Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Benghazi - Just the Facts, Ma'am (Page 7)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 25 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  ...  23  24  25   
Author Topic: Benghazi - Just the Facts, Ma'am
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I am saying that I have seen nothing that makes the attack or the response to the Benghazi attack any more egregious than other attacks
The fact that you compare them to what happened in the previous administration in order to gauge how much "outrage" people should be "entitled to have" is absurd and partisan.


quote:
That isn't what I am saying at all. I am saying that sometimes stuff happens, sometimes mistakes are made, sometimes tragedy is unavoidable or at least unavoidable given the information at the time. That sometimes people make decisions that aren't great but that would be great if things fell out a little differently. This is particularly true in attacks like this.
Wrong. Not only was this avoidable, but the Ambassador requested extra security months in advance and was turned down by this administration.

[ August 05, 2013, 01:55 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
quote:
I am saying that I have seen nothing that makes the attack or the response to the Benghazi attack any more egregious than other attacks
The fact that you compare them to what happened in the previous administration in order to gauge how much "outrage" people should be "entitled to have" is absurd and partisan.


Why? And why are you pretending I said "entitled to have"? I am saying that the the outrage has been inflated by the media and by politicians in a way that it hasn't been for similar events.

quote:



quote:
That isn't what I am saying at all. I am saying that sometimes stuff happens, sometimes mistakes are made, sometimes tragedy is unavoidable or at least unavoidable given the information at the time. That sometimes people make decisions that aren't great but that would be great if things fell out a little differently. This is particularly true in attacks like this.
Wrong. Not only was this avoidable, but the Ambassador requested extra security months in advance and was turned down by this administration.
Do you know how often embassies and consulates request extra security and how often it is granted?
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Why? And why are you pretending I said "entitled to have"? I am saying that the the outrage has been inflated by the media and by politicians in a way that it hasn't been for similar events.
Even if that were true, which I doubt you'd be able to prove as there are many subject qualifiers to that, so what? Who cares? That was then and this is now. Life is not fair, but we make do as best we can. We have a sitting President who committed a serious breach of his duty to protect his service people and we need to find out more about it to make sure Obama doesn't get more people killed in the next few years that we are stuck with him.

quote:
Do you know how often embassies and consulates request extra security and how often it is granted?
Why would this matter? How else would they get extra security other than by requesting it?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
quote:
Why? And why are you pretending I said "entitled to have"? I am saying that the the outrage has been inflated by the media and by politicians in a way that it hasn't been for similar events.
Even if that were true, which I doubt you'd be able to prove as there are many subject qualifiers to that, so what? Who cares? That was then and this is now. Life is not fair, but we make do as best we can. We have a sitting President who committed a serious breach of his duty to protect his service people and we need to find out more about it to make sure Obama doesn't get more people killed in the next few years that we are stuck with him.


Pretty much like just about all presidents in recent memory.
quote:


quote:
Do you know how often embassies and consulates request extra security and how often it is granted?
Why would this matter? How else would they get extra security other than by requesting it?
If extra security is rarely asked for or rarely denied, then the security request is significant and we should find out why this one was denied and who made that decision. If both happen routinely, it is not a particular indictment on this administration.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
We have a sitting President who committed a serious breach of his duty to protect his service people and we need to find out more about it...
See, this is where the Bush comparisons -- which I largely consider unfair, mind, and which I don't bring up myself for that reason -- come in. Because no one was saying that Bush, in not securing his embassies better and allowing deaths to happen on his watch, engaged in a serious breach of duty.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkJello
Member
Member # 6828

 - posted      Profile for DarkJello   Email DarkJello       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by DarkJello:
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Imagine if GW Bush had done the same thing.
I'm rather astonished to hear that you don't think he did.


#1) You, of course, already know I meant if GW Bush was President on 9-11-12 that the MSM would STILL be going ballistic about Benghazi.


I can't speak for Tom, but perhaps he was referring to the dozen or so embassy attacks that happened while President Bush was in office. Like the attack in Yemen in September of 2008. Or the attack in Jeddah in 2004. Or the attack on Riyadh in 2003. Or...

Were you even aware of these?

I had forgotten about several of those. An ambassador did not die in those incidents. Also, I am not blaming Obama for the attack. My complaint revolves around lack of support during the hours of gunbattles and the fact that our gvt lied and lied and lied about the matter. Obama is responsible for sending thousands and thousands of muslim terrorists to their graves, so I gots to give credit for that.

quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
what this particular discussion is about is extraordinary breach of security
Is that what this discussion is about? Last I heard, Republicans had a bee in their bonnet about this because we didn't decide to send in additional troops halfway through.
Why in the HADES would you wait until an attack was "halfway through" before sending overwhelming force?!?!? Did they have a half-time show in Benghazi that night, and then return to battling after everyone had a chance to hydrate and strategorize??? I am way confuzzled by your statement.

[ August 05, 2013, 03:12 PM: Message edited by: DarkJello ]

Posts: 520 | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Pretty much like just about all presidents in recent memory.
So now you've gone from saying "Bush was bad so this outrage against Obama isn't right" to "all past Presidents were bad so outrage against the President isn't right"...

The difference is that this President is still in office and can still continue to harm America.

quote:
If extra security is rarely asked for or rarely denied, then the security request is significant and we should find out why this one was denied and who made that decision. If both happen routinely, it is not a particular indictment on this administration.
This is by far the most absurd statement I've seen on this thread.
Consider this: fire-departments get lots of calls to put out fires. So therefore if, one day, they decide they're tired and want to sleep in and actively ignore a call and people die, then it's OK just because they get a lot of calls? You could say the same thing about police or even building inspectors.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
quote:
Pretty much like just about all presidents in recent memory.
So now you've gone from saying "Bush was bad so this outrage against Obama isn't right" to "all past Presidents were bad so outrage against the President isn't right"...

The difference is that this President is still in office and can still continue to harm America.


That isn't what I am saying at all.
quote:

quote:
If extra security is rarely asked for or rarely denied, then the security request is significant and we should find out why this one was denied and who made that decision. If both happen routinely, it is not a particular indictment on this administration.
This is by far the most absurd statement I've seen on this thread.
Consider this: fire-departments get lots of calls to put out fires. So therefore if, one day, they decide they're tired and want to sleep in and actively ignore a call and people die, then it's OK just because they get a lot of calls? You could say the same thing about police or even building inspectors.

That is not a good analogy. The security they had did respond. A better one would be if a fire department routinely asked for more funding and sometimes got it and sometimes didn't and then had an usually large fire that they didn't put out as well or as quickly as they might have.

[ August 05, 2013, 03:18 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca, again, that sort of naive question is why the Bush comparisons are relevant. Can you show me an example of a single conservative press source complaining about habitually lax Bush embassy security prior to the Benghazi attack?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
That is not a good analogy. The security they had did respond. A better one would be if a fire department routinely asked for more funding and sometimes got it and sometimes didn't and then had an usually large fire that they didn't put out as well or as quickly as they might have.
The security did NOT respond.

Not only did they not get the reinforcements months in advance, but nearby naval and army assets did NOT respond and even after the Ambassador issued the statement "attack, attack, attack!" there was a "stand down" order on nearby jets and troops. Completely unacceptable.
A better analogy would be the fire truck sitting at the station with a little support vehicle going out to use a squirt gun on the fire.

Trying to gauge whether or not we should be concerned about this horrifying breach of responsibility by the executive in terms of "well, how outraged were [conservatives] when X happened under Bush" is nonsensical and has nothing to do with Benghazi. How productive is it to ask whether we should try and prevent future death and destruction based on how upset a former President's opponents are because something wasn't done a certain way to their satisfaction years ago...

[ August 05, 2013, 03:47 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Trying to gauge whether or not we should be concerned about this horrifying breach of responsibility by the executive in terms of "well, how outraged were [conservatives] when X happened under Bush" is nonsensical...
Why?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
quote:
That is not a good analogy. The security they had did respond. A better one would be if a fire department routinely asked for more funding and sometimes got it and sometimes didn't and then had an usually large fire that they didn't put out as well or as quickly as they might have.
The security did NOT respond.

Not only did they not get the reinforcements months in advance, but nearby naval and army assets did NOT respond and even after the Ambassador issued the statement "attack, attack, attack!" there was a "stand down" order on nearby jets and troops. Completely unacceptable.
A better analogy would be the fire truck sitting at the station with a little support vehicle going out to use a squirt gun on the fire.


They responded with what they usually responded with. Embassy personnel and local troops. Plus troops from Tripoli. What "fire truck" are you talking about?
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
quote:
That is not a good analogy. The security they had did respond. A better one would be if a fire department routinely asked for more funding and sometimes got it and sometimes didn't and then had an usually large fire that they didn't put out as well or as quickly as they might have.
The security did NOT respond.

Not only did they not get the reinforcements months in advance, but nearby naval and army assets did NOT respond and even after the Ambassador issued the statement "attack, attack, attack!" there was a "stand down" order on nearby jets and troops. Completely unacceptable.
A better analogy would be the fire truck sitting at the station with a little support vehicle going out to use a squirt gun on the fire.


They responded with what they usually responded with. Embassy personnel and local troops. Plus troops from Tripoli. What "fire truck" are you talking about?
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/05/benghazi-hearing.html

quote:
Gregory Hicks, deputy chief of mission in Tripoli, Libya, during the time of the 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, testified at a House hearing Wednesday that a second mortar attack on the compound might have been prevented if his calls for jet fighters had been heeded.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkJello
Member
Member # 6828

 - posted      Profile for DarkJello   Email DarkJello       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
quote:
That is not a good analogy. The security they had did respond. A better one would be if a fire department routinely asked for more funding and sometimes got it and sometimes didn't and then had an usually large fire that they didn't put out as well or as quickly as they might have.
The security did NOT respond.

Not only did they not get the reinforcements months in advance, but nearby naval and army assets did NOT respond and even after the Ambassador issued the statement "attack, attack, attack!" there was a "stand down" order on nearby jets and troops. Completely unacceptable.
A better analogy would be the fire truck sitting at the station with a little support vehicle going out to use a squirt gun on the fire.


They responded with what they usually responded with. Embassy personnel and local troops. Plus troops from Tripoli. What "fire truck" are you talking about?
How can you be arguing and not know the answer already?????

Especially since he already gave part of the answer. Gobsmacked!!!

Posts: 520 | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
]See, this is where the Bush comparisons -- which I largely consider unfair, mind, and which I don't bring up myself for that reason -- come in. Because no one was saying that Bush, in not securing his embassies better and allowing deaths to happen on his watch, engaged in a serious breach of duty.

This is an embassy located in a country that the president had just used arial strikes to topple its government (ie kill its leader), correct? Do you really think there was a remotely analogous situation under President Bush? Did he leave similar targets in Afghan or Iraq unprotected (maybe he did, I don't actually know)?

This one is an odd free pass to give. I'm still disturbed that noone is troubled by the President establishing that he can conduct a war (a rose by any other name) so long as he doesn't seen troops without Congressional approval.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Did you read beyond the first paragraph? How would jet fighters, which would have arrived "several" to 20 hours after the attack began have saved the Ambassador? The embassy was evacuated by then. And while they might have been able to prevent the second attack, hindsight is 20/20 and we didn't know there would be a second attack. Even so they would have arrived after the two contractors, Woods and Doherty, had been killed.

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=119969

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Did you read beyond the first paragraph? How would jet fighters, which would have arrived "several" to 20 hours after the attack began have saved the Ambassador? The embassy was evacuated by then. And while they might have been able to prevent the second attack, hindsight is 20/20 and we didn't know there would be a second attack. Even so they would have arrived after the two contractors, Woods and Doherty, had been killed.

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=119969

There should have been more substantial assets ready to go, in addition to the jets that should have been scrambled. How often are extra security requests for the US embassy in Canada made compared to, Yemen, Libya, etc. This was a dangerous region and on top of that the Ambassador had requested extra security long in advance. The security ahead of time was not adequate and the response once the attack started was not adequate.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DarkJello:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
quote:
That is not a good analogy. The security they had did respond. A better one would be if a fire department routinely asked for more funding and sometimes got it and sometimes didn't and then had an usually large fire that they didn't put out as well or as quickly as they might have.
The security did NOT respond.

Not only did they not get the reinforcements months in advance, but nearby naval and army assets did NOT respond and even after the Ambassador issued the statement "attack, attack, attack!" there was a "stand down" order on nearby jets and troops. Completely unacceptable.
A better analogy would be the fire truck sitting at the station with a little support vehicle going out to use a squirt gun on the fire.


They responded with what they usually responded with. Embassy personnel and local troops. Plus troops from Tripoli. What "fire truck" are you talking about?
How can you be arguing and not know the answer already?????

Especially since he already gave part of the answer. Gobsmacked!!!

Define nearby. None of the assets Seneca is talking about were "sitting at the station". Seneca is making it sound as if assets were just as available as the troops they did use. This is not the case. If he is talking about the troops from Tripoli, they were sent. But they weren't "sitting at the station". Nor were the two FAST platoon in Spain or any of the special forces in southern Europe.

[ August 05, 2013, 05:02 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Did you read beyond the first paragraph? How would jet fighters, which would have arrived "several" to 20 hours after the attack began have saved the Ambassador? The embassy was evacuated by then. And while they might have been able to prevent the second attack, hindsight is 20/20 and we didn't know there would be a second attack. Even so they would have arrived after the two contractors, Woods and Doherty, had been killed.

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=119969

There should have been more substantial assets ready to go, in addition to the jets that should have been scrambled. How often are extra security requests for the US embassy in Canada made compared to, Yemen, Libya, etc. This was a dangerous region and on top of that the Ambassador had requested extra security long in advance. The security ahead of time was not adequate and the response once the attack started was not adequate.
Again. Hindsight is 20/20. You haven't answered my question. Another question would be how much would it cost to have adequate-for-anything security and sufficiently substantial response for every embassy and consulate in a dangerous area? How much in dollars? (Remember, Congress had voted down additional funding - should they have taken the security from a different dangerous area?) How much in lives? How many might have died going in without information?

I am not saying that every decision was right. I am saying that there is no evidence that their decisions were malicious or callous or egregiously incompetent given the circumstances and what they knew as they knew it. Any more so than decisions made during other embassy or consulate attacks under previous presidents. Or the earlier attack during the Obama administration that didn't happen right before an election.

[ August 05, 2013, 05:01 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I doubt it was about money, and given the government's approach to the sequester and how Obama is unilaterally ignoring law on what immigration statutes he enforces, assets belonging to foreign terrorist groups that is frozen by Congress and yet he ignores that and gives it to them, etc., money would not be an obstacle here.

What we were learning late last week is that there was some kind of illegal CIA gun-running operation going on and that would explain why there was no extra security there, because it would call attention to it.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkJello
Member
Member # 6828

 - posted      Profile for DarkJello   Email DarkJello       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:

Hindsight is 20/20.

I am not saying that every decision was right. I am saying that there is no evidence that their decisions were malicious or callous or egregiously incompetent given the circumstances and what they knew as they knew it. Any more so than decisions made during other embassy or consulate attacks under previous presidents. Or the earlier attack during the Obama administration that didn't happen right before an election.


#1) Hindsight can only be 20/20 if the truth is known. Dentists can pull teeth from werewolves easier than journalists getting facts on this matter. Remember, a totally lamesauce youtube video that almost nobody had seen was blamed on a "demonstration" turning into an angry mob that stormed American soil wielding very heavy weapons... all in a country we recently bombed the pi$$ out of in a non-war war situation. Logic dictates we should have been on extremely, super, duper high alert for at least one year following the aforementioned blowing up of muslims into tiny pieces. Savvy?

#2) Their decisions were objectively incompetent. But we STILL don't know who "they" are. Who gave the stand down order? Less mud and more clarity would sure be nice. Even CNN is reporting details that don't at all jive with the "living" narrative that has slowly evolved from the WH. Yes they are creative storytellers, but I kinda want more truth and such. Why do you keep mentioning unsuccessful attacks on other embassies at other times with other details?? Apples and rotten corn do not have a lot in common. [Cool]

[ August 05, 2013, 05:28 PM: Message edited by: DarkJello ]

Posts: 520 | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Four hundred American surface-to-air missiles were ‘taken from Libya’ during the terror attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, a former U.S. Attorney who represents whistleblowers claimed on Monday.

He added that the U.S. intelligence community is terrified they might be used to shoot down airliners.

Joe diGenova, whose wife Victoria Toensing – a former deputy assistant attorney general – also represents Benghazi witnesses and others with knowledge of the terror attack, told WMAL radio that the loss of those missiles is also one the reason the U.S. State Department shut down 19 embassies across the Middle East last week.

‘A lot of people have come forward to share information with us,’ he said during the radio station’s ‘Mornings On The Mall’ program Monday morning.

‘We have learned that one of the reasons the administration is so deeply concerned’ is that ‘there were 400 surface-to-air missiles stolen, and that they are … in the hands of many people, and that the biggest fear in the U.S. intelligence community is that one of these missiles will be used to shoot down an airliner. 400 missiles, surface-to-air missiles, taken from Libya.’

...

DiGenova said his sources are ‘former intelligence officials who stay in constant contact with people in the Special Ops and intelligence community.’

‘And it’s pretty clear that the biggest concern right now are 400 missiles which have been diverted in Libya and have gotten in the hands of some very ugly people.’

400 SAM's? That sounds a little high but then again Libya was awash in all kinds of arms so maybe. Does it really matter if it's 40 or 400? It would explain the need for a cover up.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Either they really lost them or it's cover for them being turned over to the Syrian rebels, which is the same as losing them because the rebels are mixed with Al Qaeda... great.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Four hundred American surface-to-air missiles were ‘taken from Libya’ during the terror attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, a former U.S. Attorney who represents whistleblowers claimed on Monday...

Joe diGenova ... told WMAL radio that the loss of those missiles is also one the reason the U.S. State Department shut down 19 embassies across the Middle East last week.

How effective are surface-to-air missiles on stationary buildings? [Confused]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G3, Seneca, you both have one-track minds [LOL] . The only explanations you can come up with are that OBAMA gave them to Syrian rebels for no obvious reason and with no evidence that he did, or that the fact that they were stolen is the reason for an OBAMA cover-up, even though the article doesn't say that there were 400 missiles STORED IN THE CONSULATE BUILDING, and which is not proven to have happened. I would imagine that if you ever play the board game Clue you would insist every time that it wasn't Mr. Mustard in the conservatory with a rope, but that it was Obama in the situation room with a cover-up.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
Four hundred American surface-to-air missiles were ‘taken from Libya’ during the terror attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, a former U.S. Attorney who represents whistleblowers claimed on Monday...

Joe diGenova ... told WMAL radio that the loss of those missiles is also one the reason the U.S. State Department shut down 19 embassies across the Middle East last week.

How effective are surface-to-air missiles on stationary buildings? [Confused]
Depends on the missile. They still go boom.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Stinger missile is capable of targeting heat sources traveling at velocities typical of fixed-wing military aircraft, and of correcting for evasive maneuvers. It may be overkill, but there is no reason that it could not be used against a ground target that emitted an IR/UV signature.

Al, you are throwing up a red herring. Nobody believes that the embassy "stored" Stingers. It was believed to be the contact point for Syrian orders shipped through Turkey. In fact, The Turkish ambassador was our ambassador's last meeting prior to his murder. Panetta's statement that he could not send in air assets to protect American personnel only makes sense in the context of a Stinger presence, and the Russians let that cat out of the bag months before in the form of complaints... Just like they did when we armed the Afghan insurgents during the Soviet invasion/occupation. Apparently, we have learned nothing about what it means to be a "jihadist".

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Do you have any evidence of any missiles that were shipped to Syrian rebels either from or through Libya by or on the orders of the US? Hearsay, innuendo, speculation and anecdotes don't count. Russia said and says lots of things, so also don't cherry pick ambiguous comments made in the past as if they determined future concrete actions.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Al,

You are being a little inane. If Stinger missiles show up in any quantity anywhere, it is because the DOD shipped them, and it does not do that without an Executive order. Sometimes you can trust what the Russians say. This is one of those times.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dear Noel, you're being a little tense, but it's the wrong tense. Given the complaining you and others have done about how the US has been shipping missiles and letting them flow to the rebels, I asked if you had any evidence showing that they did. Instead you make two comments that don't address my point. Your selective trust toward the Russians is heartening, though, if we ignore most of the rest of the things they say.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://nation.time.com/2013/11/11/60-minutes-apologizes-for-retracted-benghazi-story/
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hrm, looks like the Obummer admin is finally changing their tune...

quote:
The State Department on Friday for the first time blamed specific groups and militants for the 2012 Benghazi attack, designating them as terrorists -- a move that further undermines initial claims the attack was spontaneous.

The department announced that it was labeling Ansar al-Sharia in Benghazi and Ansar al-Sharia in Darnah as terror organizations, in part over their role in the Benghazi attack. It applied the same label to Ansar al-Sharia in Tunisia, over a separate attack on Americans in Tunis.

The State Department also labeled as terrorists Sufian bin Qumu, head of the Darnah branch and a former Guantanamo Bay detainee, and Ahmed Abu Khattalah, head of the Benghazi branch.

Fox News previously reported that the two were suspected of playing a role in the attack. And despite State Department claims that Al Qaeda leadership was not involved and a recent news report echoing that assessment, Fox News has learned that bin Qumu has Al Qaeda ties.

According to his Guantanamo file, he has historic ties to the Al Qaeda network, including training at one point at "Usama bin Laden's Torkham camp."

The State Department, in its announcement Friday, specifically discussed allegations against the Ansar al-Sharia branches.

"Ansar al-Shari'a in Benghazi and Ansar al-Shari'a in Darnah have been involved in terrorist attacks against civilian targets, frequent assassinations, and attempted assassinations of security officials and political actors in eastern Libya, and the September 11, 2012 attacks against the U.S. Special Mission and Annex in Benghazi, Libya," the department said. "Members of both organizations continue to pose a threat to U.S. interests in Libya."

Shortly after the attack, administration officials indicated it was related to protests over an anti-Islam film that were raging elsewhere in Africa and the Middle East, describing it as spontaneous. They have since backed off that explanation, though have not ruled out the film as having played some role. Many lawmakers, though, have claimed the film was not a factor and the attack was planned by terrorists.

The department on Friday cited Khattalah and bin Qumu over their leadership roles in the al-Sharia organizations. Khattalah, though, told Fox News in October 2012 that while he was at the U.S. consulate that night, he was not responsible for the attack. He claimed he was helping Libyan security workers defending the compound.

The new terror designation bars anyone from providing or trying to provide "material support or resources" to those organizations and individuals, and freezes any assets they have in the U.S. The State Department announced that it has also updated its Rewards for Justice website to include a reward of up to $10 million for information leading to the arrest or conviction of anyone involved in the Benghazi attack.

The department had faced criticism for not including that reward on the website, though officials claimed reward offers had nevertheless been made.

Four Americans died in the 2012 attack, and so far nobody has been brought to justice in connection with the killings.

"The U.S. government is committed to taking all appropriate actions against the organizations and individuals responsible for the attacks against the U.S. diplomatic facilities in Libya and Tunisia," the State Department said, also referring to a 2012 attack on the U.S. Embassy in Tunis.


Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm pretty sure they changed their tune a while back, actually. Like, just a few weeks after the attack.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RedVW on a Laptop
Member
Member # 615

 - posted      Profile for RedVW on a Laptop   Email RedVW on a Laptop   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Might want to read the first sentence again...
Posts: 507 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, like the NY Times "just" revealed that they had a reporter on the ground, when in fact they published that little factoid only a few weeks after the event, well over a year before some people glommed onto it.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not to mention that the entire notion that there's any change, falsely suggests that the multiple factors that played into the actual events must be mutually exclusive, rather than being perfectly able to coexist with each other.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Red, you might want to read it again. The change is not that the State Department has come around to saying that it's terrorism; it's that they've named specific groups and individuals.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
Hrm, looks like the Obummer admin is finally changing their tune...


I wonder which version of this is going to finally be the "official" version of events?
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Question: do you really believe that there is just one "official version" of an event, which once settled on is never revised even as new information arrives?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Apparently there are many "official" versions of events. The trick for you is to believe all of them at once.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 25 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  ...  23  24  25   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1