CIA documents supported Susan Rice’s description of Benghazi attacks

PostmodernProphet said:
wait a minute....

"The senior intelligence official said the analysts’ judgment was based in part on monitoring of some of the Benghazi attackers, which showed they had been watching the Cairo protests live on television and talking about them before they assaulted the consulate. "

we were monitoring the attackers BEFORE the attack?......
Click to expand...

seriously, is no one else looking at this?.......how do we know what they were watching live on TV and talking about BEFORE they assaulted the consulate without having prior knowledge of the attack........if we had prior knowledge of the attack, why wasn't it circumvented?.....at the very least why weren't our personnel pulled out of the embassy?.....
 
TheRocketSurgeon said:
I agree. It appears Woods died in part because he disobeyed his orders to stay out of it. I have seen any information on why Doherty was there. So if the order to stand down had been obeyed it is likely the causalities would have been just two (Smith and Stevens), which could not have been avoided regardless of the response. It appears the orders given were highly effective in minimizing the loss of life.
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO... wow... that is truly an insane amount of spin. Your 'don't send anyone to help because casualties might have been higher' line of crap is just that... crap.
 
Don't have time for all your scattershot of bs, sf.

Where did they try to steer it towards the conclusion that it was only the video? Post the Carney press conference again. All it shows is him trying to make clear that the video appears to have been a factor but that it was unclear that it was the only factor. All the proof that has come out since supports that still. The video still seems to have been a factor in this.

I already addressed the road block stuff. One report about what some unnamed witnessed claimed is not much proof.

The OP is the link to the CIA saying it was not likely a well planned attack. By that, I mean it does not appear they planned well ahead of time. Did you bother to read the article linked in the OP?

Why they don't release the satellite data? Are you joking? You want them to feed the terrorists images of what they may have done wrong? For what, to silence the right? You guys can't even handle a birth certificate without seeing hobgoblins. I am all for transparency but not even I would expect them to release this sort of stuff.
 
Superfreak said:
ROFLMAO... wow... that is truly an insane amount of spin. Your 'don't send anyone to help because casualties might have been higher' line of crap is just that... crap.
Click to expand...

The thing you are forgetting, you can't just send troops into a sovereign country, even if you are the USA, and even if your embassey is under attack. Where do these troops come from? How long does it take them to get there? What type of red tape does it take to get them there.

There were times that we did send troops into this type of situation and it did not end well for our troops.
 
TheRocketSurgeon said:
I pointed this out in the other thread.

The last three paragraphs...

The Benghazi flap is the sort of situation that intelligence officers dread: when politicians are demanding hard “yes” or “no” answers but evidence is fragmentary and conflicting. The political debate has focused on whether the attack was spontaneous or planned, but the official said there’s evidence of both, and that different attackers may have had different motives. There’s no dispute, however, that it was “an act of terror,” as Obama described it the next day.

“It was a flash mob with weapons,” is how the senior official described the attackers. The mob included members of the Ansar al-Sharia militia, about four members of al-Qaeda in the Maghreb, and members of the Egypt-based Muhammad Jamal network, along with other unarmed looters.

The official said the only major change he would make now in the CIA’s Sept. 15 talking points would be to drop the word “spontaneous” and substitute “opportunistic.” He explained that there apparently was “some pre-coordination but minimal planning.”
Click to expand...


wow.....they go from knowing nothing to knowing the exact number of AQ terrorists and the names of each group that participated....what crap.....

pinheads will eat up shit if its fed to them by Obama apologists and protectors...
 
PostmodernProphet said:
seriously, is no one else looking at this?.......how do we know what they were watching live on TV and talking about BEFORE they assaulted the consulate without having prior knowledge of the attack........if we had prior knowledge of the attack, why wasn't it circumvented?.....at the very least why weren't our personnel pulled out of the embassy?.....
Click to expand...

Our government is "monitoring" just about everybody now. They probably pulled that up after the fact. But that the attackers were talking about Cairo and watching it does not establish that an attack was eminent or that we had any prior knowledge of an attack. You are making quite a leap there.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
The bullshit theory about sending F-16s from Italy is just total fanciful nonsense. They bellyache over drones in Pakistan so they would have a field day with jets strafing and dropping bombs in a built up area.
Click to expand...

LMAO... fanciful? Hardly Tom. The difference between Pakistan and Libya is that there were/are no Americans under attack on American soil in Pakistan. In fact, I am willing to bet there are no Americans under attack at all in Pakistan.

Also... the jets would not have to necessarily start dropping bombs and strafing targets. The presence alone and the potential to do so could have rattled the militia members enough to end the hostilities. But we will never know, because Obama didn't send help.

How long would it have taken to send helicopters with special forces over 500 miles? Helicopters like Blackhawks only have a range of 300 miles so they would require refuelling in mid air over the Mediterranean at night. Refuelling helicopters is rather more tricky than refuelling fixed wing aircraft. Apart from anything else, the helicopter has to be travelling very fast (for a helicopter) to keep up whilst the tanker is flying at near stall speeds.
Click to expand...

LOL...

1) No one said they needed Apache's
2) They could have sent a 130 if they had one in Sicily
3) If they needed the Apaches, they would have more likely loaded them on transports and flown them over that way rather than trying mid air refueling (at night). Fueled and ready to go upon arrival.
4) Spec Ops teams could have deployed without the Apaches
 
bravo said:
wow.....they go from knowing nothing to knowing the exact number of AQ terrorists and the names of each group that participated....what crap.....

pinheads will eat up shit if its fed to them by Obama apologists and protectors...
Click to expand...

It's been almost two months. You don't think some details would have been filled in by now?

And when does "about four members" become the exact number? You are just making shit up.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Where were the nearest special forces and how would they have got there? See post 59.
Click to expand...

Sicily. They obviously would have simply taken a swim Tom.

Your nonsense about needing to fly helicopters across was amusing. I suppose you brits haven't heard of planes? They can transport people via the air, similar to helicopters, but with greater range.
 
TheRocketSurgeon said:
They probably pulled that up after the fact.
Click to expand...

if it was there to pull up after the fact they should have been pulling it up when it could have saved lives.....are you telling me we had surveillance in the homes of activists and we weren't watching it real time the day before the anniversary of 9/11?.......
 
Superfreak said:
Sicily. They obviously would have simply taken a swim Tom.

Your nonsense about needing to fly helicopters across was amusing. I suppose you brits haven't heard of planes? They can transport people via the air, similar to helicopters, but with greater range.
Click to expand...

Coming from Sicily, how long would that have taken? Would it have been in time to save the ambassador?

Maybe, it would have been better just to have no embassies in this troubled region!
 
Last edited:
Rana said:
Coming from Sicily, how long would that have taken? Would it have been in time to save the embassador?
Click to expand...

From Sicily, fighters could have been on site in about an hour, spec ops within 2-3. No, it would not have been in time to save the ambassador if he died within the first hour as is currently suspected. But it would have been in time to help save the lives of the second two who died almost seven hours after the attack began.

Maybe, it would have been better just to have no embassies in this troubled region!
Click to expand...

Always a potential solution. Though the point is to have face to face interaction with the local governments. Which is why other nations have their embassies here as well.

Another option would be to have better security at embassies that are in known hotspots. The embassy being breached and set on fire within fifteen minutes tells you how inadequate security was.
 
Rana said:
Coming from Sicily, how long would that have taken? Would it have been in time to save the ambassador?

Maybe, it would have been better just to have no ambassies in this troubled region!
Click to expand...

Are you on your phone... because that was funny...
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO... fanciful? Hardly Tom. The difference between Pakistan and Libya is that there were/are no Americans under attack on American soil in Pakistan. In fact, I am willing to bet there are no Americans under attack at all in Pakistan.

Also... the jets would not have to necessarily start dropping bombs and strafing targets. The presence alone and the potential to do so could have rattled the militia members enough to end the hostilities. But we will never know, because Obama didn't send help.



LOL...

1) No one said they needed Apache's
2) They could have sent a 130 if they had one in Sicily
3) If they needed the Apaches, they would have more likely loaded them on transports and flown them over that way rather than trying mid air refueling (at night). Fueled and ready to go upon arrival.
4) Spec Ops teams could have deployed without the Apaches
Click to expand...

I didn't say Apaches, they are helicopter gunships and totally inappropriate for that type of mission, I said Blackhawks which are designed for the purpose. So you say they can use a C130 which of course is always ready at five minutes notice and by the way isn't big enough to carry helicopters anyway. For that you need a C5 Galaxy which requires a 2 mile runway to take off, so where do they land? Out in the desert, where the sand could cripple the plane like during the hostage crisis in Iran all those years ago or at the airport without permission?
 
Last edited:
Superfreak said:
From Sicily, fighters could have been on site in about an hour, spec ops within 2-3. No, it would not have been in time to save the ambassador if he died within the first hour as is currently suspected. But it would have been in time to help save the lives of the second two who died almost seven hours after the attack began.



Always a potential solution. Though the point is to have face to face interaction with the local governments. Which is why other nations have their embassies here as well.

Another option would be to have better security at embassies that are in known hotspots. The embassy being breached and set on fire within fifteen minutes tells you how inadequate security was.
Click to expand...

You do not have any concerns for another black hawk down? I can only imagine the outrage if troops had been sent in and they had been killed. It is a situation where we are damned if we do, damned if we don't. There is always risk in having personnel in highly volatile areas.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
if it was there to pull up after the fact they should have been pulling it up when it could have saved lives.....are you telling me we had surveillance in the homes of activists and we weren't watching it real time the day before the anniversary of 9/11?.......
Click to expand...

They have surveillance on nearly everyone. They don't have the resources to monitor every "activist" in real time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top