequent murder of 4 Americans! Let's get the story straight...

Why are you throwing Fallujah into this mess? Wrong Country


Once again 2 20 minute "battles" as indicated by Dempsey do not match up with the official story..

ETA
The General should be corrected in regards to defining Benghazi as a "Battle" in the first place... It was a kidnapping an a flippin murder followed by a firefight... These were not Two armies facing off in "Battle" for God's sake. You need a bitter reality check. Battle my ass... Check your flipping dictionary Troll.
edit on 5-2-2013 by jibeho because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jibeho

Just give up. The timeline is different and contradictory...


You keep saying it...but I have actually repeatedly highlighted the two battles (points at which Us Spec Ops/CIA engaged in a firefight)...two different times...two different locations...specified in the CIA timeline?

And your response is the factual equivelant of "nanny nanny boo boo"...just keep saying they are different.

Good luck with the 'thinking" thing.



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


My God!!

An accurate summation of the Sept. 11-12 event in Benghazi, based on the CIA and State Department accounts, is that it was a three hour and 20 minute series of attacks followed four hours and fifteen minutes later by an eleven minute attack. That is significantly different than Gen. Dempsey's claim--while trying to defend not sending any military assets to the rescue--that Benghazi was two 20 minute battles separated by six hours.


Again compare this CIA account to Dempsey's simple statement


“Around 9:40pm (local) the first call comes in to the Annex that the Mission is coming under attack. Fewer than 25 minutes later, a security team left the Annex for the Mission. Over the next 25 minutes, team members approach the compound, attempt to secure heavy weapons, and make their way onto the compound itself in the face of enemy fire. At 11:11pm, the requested ISR arrives over the Mission compound. By 11:30pm, all US personnel, except for the missing US Ambassador, depart the Mission. The exiting vehicles come under fire. Over the next roughly 90 minutes, the Annex receives sporadic small arms fire and RPG rounds; the security team returns fire, and the attackers disperse (approx 1am). At about the same time, a team of additional security personnel lands at the Benghazi airport, negotiates for transport into town, and upon learning the Ambassador was missing and that the situation at the Annex had calmed, focused on locating the Ambassador, and trying to secure information on the security situation at the hospital. Still pre-dawn timeframe, that team at the airport finally manages to secure transportation and armed escort and--having learned that the Ambassador was almost certainly dead and that the security situation at the hospital was uncertain--heads to the Annex to assist with the evacuation. They arrive with Libyan support at the Annex by 5:15am, just before the mortar rounds begin to hit the Annex. The two security officers were killed when they took direct mortar fire as they engaged the enemy. That attack lasted only 11 minutes then also dissipated. Less than an hour later, a heavily-armed Libyan military unit arrived to help evacuate the compound of all US.”


Why do I bother....?? I think you're playing the naivete just to annoy me...



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 04:07 PM
link   
And again you are equating "attack" with "battle"...In your own jumbled CIA source timeline I will show you exactly where those battles occured. (BY THE WAY...WHERE ARE YOU GETTING YOUR CIA TIMELINE.....CUZ IT HAS BEEN EDITED TO BE CONFUSING...IT IS NOT THE ONE THAT WAS RELASED...I LINK TO THE ORIGINAL BELOW


Originally posted by jibeho
reply to post by Indigo5
 





Around 9:40pm (local) the first call comes in to the Annex that the Mission is coming under attack. Fewer than 25 minutes later, a security team left the Annex for the Mission. Over the next 25 minutes, team members approach the compound, attempt to secure heavy weapons, and make their way onto the compound itself in the face of enemy fire.

[Above is battle #1...entering/exiting the compound with survivors]

Over the next roughly 90 minutes, the Annex receives sporadic small arms fire and RPG rounds; the security team returns fire, and the attackers disperse (approx 1am). At about the same time, a team of additional security personnel lands at the Benghazi airport, negotiates for transport into town, and upon learning the Ambassador was missing and that the situation at the Annex had calmed, focused on locating the Ambassador, and trying to secure information on the security situation at the hospital. Still pre-dawn timeframe, that team at the airport finally manages to secure transportation and armed escort and--having learned that the Ambassador was almost certainly dead and that the security situation at the hospital was uncertain--heads to the Annex to assist with the evacuation.

[2nd battle]
They arrive with Libyan support at the Annex by 5:15am, just before the mortar rounds begin to hit the Annex. The two security officers were killed when they took direct mortar fire as they engaged the enemy. That attack lasted only 11 minutes then also dissipated. Less than an hour later, a heavily-armed Libyan military unit arrived to help evacuate the compound of all US.”




Here is the CIA source timeline from a non jumbled/edited source...


●10:20 p.m.: A reconnaissance party of two GRS officers heads to the consulate; at 10:25, three more GRS officers enter the main gate and begin engaging the attackers. The firefight lasts about 15 minutes.

BEGIN ENGAGING ATTACKERS...BATTLE vs. ATTACK...FIRST "BATTLE" above "about 15 minutes"

●5:15 a.m.: A new Libyan assault begins, this time with mortars. Two rounds miss and the next three hit the roof. The rooftop defenders never “laser the mortars,” as has been reported. They don’t know the weapons are in place until the indirect fire begins, nor are the mortars observed by the drone overhead. The defenders have focused their laser sights earlier on several Libyan attackers, as warnings not to fire. At 5:26 the attack is over. Woods and Doherty are dead and two others are wounded.

A NEW LIBYAN ASSAULT BEGINS....5:15am...over by 5:26


AGAIN THE ABOVE IS THE CIA TIMELINE YOU KEEP TALKING ABOUT...You can read it at the link.

Rough windows of 10:30pm to 11PM and 5:15pm-5:30pm...Each firefight lasting about 15 minutes?

What does that give you? Two battles roughly 20 minutes or so seperated by what? 6 Hours....

articles.washingtonpost.com...

THe only way that Dempseys statement doesn't align with the timeline is if you CHANGE or as you put "Para-Phrase" ..."battles" to "attacks" and then pretend to not know the difference.

And then of course you need to ignore the actual CIA timeline that you are citing to claim the difference.
edit on 5-2-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-2-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 04:17 PM
link   
It's nice to see that the government's practice of compartmentalization is finally backfiring on them.
So funny to watch them getting caught in their own spider web!



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 06:35 PM
link   
just going to throw my two cents in, since NAS Sigonella was brought up. How exactly was Sigonella going to "provide support" to anybody? Sigonella is home to a relatively small fleet of cargo aircraft, as well as signals and EW aircraft. How exactly is that going to do anybody on the ground any good? Not every military base on the planet has a team of commandos sitting around waiting to jump on a plane and parachute into a developing situation. just because a base happens to be nearby doesn't mean they have any means whatsoever to contribute anything substantive to a situation. there are entire bases full of logistical troops and a handful of troops that provide security. so how are they going to do you any good? answer? they wouldn't. you'd pull resources from the nearest base that can actually contribute something worthwhile, even if that base is a three or four hour flight away.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Shamrock6
 


There are tier one spec ops forces ready for deployment at Sigonella as well as a few AC 130 Specters attached to them....

There are so many conflicting accounts that we have been intentionally misled...

Little wouldn’t describe the two units with any specificity. It’s already been reported that one special operations unit was at Sigonella. The second unit is less familiar, but Little appeared to confirm an element of a Fox News report last week that mentioned a second elite special-operations unit was at the airbase, including Delta Force personnel — which would make sense, given the potential for a hostage-rescue mission, a Delta specialty.

It’s less clear what actually happened to those units after they reached Sigonella and the attack of the consulate had ended


AFRICOM was caught with their pants down and no immediate resources at the quick and ready.. I've heard that AC 130 was available from Sigonella and I've also heard that nearest AC 130 was in Afghanistan etc etc. If Africa is going to be the hotspot of the next decade as predicted, they had better get their act together and the story straight regarding what really happened in Benghazi.
www.wired.com...
edit on 6-2-2013 by jibeho because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-2-2013 by jibeho because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


no, there are not "Tier One" units stationed at Sigonella. they were ORDERED TO Sigonella after the attack started, which means they were elsewhere when it started, then had to GET TO Sigonella before they could go anywhere else. as for the AC-130s being stationed there, the Sigonella NAS spokesman (spokeswoman, actually) says that no AC-130s were aboard NAS Sigonella during or around the time of the attack. unless forward deployed to a combat zone, AC-130s are based out of Florida or New Mexico. They aren't deployed to random bases around the world just for poops and giggles.

my point was, and still is, that no forces who would actually be able to provide support to the situation were already prepositioned aboard NAS Sigonella when the attack occurred. forces had to be re-deployed from elsewhere to get to a place where they could begin to respond to the situation.
edit on 8-2-2013 by Shamrock6 because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-2-2013 by Shamrock6 because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
13
<< 1   >>

log in

join