Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Benghazi

JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2012 5:42:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is about enough, IMO. It's been a month and a half, but we(the United States of freaking America) have no idea what happened, apparently.

1 - What is up with General Han being relieved of his post?
2 - What are the 'undisclosed allegations of inappropriate judgement' against Admiral Gaouette?
3 - Did the ex-SEALs request permission to assist, or not?
4 - Did anybody in the consulate or the annex request assistance, or not?
4a - If so, why were no assets, at a minimum, pre-positioned closer than an hour away?
5 - Was there a laser designator used on a mortar position, or not?
5a - If so, what asset was in place to bomb the target, and why wasn't it used?
6 - Were either of the drones armed?
7 - With radio communication, flash code communication, live video from drones, and a nearby, off-site CIA annex, how in the world did we not gather enough information in 7 hours to formulate any kind of plan?
8 - What intelligence caused Obama, Clinton, Rice, and nearly every other member of the administration to blame this video, including personally telling the father of one of the fallen ex-SEALs that the creator of the video would be prosecuted?
9 - What was Ambassador Stevens doing at an unsecured location in a volatile area with almost no security on the anniversary of 9/11?
10 - When was Obama first informed of the events, and what role did he play as they were unfolding?

This is ridiculous. At first, it was a tragic event... now it stinks to high heaven(I tend to run from conspiracy theories as if they are radioactive) of either dereliction of duty by the POTUS, or worse.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
imabench
Posts: 21,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2012 7:45:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Dude let it go already
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2012 7:50:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/27/2012 7:45:45 PM, imabench wrote:
Dude let it go already

1 - Let it go... already? It wasn't until two days ago that I decided something was really wrong with this. Blaming the video was one thing. Denying Americans who are under attack support is another thing altogether.

2 - You don't care about the government lying about this?

3 - Seriously? If the allegations being made are true, this is an impeachable offence by somebody high up in the food chain.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
imabench
Posts: 21,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2012 7:56:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/27/2012 7:50:03 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 10/27/2012 7:45:45 PM, imabench wrote:
Dude let it go already

1 - Let it go... already? It wasn't until two days ago that I decided something was really wrong with this. Blaming the video was one thing. Denying Americans who are under attack support is another thing altogether.

2 - You don't care about the government lying about this?

3 - Seriously? If the allegations being made are true, this is an impeachable offence by somebody high up in the food chain.

You sound so much like Geo right now.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2012 7:57:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/27/2012 7:56:12 PM, imabench wrote:
At 10/27/2012 7:50:03 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 10/27/2012 7:45:45 PM, imabench wrote:
Dude let it go already

1 - Let it go... already? It wasn't until two days ago that I decided something was really wrong with this. Blaming the video was one thing. Denying Americans who are under attack support is another thing altogether.

2 - You don't care about the government lying about this?

3 - Seriously? If the allegations being made are true, this is an impeachable offence by somebody high up in the food chain.

You sound so much like Geo right now.

Yeah, because cover-ups never happen.

If you want to accuse me of being like Geo, then give me some arguments as to why I'm mistaken? I'm not getting this from infowars.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
imabench
Posts: 21,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2012 7:59:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/27/2012 7:57:51 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 10/27/2012 7:56:12 PM, imabench wrote:
At 10/27/2012 7:50:03 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 10/27/2012 7:45:45 PM, imabench wrote:
Dude let it go already

1 - Let it go... already? It wasn't until two days ago that I decided something was really wrong with this. Blaming the video was one thing. Denying Americans who are under attack support is another thing altogether.

2 - You don't care about the government lying about this?

3 - Seriously? If the allegations being made are true, this is an impeachable offence by somebody high up in the food chain.

You sound so much like Geo right now.

Yeah, because cover-ups never happen.

Im not denying that they dont happen dingus.

If you want to accuse me of being like Geo, then give me some arguments as to why I'm mistaken? I'm not getting this from infowars.

Ok give me a sec to go through the stuff you posted...
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
imabench
Posts: 21,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2012 8:08:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/27/2012 5:42:37 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
This is about enough, IMO. It's been a month and a half, but we(the United States of freaking America) have no idea what happened, apparently.

1 - What is up with General Han being relieved of his post?

Who the hell is General Han?

2 - What are the 'undisclosed allegations of inappropriate judgement' against Admiral Gaouette?

Nobody knows yet

3 - Did the ex-SEALs request permission to assist, or not?

Nobody knows yet

4 - Did anybody in the consulate or the annex request assistance, or not?

Probably but again, nobody knows

4a - If so, why were no assets, at a minimum, pre-positioned closer than an hour away?

Because the US only focused on being extra secure about the embassy located in Tripoli, Libya's capital and the embassy you would think would be the biggest target for a terrorist attack, and not the one in Bengazi which nobody knew even existed until it was attacked.

5 - Was there a laser designator used on a mortar position, or not?

What?

5a - If so, what asset was in place to bomb the target, and why wasn't it used?

Depends on if there was even an asset to bomb the target available in the first place to be used, let alone whether or not civilian casualties would have been an issue and other things.

6 - Were either of the drones armed?

Doubtful since the US only carries out drone attacks in Yemen and Pakistan, not Libya

7 - With radio communication, flash code communication, live video from drones, and a nearby, off-site CIA annex, how in the world did we not gather enough information in 7 hours to formulate any kind of plan?

Its the US government, they dont like to share information or power with any other body of government unless they are forced to.

8 - What intelligence caused Obama, Clinton, Rice, and nearly every other member of the administration to blame this video, including personally telling the father of one of the fallen ex-SEALs that the creator of the video would be prosecuted?

See above part about how the government doesnt like to share information with the rest of government.

9 - What was Ambassador Stevens doing at an unsecured location in a volatile area with almost no security on the anniversary of 9/11?

My guess was that he was doing his job. Also since the last 10 9/11 anniversaries saw little terrorist attacks or even terrorist attempts, threat levels were a little lower. Also, its not Tripoli, its Bengazi, a place that again, nobody even knew existed until a few weeks ago.

10 - When was Obama first informed of the events, and what role did he play as they were unfolding?

Depends on whether or not he was informed while the events were unfolding or if it wasnt until after the damage was done that he had learned of it. Again, the government doesnt like to share information with everyone else in government.

This is ridiculous. At first, it was a tragic event... now it stinks to high heaven(I tend to run from conspiracy theories as if they are radioactive) of either dereliction of duty by the POTUS, or worse.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2012 8:14:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/27/2012 7:45:45 PM, imabench wrote:
Dude let it go already

Ya...no it's a big deal.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2012 8:25:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/27/2012 8:08:32 PM, imabench wrote:
1 - What is up with General Han being relieved of his post?

Who the hell is General Han?

Gen. Carter Ham(Han was typo, sorry) has been the commander in charge of AFRICOM for the last 19 months. 1 month after the incident at Benghazi, it was announced that he is being replaced.

Commanders of the Unified Combatant Commands generally serve for 3 years, unless there is some sort of personal emergency, or scandal. So the question is, why is Gen. Ham being replaced more than a year early?

Gen. Ham was listed as one of the 3 decision makers for why no forces were deployed to Benghazi.

2 - What are the 'undisclosed allegations of inappropriate judgement' against Admiral Gaouette?

Nobody knows yet

That's why I'm asking. It's probably unrelated, but the timing, combined with the rarity of this type of removal, brings it into question.

3 - Did the ex-SEALs request permission to assist, or not?

Nobody knows yet

That's why I'm asking. 2 government agencies have denied culpability. Nobody has denied that they did.

4 - Did anybody in the consulate or the annex request assistance, or not?

Probably but again, nobody knows

Again, that's why I'm asking. Why should we 'drop it already' when we don't know anything that happened, except the lies that the administration has tried to pass off on us?

4a - If so, why were no assets, at a minimum, pre-positioned closer than an hour away?

Because the US only focused on being extra secure about the embassy located in Tripoli, Libya's capital and the embassy you would think would be the biggest target for a terrorist attack, and not the one in Bengazi which nobody knew even existed until it was attacked.

No, I don't think you understand. We deployed spec. ops troops to within an hour of Benghazi. We had reportedly armed drones above the fighting. We have an alleged laser designator that was used from the CIA annex(indicating an asset in the air). We had 7 hours, and no help at all was sent to Benghazi.

5 - Was there a laser designator used on a mortar position, or not?

What?

Fox reported that there was a laser designator used to paint a mortar position, but no attack on the mortar. A laser designator doesn't do any good unless something is in the air with a bomb, it is used in real-time. If it was used, that indicates that there was an armed asset in the air.

5a - If so, what asset was in place to bomb the target, and why wasn't it used?

Depends on if there was even an asset to bomb the target available in the first place to be used, let alone whether or not civilian casualties would have been an issue and other things.

I doubt anyone experienced enough to paint a target would waste the time unless they were expecting something.

6 - Were either of the drones armed?

Doubtful since the US only carries out drone attacks in Yemen and Pakistan, not Libya

There is a report that one of them was, but again. This is why I'm asking. These are the questions that everyone should be asking.

7 - With radio communication, flash code communication, live video from drones, and a nearby, off-site CIA annex, how in the world did we not gather enough information in 7 hours to formulate any kind of plan?

Its the US government, they dont like to share information or power with any other body of government unless they are forced to.

An attack on an ambassador is almost as bad as an attack on the POTUS. Sorry, but no. No agency in that situation is going to be holding back information. Everything is going to be going to the situation room in the WH.

8 - What intelligence caused Obama, Clinton, Rice, and nearly every other member of the administration to blame this video, including personally telling the father of one of the fallen ex-SEALs that the creator of the video would be prosecuted?

See above part about how the government doesnt like to share information with the rest of government.

9 - What was Ambassador Stevens doing at an unsecured location in a volatile area with almost no security on the anniversary of 9/11?

My guess was that he was doing his job. Also since the last 10 9/11 anniversaries saw little terrorist attacks or even terrorist attempts, threat levels were a little lower. Also, its not Tripoli, its Bengazi, a place that again, nobody even knew existed until a few weeks ago.

Doing his job. Yes. What was that? That's the point of the question.

Why would he spend that particular anniversary in a more volatile location with almost no security? In Tripoli, he would have better security, both in armed forces and the security of the embassy.

10 - When was Obama first informed of the events, and what role did he play as they were unfolding?

Depends on whether or not he was informed while the events were unfolding or if it wasnt until after the damage was done that he had learned of it. Again, the government doesnt like to share information with everyone else in government.

Again, that is why we need to be asking questions. Go look around, dozens of people with decades of military experience are saying the same thing all over. In an attack on an ambassador, the POTUS would be notified within minutes. It's treated the same as a situation involving a four-star General, or a head of state. It's not a time for agencies to bicker, it's a time for pre-planned, pre-rehearsed SOPs to be carried out.

This is ridiculous. At first, it was a tragic event... now it stinks to high heaven(I tend to run from conspiracy theories as if they are radioactive) of either dereliction of duty by the POTUS, or worse.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2012 8:28:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
So Imabench...

basically, you are saying "well, there are all these questions that we haven't been told the answers to, but since we don't know, it's no big deal, so let it go."

???

You do realize that if Clinton, or Ham, or Obama, or Panetta, or anybody else, stopped already-executing SOPs for this situation, that means impeachment, don't you?
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
imabench
Posts: 21,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2012 8:35:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/27/2012 8:28:08 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
So Imabench...

basically, you are saying "well, there are all these questions that we haven't been told the answers to, but since we don't know, it's no big deal, so let it go."

???

Not quite.

After every incident where Americans are killed overseas, there is always an abundance of questions that go unanswered which could imply a conspiracy theory. Whether it be the bombing of the USS Cole, or Afghan recruited soldiers accidentally opening fire on US soldiers, or a single terrorist killing American Soldiers in Germay, etc. There are ALWAYS unanswered questions to situations like these, and the number of times they turn out to be conspiracy's is probably south of 1%.......

Unanswered questions =/= Conspiracy, it means that some people are obsessed with details that by themselves dont change anything.

You do realize that if Clinton, or Ham, or Obama, or Panetta, or anybody else, stopped already-executing SOPs for this situation, that means impeachment, don't you?

Yeah but nobody is going to raise impeachment charges jsut because 4, just 4, people were killed IF this wild geo-worthy conspiracy theory were somehow true.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2012 8:43:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/27/2012 8:35:42 PM, imabench wrote:
At 10/27/2012 8:28:08 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
So Imabench...

basically, you are saying "well, there are all these questions that we haven't been told the answers to, but since we don't know, it's no big deal, so let it go."

???

Not quite.

After every incident where Americans are killed overseas, there is always an abundance of questions that go unanswered which could imply a conspiracy theory. Whether it be the bombing of the USS Cole, or Afghan recruited soldiers accidentally opening fire on US soldiers, or a single terrorist killing American Soldiers in Germay, etc. There are ALWAYS unanswered questions to situations like these, and the number of times they turn out to be conspiracy's is probably south of 1%.......

Unanswered questions =/= Conspiracy, it means that some people are obsessed with details that by themselves dont change anything.

I'm not even saying conspiracy, so much as cover-up. The initial explanation we were given was an outright lie. Nothing went the way that it should have, over the course of 7 hours. Every explanation is either a lie, denying culpability, or deflection.

Come on, you know I'm not a conspiracy nut, but this has reached a point where I want answers. If the allegations that the SEALs were told not to help, that all requests for assistance were denied, and that a laser designator was used are all proven to be false, then this will drop down a couple of tiers for me.

You do realize that if Clinton, or Ham, or Obama, or Panetta, or anybody else, stopped already-executing SOPs for this situation, that means impeachment, don't you?

Yeah but nobody is going to raise impeachment charges jsut because 4, just 4, people were killed IF this wild geo-worthy conspiracy theory were somehow true.

I don't think you're right on that one. Dereliction of duty causing the deaths of Americans... sorry, I just don't see it being swept under the rug.

Besides, this is hardly a geo-worthy conspiracy. I"m not trying to prove the existence of the illuminati from a line of text in a single document. Give me a little credit.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
imabench
Posts: 21,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2012 8:50:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/27/2012 8:25:47 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 10/27/2012 8:08:32 PM, imabench wrote:
1 - What is up with General Han being relieved of his post?

Who the hell is General Han?

Gen. Carter Ham(Han was typo, sorry) has been the commander in charge of AFRICOM for the last 19 months. 1 month after the incident at Benghazi, it was announced that he is being replaced.

Commanders of the Unified Combatant Commands generally serve for 3 years, unless there is some sort of personal emergency, or scandal. So the question is, why is Gen. Ham being replaced more than a year early?

Gen. Ham was listed as one of the 3 decision makers for why no forces were deployed to Benghazi.

His action, or lack thereof, most likely just put him under a bigger spotlight to the government, which then brought attention to something else that he was doing which he is now under investigation for..... The procedure for his investigation is certainly unorthodox compared to them before but it all revolves around the nature of what hes under investigation for.


4 - Did anybody in the consulate or the annex request assistance, or not?

Probably but again, nobody knows

"Again, that's why I'm asking. Why should we 'drop it already' when we don't know anything that happened, except the lies that the administration has tried to pass off on us?"

two seconds later....

"No, I don't think you understand. We deployed spec. ops troops to within an hour of Benghazi. We had reportedly armed drones above the fighting. We have an alleged laser designator that was used from the CIA annex(indicating an asset in the air). We had 7 hours, and no help at all was sent to Benghazi."

We know plenty about what happened in Libya when this went down so dont imply that the government isnt telling anybody the truth because the truth is clearly out there, as you have provided it for us.

5 - Was there a laser designator used on a mortar position, or not?

What?

Fox reported that there was a laser designator used to paint a mortar position, but no attack on the mortar.

Review that sentence again....

A laser designator doesn't do any good unless something is in the air with a bomb, it is used in real-time. If it was used, that indicates that there was an armed asset in the air.

1) IF it was used, might not even have been used at all. 2) It may indicate there should be an armed asset in the air, but it could be more then possible that there wasnt because the government was caught asleep on the attack (as you can tell from our response to it)

5a - If so, what asset was in place to bomb the target, and why wasn't it used?

Depends on if there was even an asset to bomb the target available in the first place to be used, let alone whether or not civilian casualties would have been an issue and other things.

I doubt anyone experienced enough to paint a target would waste the time unless they were expecting something.

Just because they were expecting something to come doesnt necessarily mean it would come in time, let alone if it would come at all....

6 - Were either of the drones armed?

Doubtful since the US only carries out drone attacks in Yemen and Pakistan, not Libya

There is a report that one of them was, but again. This is why I'm asking. These are the questions that everyone should be asking.

1 report that 1 might have been, was this Fox again? I can also go into detail why the US might not want to start attacking out own embassy in a war torn country that doesnt necessarily have had the best relations with us in the past.

7 - With radio communication, flash code communication, live video from drones, and a nearby, off-site CIA annex, how in the world did we not gather enough information in 7 hours to formulate any kind of plan?

Its the US government, they dont like to share information or power with any other body of government unless they are forced to.

An attack on an ambassador is almost as bad as an attack on the POTUS.

Bullsh*t, name one US ambassador to any country in the world without looking it up.... I thought so.

Sorry, but no. No agency in that situation is going to be holding back information. Everything is going to be going to the situation room in the WH.

Everything SHOULD be going to the situation room.... It-doesnt-mean-it-did

9 - What was Ambassador Stevens doing at an unsecured location in a volatile area with almost no security on the anniversary of 9/11?

My guess was that he was doing his job. Also since the last 10 9/11 anniversaries saw little terrorist attacks or even terrorist attempts, threat levels were a little lower. Also, its not Tripoli, its Bengazi, a place that again, nobody even knew existed until a few weeks ago.

Doing his job. Yes. What was that? That's the point of the question.

Whatever it was ambassadors do is probably what a US ambassador was doing...

Why would he spend that particular anniversary in a more volatile location with almost no security? In Tripoli, he would have better security, both in armed forces and the security of the embassy.

Beats the hell out of me, maybe he was offguard too regarding the anniversary of 9/11. Bengazi could also have been a pitstop on the way to another embassy or maybe he needed to personally oversee something. It could be any number of reasons JR.

10 - When was Obama first informed of the events, and what role did he play as they were unfolding?

Depends on whether or not he was informed while the events were unfolding or if it wasnt until after the damage was done that he had learned of it. Again, the government doesnt like to share information with everyone else in government.

Again, that is why we need to be asking questions. Go look around, dozens of people with decades of military experience are saying the same thing all over. In an attack on an ambassador, the POTUS would be notified within minutes. It's treated the same as a situation involving a four-star General, or a head of state. It's not a time for agencies to bicker, it's a time for pre-planned, pre-rehearsed SOPs to be carried out.

Did we even have plans to respond to an attack in an embassy in a city nobody has even heard of?
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
imabench
Posts: 21,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2012 8:53:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/27/2012 8:43:52 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 10/27/2012 8:35:42 PM, imabench wrote:
At 10/27/2012 8:28:08 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
So Imabench...

basically, you are saying "well, there are all these questions that we haven't been told the answers to, but since we don't know, it's no big deal, so let it go."

???

Not quite.

After every incident where Americans are killed overseas, there is always an abundance of questions that go unanswered which could imply a conspiracy theory. Whether it be the bombing of the USS Cole, or Afghan recruited soldiers accidentally opening fire on US soldiers, or a single terrorist killing American Soldiers in Germay, etc. There are ALWAYS unanswered questions to situations like these, and the number of times they turn out to be conspiracy's is probably south of 1%.......

Unanswered questions =/= Conspiracy, it means that some people are obsessed with details that by themselves dont change anything.

I'm not even saying conspiracy, so much as cover-up. The initial explanation we were given was an outright lie. Nothing went the way that it should have, over the course of 7 hours. Every explanation is either a lie, denying culpability, or deflection.

Same with 9/11, but that wasnt a cover-up either.

Come on, you know I'm not a conspiracy nut, but this has reached a point where I want answers. If the allegations that the SEALs were told not to help, that all requests for assistance were denied, and that a laser designator was used are all proven to be false, then this will drop down a couple of tiers for me.

Fair enough, let me ask something. You said if ALL those things were answered it would ease your mind, but what if just one or two of these dozen or so questions were answered, would you still demand answers or would you arrive at the conclusion that it is most likely a spectacular failure of a response by the government. Not all of these questions will be answered, so you may only get a fraction of the answers to what your asking for.

You do realize that if Clinton, or Ham, or Obama, or Panetta, or anybody else, stopped already-executing SOPs for this situation, that means impeachment, don't you?

Yeah but nobody is going to raise impeachment charges jsut because 4, just 4, people were killed IF this wild geo-worthy conspiracy theory were somehow true.

I don't think you're right on that one. Dereliction of duty causing the deaths of Americans... sorry, I just don't see it being swept under the rug.

It already has been by just about everyone in the media.

Besides, this is hardly a geo-worthy conspiracy. I"m not trying to prove the existence of the illuminati from a line of text in a single document. Give me a little credit.

Fair enough.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2012 9:00:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Posted this on the other Benghazi thread
Interview with father of one of the Americans killed in Benghazi
Starts at 1:40

http://soundcloud.com...

somebody made the conscious decision not to go get our guys.

Leon Panetta said
"We had ships that we had deployed off of Libya, and we were prepared to respond to any contingency and certainly had forces in place to do that. But as a basic principle here - the basic principle is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on, without having some real time information about what's taking place. And as a result of not having that kind of information the commander who was on the ground in that area, General Ham, General Dempsey, and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation."

That was their excuse. Like the American military is the best, most capable force on earth until, what was originally reported as a mob, attacked a consulate. Then all of the sudden we don't want to put our troops in harms way?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
imabench
Posts: 21,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2012 9:03:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/27/2012 9:00:59 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Posted this on the other Benghazi thread
Interview with father of one of the Americans killed in Benghazi
Starts at 1:40

http://soundcloud.com...

somebody made the conscious decision not to go get our guys.

Leon Panetta said
"We had ships that we had deployed off of Libya, and we were prepared to respond to any contingency and certainly had forces in place to do that. But as a basic principle here - the basic principle is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on, without having some real time information about what's taking place. And as a result of not having that kind of information the commander who was on the ground in that area, General Ham, General Dempsey, and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation."

That was their excuse. Like the American military is the best, most capable force on earth until, what was originally reported as a mob, attacked a consulate. Then all of the sudden we don't want to put our troops in harms way?

So the US should launch attacks against any country where it was reported that mobs of people were protesting/attacking US embassies without a second thought?

What could possibly go wrong....
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2012 9:06:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/27/2012 8:50:31 PM, imabench wrote:
His action, or lack thereof, most likely just put him under a bigger spotlight to the government, which then brought attention to something else that he was doing which he is now under investigation for..... The procedure for his investigation is certainly unorthodox compared to them before but it all revolves around the nature of what hes under investigation for.

His 'lack of action' wasn't his alone. Panetta says it was between himself, Dempsey, and Ham... so why would doing the right thing bring Ham under the spotlight?

We know plenty about what happened in Libya when this went down so dont imply that the government isnt telling anybody the truth because the truth is clearly out there, as you have provided it for us.

Yes, we know that assets were moved to within an hour away. When I said 'we didn't do anything' it should be clear that I mean we didn't do anything that actually made a difference.

Fox reported that there was a laser designator used to paint a mortar position, but no attack on the mortar.

Review that sentence again....

IOh yeah, the typical liberal tactic. If it came from Fox, that means it's wrong.

A laser designator doesn't do any good unless something is in the air with a bomb, it is used in real-time. If it was used, that indicates that there was an armed asset in the air.

1) IF it was used, might not even have been used at all. 2) It may indicate there should be an armed asset in the air, but it could be more then possible that there wasnt because the government was caught asleep on the attack (as you can tell from our response to it)

1 - I know it might not have been used. Did you not notice that I indicated that in the OP?

2 - Nobody trained in the use of one is going to just sit there painting a target because 'maybe' someone is up there. They are going to be in communication with somebody that knows what is going on, and only put down a gun to pick up a laser if they know an asset is in place.

Just because they were expecting something to come doesnt necessarily mean it would come in time, let alone if it would come at all....

Again, if the laser is being used, that indicates that the help was already there. Lasers are used to guide bombs in real time. You don't paint a target 30 minutes before the bomber gets there, that doesn't do anything.

1 report that 1 might have been, was this Fox again? I can also go into detail why the US might not want to start attacking out own embassy in a war torn country that doesnt necessarily have had the best relations with us in the past.

I don't remember where that report came from, but it could have been Fox. Again, I know your tactics, I don't care.

The report is that the laser was used on a mortar team. I'm not talking about just dropping bombs, I'm talking about a strategic strike.

Bullsh*t, name one US ambassador to any country in the world without looking it up.... I thought so.

What does that have to do with anything? I'm talking about priorities.

Sorry, but no. No agency in that situation is going to be holding back information. Everything is going to be going to the situation room in the WH.

Everything SHOULD be going to the situation room.... It-doesnt-mean-it-did

Ok... sure. Clearly the POTUS wouldn't be bothered with a trivial think like an attack on a consulate.

Whatever it was ambassadors do is probably what a US ambassador was doing...

In other words, you don't care.

Beats the hell out of me, maybe he was offguard too regarding the anniversary of 9/11. Bengazi could also have been a pitstop on the way to another embassy or maybe he needed to personally oversee something. It could be any number of reasons JR.

He was meeting right before with the Turkish ambassador. Why have a formal meeting with another ambassador in such a dangerous location?

Again, the difference is clear... you don't care. The questions and inconsistencies have gotten to the point where I do care.

Did we even have plans to respond to an attack in an embassy in a city nobody has even heard of?

While we won't ever have plans for ever possible situation, you better believe we have plans for what to do when an ambassador is attacked.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2012 9:06:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/27/2012 9:03:53 PM, imabench wrote:
At 10/27/2012 9:00:59 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Posted this on the other Benghazi thread
Interview with father of one of the Americans killed in Benghazi
Starts at 1:40

http://soundcloud.com...

somebody made the conscious decision not to go get our guys.

Leon Panetta said
"We had ships that we had deployed off of Libya, and we were prepared to respond to any contingency and certainly had forces in place to do that. But as a basic principle here - the basic principle is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on, without having some real time information about what's taking place. And as a result of not having that kind of information the commander who was on the ground in that area, General Ham, General Dempsey, and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation."

That was their excuse. Like the American military is the best, most capable force on earth until, what was originally reported as a mob, attacked a consulate. Then all of the sudden we don't want to put our troops in harms way?

So the US should launch attacks against any country where it was reported that mobs of people were protesting/attacking US embassies without a second thought?

What could possibly go wrong....

Spot on, we should have Invaded the entire country of Libya to get our diplomats out of a single consulate under siege.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2012 9:09:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/27/2012 8:53:38 PM, imabench wrote:
Same with 9/11, but that wasnt a cover-up either.

And we deserved answers about 9/11 too. Just because you're asking questions, or demanding answers, doesn't mean you're a conspiracy nut. It means you care.

Fair enough, let me ask something. You said if ALL those things were answered it would ease your mind, but what if just one or two of these dozen or so questions were answered, would you still demand answers or would you arrive at the conclusion that it is most likely a spectacular failure of a response by the government. Not all of these questions will be answered, so you may only get a fraction of the answers to what your asking for.

If it were proven that we didn't have aid, or couldn't get there in time, then that would ease my mind. I would still want to know other things, naturally, but those are the questions that started to get me upset.

It already has been by just about everyone in the media.

Yeah, but if it were proven, it wouldn't stay silent. The media is just being silent at this questioning stage.

Fair enough.

Thanks.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2012 9:11:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/27/2012 9:03:53 PM, imabench wrote:
At 10/27/2012 9:00:59 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Posted this on the other Benghazi thread
Interview with father of one of the Americans killed in Benghazi
Starts at 1:40

http://soundcloud.com...

somebody made the conscious decision not to go get our guys.

Leon Panetta said
"We had ships that we had deployed off of Libya, and we were prepared to respond to any contingency and certainly had forces in place to do that. But as a basic principle here - the basic principle is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on, without having some real time information about what's taking place. And as a result of not having that kind of information the commander who was on the ground in that area, General Ham, General Dempsey, and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation."

That was their excuse. Like the American military is the best, most capable force on earth until, what was originally reported as a mob, attacked a consulate. Then all of the sudden we don't want to put our troops in harms way?

So the US should launch attacks against any country where it was reported that mobs of people were protesting/attacking US embassies without a second thought?

What could possibly go wrong....

The US should absolutely send in any available forces to secure breached sovereign ground. Yes.

But we didn't even get anyone close. We got within an hour, how about getting some guys 15 minutes away, or 5? Why not send people in when we had live video feed of the entire area?
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2012 9:17:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Conspiracy theory for the win.
Despite it being Glenn Beck it's an avenue worth looking down, just ignore the part about trying to arm al-Qaeda to destroy America.

It's plausible that Christopher Stephens was running guns in the region.

http://www.youtube.com...
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
imabench
Posts: 21,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2012 9:38:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/27/2012 9:06:09 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 10/27/2012 8:50:31 PM, imabench wrote:
His action, or lack thereof, most likely just put him under a bigger spotlight to the government, which then brought attention to something else that he was doing which he is now under investigation for..... The procedure for his investigation is certainly unorthodox compared to them before but it all revolves around the nature of what hes under investigation for.

His 'lack of action' wasn't his alone. Panetta says it was between himself, Dempsey, and Ham... so why would doing the right thing bring Ham under the spotlight?

Because something else completely unrelated may have come up while looking into his actions.

We know plenty about what happened in Libya when this went down so dont imply that the government isnt telling anybody the truth because the truth is clearly out there, as you have provided it for us.

Yes, we know that assets were moved to within an hour away. When I said 'we didn't do anything' it should be clear that I mean we didn't do anything that actually made a difference.

I know that, Im just putting it out there that after a certain amount of time, there might not have been an opportunity to even make a difference

Fox reported that there was a laser designator used to paint a mortar position, but no attack on the mortar.

Review that sentence again....

IOh yeah, the typical liberal tactic. If it came from Fox, that means it's wrong.

You know damn well that Fox isnt entirely trustworthy. If this report came from a site that wasnt as conservatively baised as MSNBC is liberally biased, THEN it might be worth looking into. But the same station who is willing to paint Obama as the anti-christ? not gonna work.

A laser designator doesn't do any good unless something is in the air with a bomb, it is used in real-time. If it was used, that indicates that there was an armed asset in the air.

1) IF it was used, might not even have been used at all. 2) It may indicate there should be an armed asset in the air, but it could be more then possible that there wasnt because the government was caught asleep on the attack (as you can tell from our response to it)

1 - I know it might not have been used. Did you not notice that I indicated that in the OP?

I was simply pointing that out a little more.

2 - Nobody trained in the use of one is going to just sit there painting a target because 'maybe' someone is up there. They are going to be in communication with somebody that knows what is going on, and only put down a gun to pick up a laser if they know an asset is in place.

JR, you have to understand that sometimes sh*t just happens where there wasnt an asset operating nearby or where there may have been some miscommunication or some equipment failure that came at the worse possible time.

1 report that 1 might have been, was this Fox again? I can also go into detail why the US might not want to start attacking out own embassy in a war torn country that doesnt necessarily have had the best relations with us in the past.

I don't remember where that report came from, but it could have been Fox. Again, I know your tactics, I don't care.

So if I question something from Fox its liberal tactics but if I question something from infowars then suddenly youre fine with it? Youre acting more like ike now.

Bullsh*t, name one US ambassador to any country in the world without looking it up.... I thought so.

What does that have to do with anything? I'm talking about priorities.

You said that an attack on an ambassador is as bad as an attack on the president, I am challenging that notion by pointing out that since ambassadors are as anonymous as US soldiers themselves, that the danger of being killed doing their jobs in these particular countries just comes with their field of work, and that if ambassadors in unstable countries due die from terrorist forces that its just bad luck and another casualty of war.

Sorry, but no. No agency in that situation is going to be holding back information. Everything is going to be going to the situation room in the WH.

Everything SHOULD be going to the situation room.... It-doesnt-mean-it-did

Ok... sure. Clearly the POTUS wouldn't be bothered with a trivial think like an attack on a consulate.

You moron im talking about how a simple failure of communication could have prevented vital information from reaching the situation room, not that Obama simply didnt care.

Whatever it was ambassadors do is probably what a US ambassador was doing...

In other words, you don't care.

I dont care why an ambassador would be at an embassy in Bengazi because its probably not as important as you are making it out to be.

Beats the hell out of me, maybe he was offguard too regarding the anniversary of 9/11. Bengazi could also have been a pitstop on the way to another embassy or maybe he needed to personally oversee something. It could be any number of reasons JR.

He was meeting right before with the Turkish ambassador. Why have a formal meeting with another ambassador in such a dangerous location?

My guess was that they under estimated how dangerous that particular embassy was. How many times was that embassy attacked prior to this one recent attack? My guess is close to zero.

Again, the difference is clear... you don't care. The questions and inconsistencies have gotten to the point where I do care.

So just because I dont think that this is a conspiracy it means I dont care about freedom or American lives? Keep telling yourself that Geo.... If im coming off as uncaring its because I dont have OCD about every last detail like you do.

Tell you what, if it turns out that the attack was some big conspiracy, go ahead and rub it in my face. Until then though, just smoke some weed or find some way to relax.

Did we even have plans to respond to an attack in an embassy in a city nobody has even heard of?

While we won't ever have plans for ever possible situation, you better believe we have plans for what to do when an ambassador is attacked.

And how did the US respond to the dozens of protests at embassy's throughout Arab countries following the release of that video? We did a whole lot of nothing, and the attack at Bengazi could have happened at numerous other embassies in other obscure countries too.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
imabench
Posts: 21,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2012 9:40:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/27/2012 9:17:59 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Conspiracy theory for the win.
Despite it being Glenn Beck it's an avenue worth looking down, just ignore the part about trying to arm al-Qaeda to destroy America.

It's plausible that Christopher Stephens was running guns in the region.

http://www.youtube.com...

Lewis if your only source comes from Glenn Beck's anus and no other credible source anywhere has reported something similar, then there is a 100% chance its made up.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2012 10:14:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/27/2012 9:38:07 PM, imabench wrote:
Because something else completely unrelated may have come up while looking into his actions.

Why look into his actions if he did the right thing?

Every time a general makes the right call, as agreed upon by heads of state, they go looking into his record?

I just want a reason, it doesn't smell right.

I know that, Im just putting it out there that after a certain amount of time, there might not have been an opportunity to even make a difference

Again, we moved them to within an hour away. Panetta says they were there with enough time to deploy, but we chose not to.

You know damn well that Fox isnt entirely trustworthy. If this report came from a site that wasnt as conservatively baised as MSNBC is liberally biased, THEN it might be worth looking into. But the same station who is willing to paint Obama as the anti-christ? not gonna work.

I don't write off reports just because of the source. There is a difference between what a commentator says in an opinion show, and what is reported during a news hour.

I was simply pointing that out a little more.

Ok.

JR, you have to understand that sometimes sh*t just happens where there wasnt an asset operating nearby or where there may have been some miscommunication or some equipment failure that came at the worse possible time.

That's why I'm asking the question. What happened? We don't know, and I'm not content at this point to just forget it.

So if I question something from Fox its liberal tactics but if I question something from infowars then suddenly youre fine with it? Youre acting more like ike now.

I make fun of infowars, but if Geo posts a link, I look at it. I don't just say 'hmm, infowars, it's wrong'. I go to the source. If the source is opinion, it's opinion. If it's a document, it's a document. Who reports on the source doesn't matter, as long as you can look at the source.

You said that an attack on an ambassador is as bad as an attack on the president, I am challenging that notion by pointing out that since ambassadors are as anonymous as US soldiers themselves, that the danger of being killed doing their jobs in these particular countries just comes with their field of work, and that if ambassadors in unstable countries due die from terrorist forces that its just bad luck and another casualty of war.

I said an attack on an ambassador is considered up there, in priority with attacks on Generals and heads of state. There are different levels of priority, I'm not saying that Americans care more, or know all of their names.

You moron im talking about how a simple failure of communication could have prevented vital information from reaching the situation room, not that Obama simply didnt care.

I said wouldn't be bothered, as in nobody would tell him.

All you are doing is offering up possible excuses. Why? Why not ask for the answers? It takes a lot of excuses to make this look like a simple failure of our government to protect an ambassador and other Americans.

I dont care why an ambassador would be at an embassy in Bengazi because its probably not as important as you are making it out to be.

Hmmm, sue me. I think it's strange for an ambassador to go to a more dangerous place, with less security, and less forces, especially on 9/11.

You make it out like it's bad for me wanting to know more about what happened. I just don't understand what's so bad about it.

If this happened under Bush, I would be upset about it, so don't just think it's because I'm looking for ammo on Obama.

My guess was that they under estimated how dangerous that particular embassy was. How many times was that embassy attacked prior to this one recent attack? My guess is close to zero.

Actually, the number is more than a dozen. Stevens had asked for more security there. He wrote in his personal journal how he was worried about the security, and that he was worried he was on a hit list.

So just because I dont think that this is a conspiracy it means I dont care about freedom or American lives? Keep telling yourself that Geo.... If im coming off as uncaring its because I dont have OCD about every last detail like you do.

Actually, I think you're just unaware of much of the information that has come out in the last week. For instance, your guess about zero previous attacks at that location. See, the reason why I'm so interested in it, is because I've been looking into it. At first, I thought it was just a failure with a confused explanation... but more and more inconsistencies just keep coming out. The story about the laser set me over the edge, because of the implications of using one.

Tell you what, if it turns out that the attack was some big conspiracy, go ahead and rub it in my face. Until then though, just smoke some weed or find some way to relax.

Don't smoke.

And how did the US respond to the dozens of protests at embassy's throughout Arab countries following the release of that video? We did a whole lot of nothing, and the attack at Bengazi could have happened at numerous other embassies in other obscure countries too.

And anywhere that lots of heavily-armed guys show up and start shooting/bombing, we should pay extra attention. The truth is, we could get a fighter/bomber/drone to any location in Northern Africa, Europe, or the Middle East in under an hour. We can get troops to almost any location in about 2 hours. When a consulate is attacked with AK-47s, RPG, and mortars, it's time to send in the cavalry.

It's very likely that there was cavalry already on its way... indications are that SOP in that situation would basically be to get there, and wait for one of the big heads at the WH to say 'do it'.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2012 10:15:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/27/2012 9:40:11 PM, imabench wrote:
At 10/27/2012 9:17:59 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Conspiracy theory for the win.
Despite it being Glenn Beck it's an avenue worth looking down, just ignore the part about trying to arm al-Qaeda to destroy America.

It's plausible that Christopher Stephens was running guns in the region.

http://www.youtube.com...

Lewis if your only source comes from Glenn Beck's anus and no other credible source anywhere has reported something similar, then there is a 100% chance its made up.

http://lmgtfy.com...

I know, I know Everything reported by Fox News is a lie...
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2012 11:24:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
More details from the AP.

http://bigstory.ap.org...

~ 150 gunmen. They set up a perimeter of men and trucks with machine guns, blocking off access to the consulate. Spontaneous protest?

The trucks bore the logo of Ansar al-Shariah. Spontaneous protest?

Apparently the perimeter was set up about an hour or two before the attack. Spontaneous protest?
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2012 11:42:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Poor Jay Carney
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2012 7:43:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
We had a contract with a small Welsh security firm, which employed some 20 unarmed Libyans for defense of the consulate. They had flashlights and batons...

http://www.reuters.com...
twocupcakes: 15 = 13