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.

 

Despite name changes & relocations , Benghazi Survivors finally speak.. and blast White House story

page: 4
62
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 03:39 AM
link   
reply to post by gardener
 


I knew from day ONE they were lying. I still suspect, and have stated this elsewhere, that this attack was planned from our side. Anyone who has read many of my posts knows I don't say such things normally, even about very controversial cases such as the 9/11 attacks. My gut feeling, though, was that the ambassador was taken out of the picture for some reason. That's the only thing that would explain WHY they have lied, from the start, about the whole incident.




posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 04:34 AM
link   

LadyGreenEyes
reply to post by gardener
 


I knew from day ONE they were lying. I still suspect, and have stated this elsewhere, that this attack was planned from our side. Anyone who has read many of my posts knows I don't say such things normally, even about very controversial cases such as the 9/11 attacks. My gut feeling, though, was that the ambassador was taken out of the picture for some reason. That's the only thing that would explain WHY they have lied, from the start, about the whole incident.


No question they're lying, so the next logical step is why?

Whatever the reason was is huge. Hillary went to pretty extreme measures to avoid giving an answer. First there was the whole fainting spiel and then when still pressed afterwards she blew off the question by stating what difference does it make? There was no invocation of national security, no saying she could only talk about it in a closed session, she just blew the question off.

This means it's extremely damaging and something the executive branch can't let the legislative branch know about. The lack of national security means they can't even admit that something was there and it's secret.

That the attackers knew the layout of the building means this was not a knee jerk reaction, someone from our side leaked information to them, and this was deliberately planned. That security was knowingly inadequate in a situation that was becoming increasingly hostile says that people were held back on purpose. It was designed for this attack to be successful.

Given that I have two possible theories:
1 - This was a deal to smuggle very powerful weapons (such as chemical weapons) to various groups intended for use in Syria or elsewhere. The attack and raid would give diplomatic cover as to why weapons with a US fingerprint were found.

2 - This was a set up by the NSA in order to create a terrorist attack that justifies their current operating procedure.



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 05:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Aazadan
 


I think the ambassador either knew something they didn't want revealed, or that he stood in the way of some nasty plan to supply even more of our enemies with weapons and other aid. Clearly, I agree, they had inside information, to even know where this place was. The refusal to allow teams to go to their aid is another indicator that they wanted him dead. The extreme degree of the cover-up efforts shows that this came from VERY high up. There is only one conclusion that makes sense in that case, isn't there? As far as the "sleeping through" the incident, I suspect that someone watched it all live, via drone and other means. Watching the expressions when said individual discussed the incident, it seems clear that the response was not one of distress, or horror, or anything you would expect. Doesn't surprise me, though.



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Aazadan
No question they're lying, so the next logical step is why?

My guess has always been that pretty flower they are so good at growing over there.
Our Gov't depends on it



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 11:12 AM
link   

o0oTOPCATo0o
My guess has always been that pretty flower they are so good at growing over there.
Our Gov't depends on it


Are you referring to opium? Is so, it is not grown in Africa.



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 02:23 PM
link   

o0oTOPCATo0o
Attention Everyone:
Stop falling victim to the divide and conquer technique. Democrats and Republicans (especially in higher power) in government, are two cheeks of the same ass.
The more we keep fighting about whether it was the left or right hand that hit us, the more we get hit.
Why do you think major media outlets are in blind support of one party or the other, spewing out mostly B.S.?
It's because the ignorant masses will regurgitate it (grapevine style, so the incorrect info the got is even more distorted) and argue with their fellow man over issues that they have no control of. While we argue over these things, both parties work in collusion, passing detrimental bills that most Americans never hear about.
GW and Barry O are both scumbags.
Whatever was (is) going on in Benghazi would have been going on if it were a D or an R in office.
Arguing about who did what and who would have done what is meaningless. Not to mention it is exactly what is expected of you.
I just hope these survivors have a good hiding spot.


You would think on a site like this there would be less ignorant party hacks, but sadly it isn't the case and its very fustrating.
I think advocating partisan 2 party politics issues on alternative websites is trolling myself.



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 03:26 PM
link   

LadyGreenEyes
reply to post by Aazadan
 


I think the ambassador either knew something they didn't want revealed, or that he stood in the way of some nasty plan to supply even more of our enemies with weapons and other aid. Clearly, I agree, they had inside information, to even know where this place was. The refusal to allow teams to go to their aid is another indicator that they wanted him dead. The extreme degree of the cover-up efforts shows that this came from VERY high up. There is only one conclusion that makes sense in that case, isn't there? As far as the "sleeping through" the incident, I suspect that someone watched it all live, via drone and other means. Watching the expressions when said individual discussed the incident, it seems clear that the response was not one of distress, or horror, or anything you would expect. Doesn't surprise me, though.


I'm not so sure the ambassador was a target, if they wanted him dead specifically there are more covert, less flashy ways to kill him. Just look at all the whistleblowers that "suicide". I hear two in the back of the head is a rather popular way to go these days. More than likely the ambassador was just collateral damage.



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by o0oTOPCATo0o
 





Stop falling victim to the divide and conquer technique. Democrats and Republicans (especially in higher power) in government, are two cheeks of the same ass.


Yes, that's true.

It's true with politics, with race, with religion, with topical issues...but is that the real problem, or is it because were all just so easy to do it to?



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by gardener
 


It doesn't matter if a Democrat or Republic President sits in the White House. Both are mere puppets of the true power that be. Who that is we'll never really know.

Time for a sedative



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 09:05 PM
link   

eNaR
reply to post by gardener
 


It doesn't matter if a Democrat or Republic President sits in the White House. Both are mere puppets of the true power that be. Who that is we'll never really know.

Time for a sedative


And,

"TPTB" are who?



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 09:07 PM
link   

JiggyPotamus

I've even heard people say that Obama was to blame because he extended the Patriot Act, yet they don't get mad at the president who actually initiated it in the first place. That makes zero sense. So for those who would criticize Obama, while not doing the same to Bush, you are a political hypocrite, to put it bluntly. You are basing your assessments on personal political bias. But for those who would criticize all wrongdoing, no matter if it toward a democrat or republican, by all means, continue. That is fair and balanced. But so many do not wish to operate in a fair and just manner.


Bush took TONS of criticism for the Patriot Act and still does today, not sure what you're talking about.... And the thing you are failing to see if that even though Obama didn't create the act, he did extend it, when he could have tried to kill it off.... I see a difference here, do you?
edit on 15-1-2014 by jhn7537 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Gotta agree with u on that: both Dems & Reps have a crappy track record in the oval office... all puppets do, afterall.

It's been a steady downward spiral in leadership, since JFK was killed for not being a puppet.

So, do these POTUS have a soul, a conscience? Obviously not, when they just keep going with the cover stories!

In Bush's case, it was the fraudulent proof of WOMD in Iran. With Obama, we have lie after lie, FAKE TEARS that just aren't there.. because they're FAKE.

Everything about this President is fake..if he were dem or rep wouldnt matter he'd still be just a lame puppet for a president lying thru his teeth time and time again...

Report Reveals The Cia Knew Early On Benghazi Attack A Youtube Video Wasn't To Balame



I don't like Fox or any MSM for the matter but the content here is decent.



Islamic extremism on the rise? It's 2013, American has been in Benghazi, Libya to fix it since 2011!

Nevertheless, despite over 10yrs US occupying, policing Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Syria(?), terror cells have spread from al-Qaeda to broader, more mainstream Muslims groups making Islamic Extremists a more global threat that needs to now be addressed as Americans are being killed by Muslims now wherever they go, even countries that have been occupied by US for years now like Libya.. Cool story, bro!




posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Aazadan
I'm not so sure the ambassador was a target, if they wanted him dead specifically there are more covert, less flashy ways to kill him. Just look at all the whistleblowers that "suicide". I hear two in the back of the head is a rather popular way to go these days. More than likely the ambassador was just collateral damage.


Things like that tend to look more suspicious, though, whereas an attack isn't typically expected to be something else. Either way, the feel I have is that this was planned, from our own side, for some reason we don't yet know. Just a feeling, but with everything that has happened since, it's getting stronger.



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 02:18 AM
link   

This means it's extremely damaging and something the executive branch can't let the legislative branch know about. The lack of national security means they can't even admit that something was there and it's secret.


Quoting myself here because something just hit me about the seriousness of this statement. The lack of national security means there's no record for an FOIA or similar request. They would only do this if the implications could cause a serious national revolt. There's still going to be a paper trail, but rather than say you can't see it, they've hidden it among billions of other documents so that it's unlikely to ever be found.

The only other instance I'm aware of this tactic ever being used is with certain UFO cases. I'm not saying it's alien or black project related infact I'm pretty sure it isn't (particularly for the alien angel), but if the only other time this tactic gets used is to hide something worthy of world wide national defense issues, it stands to reason there was something absolutely huge going down in Benghazi.

This is on the order of smuggling/selling WMD's huge. Maybe it's something else, but I don't know what else could warrant these measures.



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 09:14 AM
link   

JiggyPotamus
While I agree that the government lied about what occurred during the attacks, something needs to be straightened out. You cannot blame Obama for everything, like these sorts of lies were coined by him. Multiple presidents, including Bush, the previous president, told MAJOR lies while in office, yet Obama is catching more flak than anyone before him. In fact, didn't Bush's lies get us embroiled in a war that has cost thousands of American lives, not to mention trillions of dollars? But Obama is so much worse when it comes to transparency and illegal actions.

I've even heard people say that Obama was to blame because he extended the Patriot Act, yet they don't get mad at the president who actually initiated it in the first place. That makes zero sense. So for those who would criticize Obama, while not doing the same to Bush, you are a political hypocrite, to put it bluntly. You are basing your assessments on personal political bias. But for those who would criticize all wrongdoing, no matter if it toward a democrat or republican, by all means, continue. That is fair and balanced. But so many do not wish to operate in a fair and just manner.
Yeah he lied about what he would do about issues like the PA, personal freedoms and privacy. Take a walk. You probably voted for him. Accept responsibility for it.



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Bilk22
Yeah he lied about what he would do about issues like the PA, personal freedoms and privacy. Take a walk. You probably voted for him. Accept responsibility for it.


What I really hate about this (and this is why I won't vote for either major party) is that he did everything his opposition said he would do. In the end we had no choice. That's the failure of representation. Third parties are the only choice and the media (and consequently the people) don't take them seriously.



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Aazadan

This means it's extremely damaging and something the executive branch can't let the legislative branch know about. The lack of national security means they can't even admit that something was there and it's secret.


Quoting myself here because something just hit me about the seriousness of this statement. The lack of national security means there's no record for an FOIA or similar request. They would only do this if the implications could cause a serious national revolt. There's still going to be a paper trail, but rather than say you can't see it, they've hidden it among billions of other documents so that it's unlikely to ever be found.

The only other instance I'm aware of this tactic ever being used is with certain UFO cases. I'm not saying it's alien or black project related infact I'm pretty sure it isn't (particularly for the alien angel), but if the only other time this tactic gets used is to hide something worthy of world wide national defense issues, it stands to reason there was something absolutely huge going down in Benghazi.

This is on the order of smuggling/selling WMD's huge. Maybe it's something else, but I don't know what else could warrant these measures.


That's a distinct possibility. If the government is willing to sell arms to drug dealers in Mexico, then bigger weapons to terrorists isn't much of a stretch, now, is it? Considering the KNOWN aid to terrorist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, and the known aid to overthrow several national leaders, you could be on the right track there!



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 09:04 PM
link   

xuenchen

eNaR
reply to post by gardener
 


It doesn't matter if a Democrat or Republic President sits in the White House. Both are mere puppets of the true power that be. Who that is we'll never really know.

Time for a sedative


And,

"TPTB" are who?



The Military Industrial Complex

Eisenhower warned us all .... and guess what?




posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


I was under the impression they were killed in Benghazi because they were investigating the state department sale of weapons to al qeada? These were CIA men who were on to something and certain people in the current admin wanted them gone. Infighting in the acronym agencies. The Russians were also giving the heads up but those articles are gone now.



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by JiggyPotamus
 


Obama is catching the same flak as anyone else. Do you noy recall the Bushbashing?

You thinking he is getting more boos doesnt justify the wrongs.



new topics

top topics



 
62
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join