It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Proof that all the outrage about Benghazi is fake and manufactured

page: 11
24
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2013 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Sounds logical...do you have any ideas? any theories? a nuke, maybe? a suitcase full of ricin? a slap-chop and 2...no, in the next 5 minutes only...3 sham-wows?

I'm not trying to make fun, and like I said I think your idea of them chasing *something* rather than *someone* sounds logical...but what?




posted on May, 10 2013 @ 10:23 PM
link   
last time i checked failing to address the topic at hand but rather introducing prior topics in a debate is known as deflection, which has always been known to be a dishonest debating tactic. . . deflect away OP



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I would dare say most terrorist groups all support and or pledge to Al Qaeda because I don't imagine Al Qaeda allowing rogue groups running around doing their own thing. No, I believe Al Qaeda would bring them in or else their gone. Similar, again, to street gangs. The Bloods aren't going to let some new lowbie gang on their turf without their permission. Like I said, I agree there are many different groups but I'll be conservative and say most of them are supported by Al Qaeda. Hell, Al Qaeda even planted their flag on top of Libya court houses when they took over a city so it's no secret they are there.

The leader of the Libyan rebel group even admitted Al Qaeda were among his ranks. Terrorists Gaddafi had jailed were released as the rebels took over cities thanks to NATO. But ever since the start of that civil war the terrorist were there and still are there. Libya is a hot bed of terrorist activity since the fall of Gaddafi, which is kinda of ironic given Gaddafi's & the West's past.

The group who attack the consulate in the past and threatened to attack on 9/11 was Al Qaeda.

Pro-al Qaeda group seen behind deadly Benghazi attack


(CNN) -- A pro-al Qaeda group responsible for a previous armed assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi is the chief suspect in Tuesday's attack that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya, sources tracking militant Islamist groups in eastern Libya say.



edit on 10-5-2013 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by BobM88
 


I have no idea what could have been worth it, that they would have had sitting at that location...of all places?? Standard technology to a Diplomatic station makes no sense, even if they had a weak one to hit like that. I'm sure no one was carrying code machines or sensitive equipment with them as they ran the 2 miles to the CIA Station. What good would it do anyway? Anything like that would be changed or made worthless almost immediately, right?

I've just put a lot of thought into this and consider the situation? Now, we can look and say, hitting a consulate with a full rank Ambassador may be something a group could get away with...but before it actually happened? What was the last example of U.S. people being cornered with serious threat of being over-run? Mogadishu in 1993? The U.S. Forces killed, by estimates, thousands between ground forces and the more devastating gun runs from the Helicopters through the night. Maybe only 1,000-1,500, but I'll bet more. That was Clinton too. A man comparable to Obama from a foreign "What might he do?" perspective, right?

So they did this thing with that being a realistic possibility for outcome. Whatever they were after was worth that to them. I really am baffled. I wonder if anyone here with experience in direct, real world service in a place like that would have a better idea of what could have been there for a local militia/terrorist group to risk their obliteration to get?



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by BobM88
 


I have no idea what could have been worth it, that they would have had sitting at that location...of all places?? Standard technology to a Diplomatic station makes no sense, even if they had a weak one to hit like that. I'm sure no one was carrying code machines or sensitive equipment with them as they ran the 2 miles to the CIA Station. What good would it do anyway? Anything like that would be changed or made worthless almost immediately, right?

I've just put a lot of thought into this and consider the situation? Now, we can look and say, hitting a consulate with a full rank Ambassador may be something a group could get away with...but before it actually happened? What was the last example of U.S. people being cornered with serious threat of being over-run? Mogadishu in 1993? The U.S. Forces killed, by estimates, thousands between ground forces and the more devastating gun runs from the Helicopters through the night. Maybe only 1,000-1,500, but I'll bet more. That was Clinton too. A man comparable to Obama from a foreign "What might he do?" perspective, right?

So they did this thing with that being a realistic possibility for outcome. Whatever they were after was worth that to them. I really am baffled. I wonder if anyone here with experience in direct, real world service in a place like that would have a better idea of what could have been there for a local militia/terrorist group to risk their obliteration to get?


As for the code machines, etc; even if they had them, I'd think they'd destroy them rather than try to carry them 2 clicks to another building where they'd be in just as much danger of falling to the locals.

We may be assuming too much too...these locals may not have even thought of the worst possible outcomes like you're describing. Ok, I admit, it would be stupid for them to not think of that....but, hey, it *is* possible. Humans aren't exactly the sharpest knives in the drawer sometimes. They knew their wasn't much security...they may have planned on getting to whatever their objective was, (be it the ambassador or the Gaddafi kryptonite in the consulate), and be gone before the cavalry could arrive.



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Swills
 

Well, in all fairness here, you're probably right. The specific ones who claimed credit for the wall attack were after the release of Sheik Rahman, who the US has in a Federal Prison and is, without question, Al Qaeda affiliated. What I replied to and you kinda keyed on here was the post on the other page stating absolutes, not just likely reality and then using that as a basis to make further leaps of logic that I think Evel Knievel would have found daunting, in figurative comparison. That's all.

In a debate where it's all open to 'We think' and we're drawing conclusions (however likely correct) from just part of a full picture? Absolutes seem out of place. (If one of us hits the news as a sudden arrest on some goofy charges? Everyone can figure the right theory was found..lol)



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Oh my God, the feds are at th



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by BobM88
 

You're right there. It could be just as simple as very short sighted and 'stinkin thinkin'. I agree with you, that seems unlikely by logic here...but then, much of what we see happen in the world makes good people stand back in confusion and say "Huh?! Why?!".

There is another possibility and it's one I've kicked around a bit. We don't know, that I have heard, just who all the people were that were in the Consulate and then moved with the rescue to the other location. I understand some levels of 'blood debt' in cultures over there can be almost blind in single minded focus to settle. Could the State Department have run a bad deal or some other double cross that would have brought a reaction this strong to settle whatever went real badly wrong?

* The incident that Spy Game featured in Lebanon was loosely based on a real event, for example. You know, where the locals contracted, destroyed a whole hotel to get one guy? If I recall...the real one did more than that in the insane overkill of local enthusiasm for explosives used on a target.


That too would be something they'd not want to exactly share in mixed company and for public examination. It does little to explain the very poor security which lead up to this (I'm assuming you looked over the official documents to have a sense of that..given your interest in them last night). It would possibly explain why the consulate remained there, despite those issues though. Something going in an ill conceived plan that backfired like a small nuke for consequence?

So many unknowns...and the more I listen and read what was said in Congress? The more I come away sure that something is there ...but we haven't had a glimpse of it yet. Perhaps the majority who were in the consulate didn't know whatever turned the locals that raging mad?



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Oh yeah, there is no doubt that none of us is 100% about anything because all we know is what we get from news outlets, whether main stream or alternative, so the room for error is quite large. As far as absolutes and leaps and bounds, I was just referring the huge Al Qaeda influence in Libya and not so much commenting on the post you were responding to. I do agree the US gov't is supporting the very terrorist we are told we're fighting but I dunno if the only security provided was Al Qaeda. I do know the security was corrupt though and or scared because I don't think they put up much of a fight. As far as not sending SEALs in for not wanting to kill the Al Qaeda, I dunno, who knows what the hell was going on there.

All I do know is the gov't is doing their best to cover it up and failing to do so has blown this whole affair up. The disinformation campaign is out in full force. Not allowing any help to be sent in is what is going to sink this ship.

They dun F'd up.
edit on 10-5-2013 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by teamcommander
reply to post by 48e18
 


It is going to look very embarassing when the real meaning of this charade plays out.
It will show just how afraid these "men" are of some political competition from a woman.

ie... Hillary.


Remember the 3:00 A.M. call that she said Obama couldn't handle. That was her undoing.



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 11:27 PM
link   
Many people probably will not buy this, but I think you are spot on. This is a prime example of dishonorable tactics used by political parties. Conservatives are notorious for spreading crap like this via Fox News, and people like Oreilly. The hypocrisy of that party is just mind blowing. My favorite example to use is that of Clinton, and how up in arms the Republicans were about the fact that he lied about what he did, in his personal life. That was the main thing the conservatives said, was that he lied. Well what did Bush do when he fabricated all of the lies about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? It has been proven now that they had no intelligence suggesting such a thing.

Why did the republicans not get upset about that? Because Bush was their man. That just goes to show that at least to them the truth, justice, liberty, etc., are not as important as political affiliations. I could go on all day about how bad that party is, but people are starting to wake up and see the truth. I don't care for liberals much either, but they are not nearly as bad.



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


What if the *something* were someone higher up in the food chain of the US or even the UK or French govt's than an ambassador? That could account for what seems to be an absurd obsession with keeping "outsiders" out, even US military forces...just throwing stuff against the wall here.



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by JiggyPotamus
 

How many years will it be, before Bush isn't the prime and first line example to use in diverting attention from the actions of other politicians?

It's been going on 5 years now since Bush and his sidekick Vader, darkened the door of the White House with their presence. Will 6 years? 7 Years? be enough? Maybe we have to go beyond 2016 and a full 2 terms...or will we STILL be hearing about how Bush did this or that, and how it must be a comparison?

Bush was a valid thing to mention for the first couple years of Obama's term. Fair enough. Hangover from a past President does impact the following one. It was getting weak beyond reason by the end of Obama's first term though. Now he's into his second full term and it's not weak anymore....it's diversion from the here and now, on the face of it, IMO.



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by BobM88
 


In the way-out wacko world of conspiracy theory - there was the thought that the alqueda rebels were to take the ambassador hostage and then exchange him for the fuzzy teddy bear of a sheik ( can't remember his name - but I do remember a great photo shop picture of most of him with rosie o'donnels face).

They still want to close down gitmo.

The alqueada's were surprised to have the seal team ex-members actually exchange gunfire with them - when it was supposed to be "an exchange" walk in and take the ambassador - not in the heavily gaurded tripoli embassy, but the all too accesible benghazi house.



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Happy1
 


Maybe the alqueda rebels felt they were double-crossed by the obozo administration CIA? That's what led to the horrible torture and death of the ambassador.



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Happy1
 

Between you and Bob? I know you're both putting out different ideas...and very different ones depending on the angle one looks at it. However, from another side? Not necessarily THAT different....? Maybe you're both onto something.

I really wish I knew. I think it's clear we're generally in agreement that something really stinks and it's more than we have seen to work with for ideas here. Enough to know, there is more to know. Maddening isn't it?

You know what kinda hurts? The State Department runs a summer 'school' of sorts that is open to College students at my level that is full immersion in an overseas station for language and culture. It's a sort of internship to go play Gopher in an Embassy. (Go for this, go for that...lol), but it looked like it might have been a lot of fun. The deadline to apply was back in April and I almost did. This is a big part of what stopped me though.

If the Embassy I wound up in for the summer break got into trouble...WOULD it be the object of all possible efforts available to save and the lives in it? Prior to Benghazi...that would have been an absurd thing to ask. Now? Well... I'm looking at volunteer time at an archaeological site for at week instead. Talk about a change of plans.



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Relatively small attack? A U.S. Ambassador was murdered and a United States Consulate was over-run and totally destroyed, while our leaders watched it happen, as we now know, on video by drones overhead.

As attacks on national diplomatic missions go, just what would you term important, if this was minor?

Sometimes...I think our priorities are so screwed up, it's about hopeless to find our national path back to a place of sense and logic. Perhaps the next time, they won't have a couple former SEALs break ranks to save over 20 civilian staffers and we can have a right and proper body count. Would that make it more worthy of attention to at least answer what happened? I'd hope it doesn't have to go that far to warrant proper investigation, beyond political butt covering.


Are you sure Stevens was an ambassador? He hardly looks like a diplomat.
He is likely a low level CIA operative.

All this noise is arm-twisting of the President over Iran. The President is playing hardball on an issue so central to NWO crazies. The problem is the way American system works, President takes the blame if something goes wrong, and a lot is likely to go wrong in an attack on Iran.



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by GargIndia
 


I ask one question -

Did the CIA and other alphabet organizations (NGO's) fund and instigate the "arab spring" chaos - or did it spontaneously just happen?



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I'm sorry to hear that, that would've been an exciting opportunity, but safety first.

My daughter was going to spend a month in China over the summer of 2011 but after Fukishima...so, I hear you. It sucks, but better safe than sorry. You don't get a respawn in the real world.



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
This OP is amazing in it's obvious water carrying for the left. Yes, there is a left and right side. Most constitutionalists are on the right side, but are often NOT Republicans. The Democrats and Republicans are playing their roles. There is a power struggle going on right now and I believe it is quite possible there is a power struggle between the CIA and the Military right now.

Any past wrongs before Benghazi do not negate the issue of Benghazi.

WE HAVE 4 DEAD AMERICAN'S ABANDONED BY THEIR TREASONOUS LEADERS!



We have thousands of American's dead on US soil because of incompetence and/or treason by the Bush II administration. Where is your outrage for that?

And to claim this is a Left vs. Right fight is a joke. Anyone claiming Obama is on the Left is just plain deluded. Obama is the hardest-working centrist Republican in Washington D.C.

The real irony, however, is that this Benghazi deal was a CIA weapons running operation under the guise of a State Dept. mission. Libyan armaments were being shipped to the Syrian rebels, and apparently one of the Libyan militant groups in the area didn't like it. Yet it is the Republicans, such as McCain and Graham who have been arguing for arming the Syrian rebels. But when a CIA operation to do so goes bad, they blame the President, rather than General Betrayus, who was head of the CIA at the time. Obviously Betrayus was canned for this mess-up, rather than for his affair with the journalist. Do remember that at least two of the four Americans killed in Benghazi were CIA agents.

But let's also be clear: Betrayus was a darling of the GOP. Roger Ailes wanted him to rule for President. The GOP's golden boy from the Pentagon, who moved over to the CIA, screwed up, and the GOP is trying to make it appear as if it was all Clinton's and Obama's fault.

Was there some incompetence possibly in how the Benghazi response went down? Sure. It's small potatoes -- actually more like small rice grains -- compared to the incompetency of the Bush II regime in how it failed to protect America against the 9/11 attackers, and how it mismanaged the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, thereby squandering thousands of American lives, never mind the Iraqis and Afghans killed.

This talk of treason by the Obama administration over its handling of Benghazi is just hyperbole and s massive double standard. If you want to call the actions of this administration treason, then start with the high treason of the Bush II regime. Otherwise put a sock in it. The Bush II regime ignored subpoenas by congress for members of the Bush administration to testify. They stonewalled and ignored Congress on a variety of topics, including the 9/11 investigation. To get so hot and bothered about Benghazi, but not to get incensed about what the Bush II regime did is utter rank hypocrisy.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join