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: 7
24
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2013 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by 48e18
 


You are so wrong about Benghazi and public anger about it. I am thoroughly outraged by it. Not only did our government fail to heed warnings but it covered up its incompetence, and the person most responsible for what happened tried to divert attention from her responsibility in that incident by attacking a senator who asked a very legitimate question.

Hillary Clinton should be tried in a criminal court and disqualified from running for president in 2016 based on her failure to provide protection for Americans in Benghazi after she was advised the situation there warranted further security. She isn't fit to be president. She could care less about Americans and she proved it.

She is a snake with no conscience whatsoever.

The outrage is real.




posted on May, 9 2013 @ 06:11 PM
link   
This an absolutely disgusting thread. I am ashamed of my progressive brethren. Hicks has openly stated that he spoke DIRECTLY to Clinton on the night of the fight, telling her it was certainly a full-blown terrorist attack. What more evidence do you need that this was a cover-up?? Two soldiers had to disregard a stand-down order; what more evidence do you need that there was, indeed, a stand-down order?

To anyone using other events to belittle the loss of four Americans should be $%uck*** ashamed of themselves. Did anyone of those previous events at embassies have a stand-down order, along with a fake story that was proven to be false, by Hicks, before it was even released? My God, this nation has fallen on tough times, when those that seek truth are said to be politicizing an event by those that are doing the politicizing. You're damn right that I would be outraged if this was Bush. I was outraged over the failure of the original 9-11, and subsequent underfunding of the investigation.

How do you people call yourselves American?
edit on 9-5-2013 by IsntLifeFunny because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by suz62
 


Well from the right wing media...all I ever hear is IF, MAYBE or POSSIBLY. So basically event he right wing media is unsure if anything was covered up or not.

Yet people who have actually had nothing to do with this..ATS right wingers...seem to know better than anyone else.

If there is actual proof..then explain to me..why the right wing media is not all over this? You know they would be having a field day with it...yet they know nothing....what makes you people think you know more than the people involved in the hearings.

It is faux outrage..in fact the people on here expressing outrage do not seem to mention the fact it was the right who cut funding for more protection at Benghazi. The funding would have gone to better and more protection for the people at the embassy.

Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Security: 'You Have To Prioritize Things'




House Republicans have continued to deprioritize the security forces protecting State Department personnel around the world. In fiscal year 2011, lawmakers shaved $128 million off of the administration's request for embassy security funding. House Republicans drained off even more funds in fiscal year 2012 -- cutting back on the department's request by $331 million.


So keep lying to yourselves that this is a righteous cause...
If it were so..you would also be angry with the right side but nope...you only have tunnel vision.

I for one would love to see the facts that state beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a coverup. The Obama haters on ATS have proven that as long someone states a story condemning him and the admin..or if some "whistle blower" no matter if there are a lack of facts..then it must be true.

Also someone stated that Obama and his admin have whistleblower eliminated before...really? First I have ever heard of it. If so..where is the proof and why is the right wing media not all over it? Or is it your own fantasies driving this?



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Your hate outshines my dislike of the administration.

I don't like anyone running the country. You don't like the country.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by suz62
 



Hillary Clinton should be tried in a criminal court and disqualified from running for president in 2016


And there we have it, the real reason behind the fake outrage.

The initial fake Benghazi outrage was an attempt to sway the election...that failed in epic proportions.

Now the Republicans are scared out of their mind about Hilary, so it is time to start up the fear mongering machine once more and use the deaths of these 4 Americans in an attempt to push their agenda.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by 48e18
 


You're talking out of your behind.

Hillary Clinton is a liar. I don't want a thing like that representing my country.

She blatantly blew off Johnson at that hearing. How the hell can you defend that behavior?

IT MATTERS.
edit on 5/9/2013 by suz62 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by 48e18

Originally posted by peter_kandra
reply to post by 48e18
 


How many of those other incidents killed embassy personnel, rather than local police/security?
I think the real issue here though is the probable cover-up the administration engaged in.


Research---Blind Sheikh--answers may lie there

What did they cover up or attempt to cover up?

I've never understood the cries of cover up, because no one ever says what they suspect they are covering up.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by 48e18
 


How many of the casualties in the attacks listed died because of stand down orders issued by an administration looking to exploit the situation for political purposes?

I'm not even a Republican and yet I would LOVE to know an answer to that question

:-)



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Hillary must be an evil person who enjoys killing people (or at least letting them get killed). I bet she sits up at night and thinks, "I love being evil, I really like being a bad human being. People are dumb, I don't care about other people's lives at all".


I'm sure there is a reason why this happened. The thing is, because the CIA is involved, it might compromise other operations by exposing what really happened. They very well might be covering something up, but it's probably to protect more lives.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 07:31 PM
link   
I wanna know why operation fast and furious is getting buried in favor of benghazi. Its like comparing a toy car to a mercedes benz. A few people killed to thousands killed. The numbers ARE important. lets not be such great hypocrites after all.

Or why the events of 9-11-2001 are still getting covered up and people who try to expose the scam end up getting banned for bad conduct.

Too many question and too little time, but i think I know the answer. Both parties have the same boss and there is ceiling to how high you can go without bringing the whole deck of cards crashing down and having anarchy. That is what the deal seems to me.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by 48e18
reply to post by suz62
 



Hillary Clinton should be tried in a criminal court and disqualified from running for president in 2016


And there we have it, the real reason behind the fake outrage.

The initial fake Benghazi outrage was an attempt to sway the election...that failed in epic proportions.

Now the Republicans are scared out of their mind about Hilary, so it is time to start up the fear mongering machine once more and use the deaths of these 4 Americans in an attempt to push their agenda.


Scared of hillary?


If rand paul and ted cruz run I think it will blow-out city. Like an nba team playing a high school team.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by c74r1ty44
 

I think it is just plain obvious this op has not watched the latest hearings or investigated the real facts and also the hear say bs from the right - I hate to say it but there appears there is some truth in what they are saying. If the op had watched the hearings on Wednesday the op would of have been a little more careful about jumping over the edge for Obama and Hillary. Here is some finger pointing - some are questionable - but need to answered.

Obama missing most of the hours of the fight.
Prior warnings ignored.
Calls of begging for help ignored.
Military trained squads and equipment dedicated for these situations locked in place and not released.
Order to not respond - no one is admitting to that order - but it was given - who gave it?
Protest video caused the incident - all lies - and knowingly at that. Who gave Rice that suicide mission.

I could go on - but what is the sense? This is just a thread defending Obama and Hillary - no meat at all to chew on to defend these criminals. A person defending these criminals is doing it blindly at best.

The one thing that I hear from my friends and neighbors is this - they didn't even try to help these people - democrat and republican alike are saying this - but not from the real true liberals.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5



SO...Give me a question about Behngazi that you think the gov. has refused to answer?


Questions they refuse to answer?

1. Ok, why did you, the gov't, deny the security requests to the "embassy" when they requested it after being attacked by the same terrorists who attack them on September 11, 2012?

2. Why did you LIE and tell the world it was Libyan Muslim protesters who attack the compound that day when you clearly knew for a FACT it was terrorists?

Do you want to see what an actual Libyan Muslim protest looks like?



So I'd start with those 2 questions first & there's plenty more but the real problem is since they are all complete liars you can ask them all the questions you want but they will only keep on lying and pointing fingers so it's almost a complete waste of time to do so



edit on 9-5-2013 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by redtic
If you didn't happen to see it last night, Jon Stewart sums it up succinctly, as usual:

www.thedailyshow.com...
www.thedailyshow.com...

(Wish I could embed those..)



jon stewart has no credibility. look at it, i mean cmon, he was blatantly misleading the public. not to mention i dont take the credibility of a comedy central show very highly on these issues. its like asking carrottop what he thinks. HE IS A COMEDIAN. I do however take credibility in facts. The fact is this whole thing is just the tip of the iceberg. a big snowball starting downhill. It focuses on cover ups, and the fact that the people we are trusting with these issues are incompetent, and corrupt.

quoting jon stewart........get one better please.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by 48e18

Originally posted by jjkenobi
Typical liberal logic. None of those reported incidents could have been prevented if the administration at the time had ordered military intervention. A car bomb explodes - the event is over. It wasn't like Al-Qada was actively storming and attacking the embassy, which is EXACTLY what was happening when Obama went back to sleep and Hillary ordered a stand down TWICE in Benghazi.


First of all, many of those attacks I listed were not just a simple car bomb...but they were actual raids by men with guns and rockets. So yes...militants were actively storming embassies and consulates. So any more excuses?

Second of all, the drone didn't get there until 90+ minutes after the attack started (and was over)...so they watched nothing...they watched a burning building with no active fight going on. You seem to be confused about the timeline.

www.cnn.com...




You do realize your timeline of 90 minutes doesn't match your sources timeline, right?

The battle lasted longer than 90 minutes, your source will show you, and the drones were overheard the entire time while military and political leaders watched live via the drone and their Top Secret internet.

The initial assault that killed Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith was fast and that's because the terrorists knew what they were doing. They did attack the compound in the past and were also in cahoots with the only security there, the hired Libyan security, but the attack lasted all night because two ex SEALs fought bravely while waiting for back up that never came.
edit on 9-5-2013 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Swills
 



1. Ok, why did you, the gov't, deny the security requests to the "embassy" when they requested it after being attacked by the same terrorists who attack them on September 11, 2012?


That has been answered many times. First, not all requests can be fulfilled, it costs money and we simply can't fulfill all requests for security. Plus, the Republicans cut the funding for embassy defense...but they don't want to talk about that.


2. Why did you LIE and tell the world it was Libyan Muslim protesters who attack the compound that day when you clearly knew for a FACT it was terrorists?


I love that we have so many mind readers here on ATS that they KNOW exactly what these people knew at the time. The fact is that, as stated many times and confirmed by intel agencies, that was the initial intel...and that is what they shared. When they found out otherwise THEY CAME OUT AND SAID SO.

So what do you want them to say now? They have already corrected the wrong information...what is left?


But it is nice to know that these are the two most pressing questions...it just once again proves that this is all just fake manufactured outrage by the Right. You are admitting that you are OUTRAGED because the initial information about the motive was incorrect and that Republicans defunded security budgets.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by 48e18
 


I think you missed the point, not to mention trying to distract using non comparable's.

The difference between all of the embassy attacks you listed and the one in Libya:

Obama lied about the attack and tried to spin it into something it was not. A for effort though on using the White House talking points. MSNBC and Goebbels would be proud...



Originally posted by 48e18
I love that we have so many mind readers here on ATS that they KNOW exactly what these people knew at the time. The fact is that, as stated many times and confirmed by intel agencies, that was the initial intel...and that is what they shared. When they found out otherwise THEY CAME OUT AND SAID SO.


No, really, they didn't... They went down swinging with the propaganda campaign with regards to the youtube film being the catalyst.

Secondly, they had the intelligence that it was a terror attack.. In case you missed the hearing, Clinton kept the intel arm of her agency in the dark.

I wonder why....
edit on 9-5-2013 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 08:55 PM
link   


Hillary Clinton should be tried in a criminal court and disqualified from running for president in 2016 based on her failure to provide protection for Americans in Benghazi


Then Bush and Cheney should be burned at the stake for ignoring terrorist plane attack warnings.

But of course no one here cares about that do they? Or the 4000 soldiers that died for no reason in Iraq, or the 100,000 Iraqis that died for no reason.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Fake? No. Manufactured? Of course.

Social Engineering - Wikipedia



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Swills
 



You do realize your timeline of 90 minutes doesn't match your sources timeline, right?



9:42 p.m. -- Armed men begin their assault on the U.S. Consulate.

11:10 p.m. -- The surveillance drone arrives over the Benghazi facility.


Sorry, 88 minutes



The battle lasted longer than 90 minutes, your source will show you, and the drones were overheard the entire time while military and political leaders watched live via the drone and their Top Secret internet.


The initial battle was almost 2 hours long before all Americans were evacuated from the consulate...only lasted 20 minutes after the drone got there.


11:10 p.m. -- The surveillance drone arrives over the Benghazi facility.

11:30 p.m. -- All surviving U.S. personnel are evacuated from the consulate. U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and State Department computer expert Sean Smith were killed in the initial assault.



but the attack lasted all night because two ex SEALs fought bravely while waiting for back up that never came.


False, after 11:30pm, there was nothing going on until 5:15am when the safe house was attacked, the two former Navy SEALS (former, not current...working as contractors) were killed while standing on the rooftop from a mortar. It wasn't a long fight, it was another quick hit.

They were NOT fighting all night, that is Right Wing patriotic porn that they like to pass around....but it just simply isn't true. And by the way, one of the Navy SEALS that was killed didn't even get to Benghazi until 1:30am...kind of hard to fight off terrorist all night when you aren't even there




1:30 a.m. -- A six-man security team from the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli arrives in Benghazi.

2:39 a.m. to 2:53 a.m. -- The National Military Command Center gives formal authorization for the deployment of the two special operations force teams from Croatia and the United States.

5:15 a.m. -- Attackers launch assault on a second U.S. facility in Benghazi. Two former U.S. Navy SEALs acting as security contractors are killed. They are identified as Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.



This is exactly the problem, people like you who are "outraged" have so much false information it is very sad.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join