It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


JUST IN: Benghazi Drone Camera Operator: There Was No Protest!

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on May, 6 2013 @ 08:52 PM

On Monday afternoon May 6, 2013 live from the Sean Hannity radio show, the man who operated the UAV drone at the time of the Benghazi attacks, a US army technician called the show. According to him there were 6 Army personnel involved in the mission monitoring the attack as it was in process.

This man wondered why the recorded filmed evidence was not subpoenaed by Congress or the State Department. This UAV drone operator, John, as he called himself, testified that there were hundreds of attackers backed by vehicles that were surrounding the US consulate building. He was then ordered to navigate the craft to hover over and observe the CIA annex building just 2 miles away.

This man’s testimony substantiates that he observed a large heavily armed and coordinated attack not a random gathering of protesters who had gotten out of hand as falsely alleged by the Clinton State Department. Apparently in their haste to suppress all direct witnesses to the worst foreign relations disaster in US history, the Obama White House overlooked the Army unit that was flying a drone over the hot zone, who saw the massive attacks that contradict the administration’s claims that protesters had been responsible for the slaughter of US diplomatic personnel as well as the burning of the building.

Will justice finally be served? We will see. In all this, the Obama White House knew immediately that Al Qaeda terrorists were involved, yet lied anyway! In the terrible aftermath, the President went to bed and left the next day for a fundraiser in Las Vegas the following day.

posted on May, 6 2013 @ 09:22 PM
reply to post by muse7

I suggest a new surgical procedure called optiumbilectomy.
I would improve your outlook on life immensely.

posted on May, 6 2013 @ 10:43 PM

Originally posted by Carreau
reply to post by muse7

Is there any act a democrat could do you wouldn't try to defend or deflect in a thread?

I'd have to say No on that and say it with conviction. Although, I don't think Democrat is really the right term....but I shall stop there for the purposes of civility.

@ Thread

Generally speaking, while it's crystal clear that some people don't value the life of a U.S. Ambassador, his staff or the men who died trying to keep those same staff from being murdered to a person..... Many of us are interested in hearing the updates as they come. No one says those who have no interest have to open, let alone comment in every single thread ATS has come across it's forums. Just one bunny's humble opinion.

posted on May, 6 2013 @ 11:36 PM
Just saw this on Stars & Stripes,

US official: Benghazi assault appeared to be ‘terrorist attack from the get-go’

The deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya during a 2012 attack on a diplomatic outpost in Benghazi told investigators he thought it was a terrorist strike from the beginning, according to interview excerpts released Sunday on CBS News’s “Face the Nation.”

Well, I would say most of us did, even after the White House came out with the lame brain protest-gone-wrong story. Talk about sloppy lies. Not only were there drones but the compound had security cameras so the entire attack is on footage.

posted on May, 7 2013 @ 12:15 AM
I haven't read much on the Benghazi coverup but if I understand correctly, it's a big deal because Obama didn't call it a terrorist attack from the get go to save his campaign? Anyone care to explain me why this is so important?

posted on May, 7 2013 @ 01:16 AM

Originally posted by MrMaybeNot
I haven't read much on the Benghazi coverup but if I understand correctly, it's a big deal because Obama didn't call it a terrorist attack from the get go to save his campaign? Anyone care to explain me why this is so important?

Saving face during the campaign was just one of the facets of this situation. Instantly the Government went into overdrive to downplay this attack (which came on the heals of the now famous words from our president). President Obama declared the "war on terror" over. He also made a declaration that Al Qaeda was done and beaten.

The administration severely downplayed the Fort Hood massacre as "work-place violence" and then September 11th, 2012 happened. They slapped the blame on some poor two-bit cinematographer, who, is still in jail I believe as the source of the "spontaneous" riots that led to the attack.

Word is getting out that this was not some spontaneous reaction to an obscure and barely viewed youtube video but a coordinated and deliberate attack.

That is why it is a big deal. It is a big deal because the Government is mounting a massive coverup with actual and verifiable evidence that it did (see oh I don't know....Watergate?)

posted on May, 7 2013 @ 01:20 AM

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

I agree that we should be wary of the caller, but should our Representatives just drop this? Don't ask questions? Does that fit your defense of the ideology? At this point yes, it will be politicized because it needs to be. It is starting to mount that the current Administration tried to sweep it under the rug.

Trust, but verify.~ Ronald Reagan

Actually, none of this would surprise me.

posted on May, 7 2013 @ 01:32 AM
reply to post by sonnny1

Surprisingly that quote has shown up a lot lately. I used it in response to President Obama's call for college grads to openly embrace government and do not question their motives. I even went as far to say that if he tempered that speech with a similar anecdote as Reagan's now famous words, I would have agreed with him.

Alas, that isn't the path the president has chosen. Instead, he chose to drive yet another wedge into society to further create division and set the players into motion. Either he or his handlers are exceptional at chess, but even the best chess player cannot match a go player. We need to be of that mind. Step outside of the box and realize that the pieces are in motion and the rules are as flexible as they ever will be.

posted on May, 7 2013 @ 01:36 AM
reply to post by ownbestenemy

I agree.

The Polarization is deafening. With all this, we have a President willing and able to play with the lives of Americans.

I also believe he knew exactly what was happening, real time. Just remember. Hes a "drone" President, willing to use them and willing to kill with them.

posted on May, 7 2013 @ 05:28 AM
reply to post by IAMTAT

I think that guy better watch out...I hear there's a Gitmo cell opening right next to Manning's...

Those damn traitors...

posted on May, 7 2013 @ 06:57 AM
reply to post by sonnny1

That's what bothers me so much on all this, ya know? I'm sure he did know. His people wouldn't have dared let something so politically explosive unfold without him knowing while on the eve of re-election of all times. Imagine..deciding unilaterally 'Awww...The President doesn't need to know..don't bother him with this', as it blew into a killer of his second term chances? Nawww.. That's absurd to even consider, in my opinion.

So.... If that logic holds, then this was allowed to play out, despite all the very serious risks in doing that. They couldn't have known the CIA Station wouldn't be overrun as well, that night. They took THAT risk as well. Why? What the hell is at the core of this thing, SO bad, that allowing what DID happen was the lesser of two evils??

It's almost scary for the depth of what must be here.

posted on May, 7 2013 @ 07:09 AM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

It's almost scary for the depth of what must be here.

I doubt very much that there's much depth in it...drilled down to the's probably a money agenda behind it all. Always is...

posted on May, 7 2013 @ 07:16 AM
reply to post by MarioOnTheFly

That doesn't track for me. What money? For whom? This wasn't a grand strategic plan. Stevens was a personal representative of Obama. They knew each other. Personally. That HAS to mean something. Clinton absolutely knew him. This, whatever it was, overrode that as well as risking everything for Obama's second term.

If they'd just been a bit more brutal? If they'd stripped Stevens naked and drug him through the street or beheaded him they absolutely have done before in Somalia and Iraq? Obama couldn't have been re-elected to dog catcher ...let alone President with it happening THAT close to re-election. As it was, it took mammoth effort to cover this sucker and make it a non-issue in September, with November coming so fast for critical importance.

Money isn't enough for me. Not on this one. The risks were too high and too personal. The ...brutality of omission of action, too severe. It's just oversimplifying it far too much to say 'Oh, it's just those corrupt politicians after profit again'. Well, WHAT profit was so high, as to make this worth it? Nothing I've seen thus far ...or even hinted at.

Recall, this was an event building for months. By no means was it JUST the events of a single night. This just culminated with that last night of outright murder.
edit on 7-5-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 7 2013 @ 07:22 AM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

well, maybe you feel it is over simplifying...maybe that's the catch.

There are no complex things we as humans do...they may only look complex, but behind it all are always same mundane stupid human reasons for everything we do.

Going in to it too deep is perhaps a least for me it is. We/you should be focusing on the fact that there were no protests...rather than the message, same as in Manning's case, the messenger is in focus...

posted on May, 7 2013 @ 07:25 AM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Where did the twenty or so
survivors relocate to so that
they were safe during the
second attack on the CIA station?

posted on May, 7 2013 @ 07:45 AM
this is already been hashed out in the previous hearings, over and over and over and over and over. let's not forget who the committee chairman is....Darrall Izza, here's a part of his bio people might find interesting

After leaving the military, Issa and his second wife, Kathy Stanton, moved back to the Cleveland area, pooled their savings, sold their cars and borrowed $50,000 from his family to invest in Quantum Enterprises, an electronics manufacturer run by a friend from Cleveland Heights that assembled bug zappers, CB radio parts and other consumer products for other companies. One of those clients, car alarm manufacturer Steal Stopper, would become the path to Issa's fortune. It was struggling badly, and he took control of it by foreclosing a $60,000 loan he had made to it when its founder, Joey Adkins, missed a payment. Adkins remained as an employee.[9]

Issa soon turned Steal Stopper around, to the point that it was supplying Ford with thousands of car alarms and negotiating a similar deal with Toyota. But early in the morning of September 7, 1982, the offices and factory of Quantum and Steal Stopper in the Cleveland suburb of Maple Heights, caught fire. The fire took three hours to put out; the buildings and almost all inventory within were destroyed. An investigation of the cause of the fire noted "suspicious burn patterns" with fires starting in two places aided by an accelerant such as gasoline.[9] Adkins said that Issa appeared to prepare for a fire by increasing the fire insurance policy 462% three weeks previously, and by removing computer equipment holding accounting and customer information. Adkins said that he thinks Issa set the fire on purpose. The insurance company was suspicious of arson and paid only about one-tenth the insured amount.[19]
here's some more about this supposed honorable man.......

Industry insiders on his oversight team

In February 2011, the Watchdog Institute, an independent nonprofit reporting center based at San Diego State University, published an investigation alleging that as leader of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Issa built a team that included staff members with close connections to industries that could benefit from his investigations.[58] The Huffington Post also published the Institute's investigation.[59]

9/11 payments

In April 2008, the Daily News reported that Issa questioned federal expenditures made after 9/11. He was criticized for making comments that the federal government "'just threw' buckets of cash at New York for an attack 'that had no dirty bomb in it, it had no chemical munitions in it'"[60] and asking "why the firefighters who went there and everybody in the city of New York needs to come to the federal government for the dollars versus this being primarily a state consideration."[60] In September 2009, Issa's office released a statement indicating that his comments had been misrepresented and that the questions he asked concerned the then still unpassed bill H.R. 3543, which, according to that statement "would give U.S. taxpayer dollars to those who did not suffer physical injury and did not work at or around Ground Zero."[61][62]

Office of Congressional Ethics complaint

In September 2011, the liberal advocacy group American Family Voices filed a complaint with the Office of Congressional Ethics against Issa, alleging he had repeatedly used his public office for personal financial gain. Issa's office rejected the allegations.[63]

since I live in California, i have heard a little more about this guy than the rest of the country, this guy has a real hard willy for ousting any democrat from office, no matter how low he goes

edit on 7-5-2013 by jimmyx because: additions

posted on May, 7 2013 @ 08:01 AM
this is all conspiracy junk thrown in to conceal
the fake heart of this matter.
it is the same BS every time, but it seems that most are still
no nearer to being capable of sniffing it out.
(see from this post down).

we cannot still afford to be falling for this old ham!

fakery fakery everywhere
and we lap it up.

posted on May, 7 2013 @ 08:03 AM
If the caller was the actual camera operator, this doesn't surprise me one bit. The government has covered up many things, and if that was indeed the camera operator, he/she is just another person that was used by the government to do their dirty work.

posted on May, 7 2013 @ 08:32 AM
reply to post by slugger9787

As the public record indicates to this point, the civilian staff and ..whatever caused the attack to follow them over, was moved from the Consulate to the CIA Annex, where they were when U.S. forces arrived first thing the following morning ro evacuate everyone out of Benghazi. So..they were protected and kept alive by the CIA and contractors attached to the annex. Two good men died there, in the process of seeing that it worked and the others lived. That is the part that is being said, didn't have to happen.

As I read the timelines and have since the early days following the event, it could have been helped much sooner, but that point is what is being pointed to now as the key where men died and didn't have to, if proper assistance had been allowed to respond as it was prepared to do.

posted on May, 7 2013 @ 08:40 AM
reply to post by jimmyx

I'd love to see links to these comprehensive hearings you are referring to. They aren't among those I've watched or read transcripts for up to this point. (This week is as close as I've seen yet) However, I may have missed some over time. This 'non stop crisis mode' that Washington has had running for the better part of a couple years now does make it easy to miss things.

What this has to do with Issa is beyond me. Attacking the investigator does nothing to mitigate the murder of U.S. officials in an overseas station. Unless we're suggesting Issa has some involvement in those deaths, then his background is irrelevant to the matters being looked into. If it does matter, I don't have any more respect for Issa as a person or a politician than anyone else up there......but murder is murder and it doesn't just "slide" if the concept of accountability is to mean anything.

It's odd....but some of the loudest critics of the Government and direction this nation is going, seem to be among the loudest also wishing this whole matter of the killings of the Consulate staffer and Ambassador would just 'fade away'. As if the highest crime is situational for context and meaning to pursue. I'm sure Nixon thought the same thing.....before being run clear out of office in disgrace...and no one died in that one.

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in