It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(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.
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?
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.
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.
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!