NEW INFO: Amb. Stevens Was Taken to Hospital Under Enemy Control

Why was he (Stevens) attacked and treated like this?

There must be some reason. May be he was running a covert operation and eliminated to kill the evidence?

Why would groups that CIA helped would want to kill Stevens?

reply to post by NickDC202


Eh.. I don't know. I know the admin is lying about a lot of it, but that guy looks like he is trying to help at least at that point. Maybe I am wrong, but I doubt that the pictures there are of the terrorists? Is it possible that people not connected to the attack took him to the nearest hospital unaware it was controlled by the people that just attacked?

Originally posted by NickDC202

You are omitting a HUGE portion of the story which is after the initial attack (and the rumored assault on Ambassador Stevens' person) and en route to the hospital, they treated Chris Stevens body like a rag doll and even posed for photos with him (since the area outside the consulate was under terrorist control):



By many accounts, Ambassador Stevens was deceased prior to arrival at this hospital under terrorist control....

edit on 5/8/2013 by NickDC202 because: (no reason given)

Well I don't see people posing with the ambassador rather than helping him on this video.

www.youtube.com...

I have a couple of questions that a web search couldn't answer...

Where did the photos come from?

Also, Wikipedia (I know, but it's a starting point) says this:

Some of the Libyans who entered the compound tried to rescue Stevens after they found him lying alone on the floor in a dark smoke-filled room with a locked door accessible only by a window. A group of men pulled him out of the room through the window, and then placed him on the courtyard's stone tile floor. The crowd cheered "God is great" when Stevens was found to be alive. He was then rushed to the hospital in a private car as there was no ambulance to carry him.[50] Dr. Ziad Abu Zeid, the Libyan doctor who treated Stevens, said Stevens died of severe asphyxiation, that Stevens had no other injuries, and that he tried for 45 minutes to revive him.[51]

Supposedly a freelance videographer captured some footage of the above, although I have not seen the video personally.

If over 100 militants stormed the compound, heavily armed, wouldn't the odds be greater that Stevens would have been shot...at least once, rather than free of bullets behind a locked door, but apparently adjacent to an accessible window?

There is drone footage according to the White House, and I'd gather there were security cameras around the perimeter of the compound. Has any of this been released to the public?

The mother of Sean Smith, the State Department information officer, who was one of four Americans killed during the attack of Slain Benghazi Victim, says it all:

Originally posted by TheBlackTiger
I'm confused by this whole situation.

Why is it that foreign terrorism is being played down, while domestic terrorism is the big thing?

This situation was clearly mishandled, but to what end? In a climate where it seems like the media and government wants everyone to be terrified, what good was it to hide this? What was the goal?

Because the USA had no business being in Libya in the first place.
You go screw up a country, occupy it to steal its resources
and expect everything to be all hunky dory?

If you have an administration that is willing to commit these type of
evil acts, then expect them to treat its own citizens with the same respect.
Reap what you sow.

reply to post by HolographicPrincipal


You are a smart one.

Bengazi incident is being dragged to blackmail Obama to act on Iran. There is nothing else.

Witnesses can be bought or they can be influenced. It is not necessary that witnesses are telling the truth.

This is a drama to influence public opinion.

Originally posted by HolographicPrincipal
I have a couple of questions that a web search couldn't answer...

Where did the photos come from?

Also, Wikipedia (I know, but it's a starting point) says this:

Some of the Libyans who entered the compound tried to rescue Stevens after they found him lying alone on the floor in a dark smoke-filled room with a locked door accessible only by a window. A group of men pulled him out of the room through the window, and then placed him on the courtyard's stone tile floor. The crowd cheered "God is great" when Stevens was found to be alive. He was then rushed to the hospital in a private car as there was no ambulance to carry him.[50] Dr. Ziad Abu Zeid, the Libyan doctor who treated Stevens, said Stevens died of severe asphyxiation, that Stevens had no other injuries, and that he tried for 45 minutes to revive him.[51]

Supposedly a freelance videographer captured some footage of the above, although I have not seen the video personally.

If over 100 militants stormed the compound, heavily armed, wouldn't the odds be greater that Stevens would have been shot...at least once, rather than free of bullets behind a locked door, but apparently adjacent to an accessible window?

There is drone footage according to the White House, and I'd gather there were security cameras around the perimeter of the compound. Has any of this been released to the public?

edit on 5/9/2013 by HolographicPrincipal because: to edit

Even on Wiki, the account of what happened continues to change. I see you posted about 2 hours ago. It now says-

However, the staff were unable to locate Ambassador Stevens before being driven from the building under small-arms fire.[21] Stevens apparently became separated from his staff while trying to escape to the roof and was ultimately overcome by smoke inhalation.[22][23] Local civilians found Stevens and brought him to the Benghazi Medical Centre in a state of cardiac arrest. Medical personnel tried to resuscitate him, but he was pronounced dead at about 2 a.m. local time.[

so the obama administration outright lied, maked up a story, hid the facts, americains died and the obama administration got caught, red handed, hand in the cookie jar, pants down

didnt obama even give a tv speach about the 'protest' in lybia and how it was due to some fabled movie?!?

what is it gunna take for the american public to pull thier heads out of the sand? to actually face the truth, no matter what the cost..whatever happened to 'land of the brave'? america is now a population so blinded by social media and 'why cant i have 85 different types of quinoa'? 'only 108 channels? sheeesh, i gues ill go watch streaming movies online via my phone', 'where the pary at?..oh..its at the obamas!'

so when will the next 'false flag' attack be? the obama administration has gotta do something to get his hearing off the american publics one working brain cell..............

reply to post by TheBlackTiger


A threat from without causes the people to demand harsher foriegn policy, which is fine for a government which desires to enact such policy. But if the intent of a government is to induce the people to give up thier liberty, then that government must refocus the public eye toward threats closer to home. Seems pretty simple to me, but then again, it would, because I have been living in a country whose government consistently attempts to remove power from the individual citizen, and place it in the hands of the isolated band of know nothings who have been running the place.

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
And yet there are no impeachments for Obama or those RINOs who wanted to invade in Libya?

Yeah, exactly.
This is scandal, while the invasion was not?

Originally posted by clearmind
so the obama administration outright lied, maked up a story, hid the facts, americains died and the obama administration got caught, red handed, hand in the cookie jar, pants down

Indeed, but the problem the US has its citizens having a short memories.
Citizens must start looking at the foreign policy, and not the Presidents.
A policy that extends past many Presidents.

Consider how many citizens died from the lies of the Bush administration
and their claim of weapons of mass destruction?

All the Presidents have to end up making some kind of lie, to perpetuate
the same foreign policy. This has become their function. It says to me
that somebody else is actually running the country.

Every time i think about Benghazzi, a scene from a film comes to mind...


And how the hell can his mother not be "Immediate family", this is just one huge clusterfu*k.

Hopefully this shameful cover-up with wake people up to this shady outfit we laughingly call our government."Transparancy"my ass.

Originally posted by TheBlackTiger
I'm confused by this whole situation.

Why is it that foreign terrorism is being played down, while domestic terrorism is the big thing?

This situation was clearly mishandled, but to what end? In a climate where it seems like the media and government wants everyone to be terrified, what good was it to hide this? What was the goal?

To win an election.

If Americans had known the truth, and how badly this was all handled it could have made a difference.

They had to lie and cover this up. The truth is often both a victim, and the enemy in politics, especillay close to major elections.

Originally posted by IAMTAT
One other observation from the hearings...Hicks, in his statements appears to be going out of his way in listing specific full names of people who were working there with him at the consulate during the attack. THESE people would be many of the survivors whose names had been withheld from congress and the media by the administration.

Getting these new names could open the door to getting more survivor-whistle blower testimony.

edit on 8-5-2013 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)

I watched the live feed, and I still don't know what part was the "whistle-blowing"....it actually sounded to me that the CIA and the military have a lot more to answer for, than the state department. remember, there has already been 9 hearings on this.

Originally posted by ausername

Originally posted by TheBlackTiger
I'm confused by this whole situation.

Why is it that foreign terrorism is being played down, while domestic terrorism is the big thing?

This situation was clearly mishandled, but to what end? In a climate where it seems like the media and government wants everyone to be terrified, what good was it to hide this? What was the goal?

To win an election.

If Americans had known the truth, and how badly this was all handled it could have made a difference.

They had to lie and cover this up. The truth is often both a victim, and the enemy in politics, especillay close to major elections.

cover what up?...just because republicans say it's a cover-up doesn't make it so.....does everyone know there were classified briefings of congress that already took place last fall?

Originally posted by NickDC202

Originally posted by IAMTAT
Hicks also said they were concerned that since they believed the hospital was under terrorist control, that they may have been being set up for an ambush, should they rush to retrieve him.

You are omitting a HUGE portion of the story which is after the initial attack (and the rumored assault on Ambassador Stevens' person) and en route to the hospital, they treated Chris Stevens body like a rag doll and even posed for photos with him (since the area outside the consulate was under terrorist control):




By many accounts, Ambassador Stevens was deceased prior to arrival at this hospital under terrorist control....

edit on 5/8/2013 by NickDC202 because: (no reason given)

By many accounts Stevens was also tortured and sodomized with weapons by these Muslims.

Originally posted by ausername

Originally posted by TheBlackTiger
I'm confused by this whole situation.

Why is it that foreign terrorism is being played down, while domestic terrorism is the big thing?

This situation was clearly mishandled, but to what end? In a climate where it seems like the media and government wants everyone to be terrified, what good was it to hide this? What was the goal?

To win an election.

If Americans had known the truth, and how badly this was all handled it could have made a difference.

They had to lie and cover this up. The truth is often both a victim, and the enemy in politics, especillay close to major elections.

the only truth that came out that was a game changer in the election, was that video that showed Romney's utter disgust and loathing for the bottom 47% of this country

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by ausername

Originally posted by TheBlackTiger
I'm confused by this whole situation.

Why is it that foreign terrorism is being played down, while domestic terrorism is the big thing?

This situation was clearly mishandled, but to what end? In a climate where it seems like the media and government wants everyone to be terrified, what good was it to hide this? What was the goal?

To win an election.

If Americans had known the truth, and how badly this was all handled it could have made a difference.

They had to lie and cover this up. The truth is often both a victim, and the enemy in politics, especillay close to major elections.

the only truth that came out that was a game changer in the election, was that video that showed Romney's utter disgust and loathing for the bottom 47% of this country

Even now you politicize this.... The election is over, you can leave campaign mode.