• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Offers New Details Of Deadly Libya Attack

Erod said:
I was just looking for the account of the story. It's being discussed all over the place.

This was a monumental f-up by Obama.
Click to expand...

What? You actually expected Pravda of Atlanta (CNN) or the Communist Broadcasting Systems (CBS) evening news or any of the socialist loving liberal media to actually publish negative stuff about Comrade Obama with less than a week before the election?

You might find it on Fox News, but hope you have your BS filters installed. They may actually carry it, but you are not likely to get a truthful and accurate account from them either.
 
madman said:
LOL, wordpress.com?
A guy that has a blog and gives NO SOURCES? Laughable
Click to expand...

Pitiable is your rushing to dismiss a blog with no sources without checking for yourself whether there is independent information that might confirm this claim.

Partisanship at its sorriest.
 
American said:
Damning statement right there. Where the **** were the Marines that should have been stationed at the consulate and elsewhere security was necessary. An ambassador is like a 4-star general, how many 4-star generals only have 5 men around to provide security for them when they're in a hostile environment? Why do you think the SEALS are all pissed off? They aren't stupid you know, they know a thing or two about how the military operates. The administration is treating everyone like they're six year olds, like they don't know ****. What we have here, is a failure to communicate and a failure to lead.
Click to expand...

I guess someone on the American side maybe wanted that ambassador dead? Only way this starts to make any semblance of sense whatsoever.
 
nota bene said:
Pitiable is your rushing to dismiss a blog with no sources without checking for yourself whether there is independent information that might confirm this claim.

Partisanship at its sorriest.
Click to expand...


again, the link is laughable. This is typical from the right. No source, and if there is a source, it's "sources tell us."
 
madman said:
again, the link is laughable. This is typical from the right. No source, and if there is a source, it's "sources tell us."
Click to expand...

You missed my point entirely. Is there some reason you are unable to check for yourself whether what the blog claims is true?

Evidently not. Much easier to simply offer another embarrassing overgeneralization about what is "typical" for the right than to do a little Googling.
 
It is very difficult to google anything after it hits the right wing nut blogoshpere. It is literlally copied 1000's of times and every google hit is the same story on differnet RW blogs. Kinda silly really.
nota bene said:
You missed my point entirely. Is there some reason you are unable to check for yourself whether what the blog claims is true?

Evidently not. Much easier to simply offer another embarrassing overgeneralization about what is "typical" for the right than to do a little Googling.
Click to expand...
 
nota bene said:
You missed my point entirely. Is there some reason you are unable to check for yourself whether what the blog claims is true?

Evidently not. Much easier to simply offer another embarrassing overgeneralization about what is "typical" for the right than to do a little Googling.
Click to expand...

Google to just find it on another fringe conservative site? no thanks
 
Hatuey said:
Ah, so the word comparison means nothing to you. More evidence you're not really here to do anything other than cheerlead for your side. As I said, if we're going to be up in arms about 4 dead Americans thanks to ****ty intelligence, then Bush's head needs to roll over 3000.
Click to expand...

You want a comparison? OK.

We were attacked on 9/11/01. On 10/7/01, 27 days later, we were in Afghanistan along with a whole slew of allied forces.

The attack on the consulate in Benghazi happened 9/11/11 and it is now coming up on 2 months later and there is still discussion about how much of this attack was instigated by a damned video or not.

There's your comparison.:censored
 
Lutherf said:
You want a comparison? OK.

We were attacked on 9/11/01. On 10/7/01, 27 days later, we were in Afghanistan along with a whole slew of allied forces.

The attack on the consulate in Benghazi happened 9/11/11 and it is now coming up on 2 months later and there is still discussion about how much of this attack was instigated by a damned video or not.

There's your comparison.:censored
Click to expand...

a foolish comparison. But okay.

The knee jerk response has resulted in the longest war in US history, hundreds of billions of dollars, tens of thousands of dead and injured americans and allies, and not much to show for it.

The reaction to benghazi has been first obfuscation to protect the cia smuggling op and determine if there's an intell leak, an executive order to find the sobs responsible, and await full details before taking precise, cost effective, managed risk response.
 
Jonsa said:
a foolish comparison. But okay.

The knee jerk response has resulted in the longest war in US history, hundreds of billions of dollars, tens of thousands of dead and injured americans and allies, and not much to show for it.

The reaction to benghazi has been first obfuscation to protect the cia smuggling op and determine if there's an intell leak, an executive order to find the sobs responsible, and await full details before taking precise, cost effective, managed risk response.
Click to expand...

The response to Benghazi has been obfuscation alright but it's been for campaign reasons more than anything else. The FBI wasn't even on the ground there to start investigating for something like 24 days. Freaking CNN had Stevens diary before the State Department did so whatever the administration was doing it damned sure wasn't responding to the situation.
 
Hatuey said:
Okay, so if we get up in arms about 4 dead Americans, will you ask for Bush's head over 3000?
Click to expand...

What was Bush to do? Splash 4 civilian aircraft, because someone THINKS they've been hijacked?
 
MaggieD said:
A poster put up an amazing video earlier this week. I can't find it. It showed individual soldiers being taken out from an airplane . . . with what looked to be short-burst strafing. (I know nothing, remember. Ha!) You could see the guns in their hands and slung across their backs. It was amazing.

Edit: Not that I don't understand what you're saying, by the way. I just had a thought though. Why doesn't the U.S. military have tear gas they can disburse across a large area to handle mobs like that? If we don't? We should.
Click to expand...

It would have been even better if they had unicorns on-station to make the attackers have a change of heart. Hypothetical scenarios aside, tear gas would probably not have had the intended effect. It doesn't stop mortars. Plus, military application of chemical weapons against civilians tends to be frowned upon!
 
joko104 said:
It is a collection of stupidities. They can sniper rabbits from aircraft now, can easily see who is and isn't armed, and the comment about sending aircraft from NC was absurd. There were TWO carriers offshore.

Remember Obama explaining how aircraft can land and take off of aircraft carriers? Now he's claiming he forgot about that?

The OP is crap. The Secretary of Defense has already stated they pro-actively decided NOT to take any actions. Remember that press conferance statement he made?
Click to expand...

No they can't. They can target and kill a rabbit but they'll also kill the nineteen people standing nearby. Fighter aircraft "snipe" by firing hundreds of rounds out of a freaking cannon, or firing a freaking missile.
 
Deuce said:
It would have been even better if they had unicorns on-station to make the attackers have a change of heart. Hypothetical scenarios aside, tear gas would probably not have had the intended effect. It doesn't stop mortars. Plus, military application of chemical weapons against civilians tends to be frowned upon!
Click to expand...

Yeah, we sure wouldn't want those guys carrying AK47's to start coughing.
 
Lutherf said:
The response to Benghazi has been obfuscation alright but it's been for campaign reasons more than anything else. The FBI wasn't even on the ground there to start investigating for something like 24 days. Freaking CNN had Stevens diary before the State Department did so whatever the administration was doing it damned sure wasn't responding to the situation.
Click to expand...

Unless of course the "consulate" was a sham, no more than a place for the cia to hang out, so they knew there was nothing of a sensitive/secret nature in that house. The diary notwithstanding.

did you ever wonder why there were no guards on the house? was the CIA annex still occupied? If not, what happened to all the cia equipment etc?

So, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by responding to the situation. Should they have invaded? should they have indiscriminantly bombed?
I am amazed at how the right can be so sure of what transpired when they aren't in command of the facts. Seems they can extrapolate motive and meaning despite huge gaps in knowledge, and dozens of important pertinent questions remaining to be answered.
 
Deuce said:
It would have been even better if they had unicorns on-station to make the attackers have a change of heart. Hypothetical scenarios aside, tear gas would probably not have had the intended effect. It doesn't stop mortars. Plus, military application of chemical weapons against civilians tends to be frowned upon!
Click to expand...

So bomb the frowners with some happy gas. But screw tear gas, some '60s on the roof and a gunship with mini-guns would of been far more appropriate. It wasn't like those guys standing around throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails were "innocent" by standards.
 
rocket88 said:
Benghazi attack : The Two-Way : NPR

According to this, they tried sending in troops, but there were no troops close enough to get there in time.



also:



Is not using the super secret CIA time machine an impeachable offense?

(Normally, I don't like using NPR as a source here because it will be attacked. However, since the Daily Caller and WND are being used by the right these days....)
Click to expand...

Leon Panetta claimed that support wasn't sent, because it was, "dangerous". Now, the claim is that supporting forces were too far away.

What's next weeks lie going to be?
 
I thought they rescued 30 people in 25 minutes. I know I read that somewhere today.
apdst said:
Leon Panetta claimed that support wasn't sent, because it was, "dangerous". Now, the claim is that supporting forces were too far away.

What's next weeks lie going to be?
Click to expand...
 
Deuce said:
It would have been even better if they had unicorns on-station to make the attackers have a change of heart. Hypothetical scenarios aside, tear gas would probably not have had the intended effect. It doesn't stop mortars. Plus, military application of chemical weapons against civilians tends to be frowned upon!
Click to expand...

No, but it will screw their accuracy all to hell.
 
mak2 said:
I thought they rescued 30 people in 25 minutes. I know I read that somewhere today.
Click to expand...

The supports units that never were deployed didn't rescue anyone.
 
rocket88 said:
Benghazi attack : The Two-Way : NPR

According to this, they tried sending in troops, but there were no troops close enough to get there in time.



also:



Is not using the super secret CIA time machine an impeachable offense?

(Normally, I don't like using NPR as a source here because it will be attacked. However, since the Daily Caller and WND are being used by the right these days....)
Click to expand...

More BS to cloud the issue.

One of these bad boys was two hours away:



This is what they are capable of doing:



Why wasn't it used?
 
How would you use it?
Mycroft said:
More BS to cloud the issue.

One of these bad boys was two hours away:



This is what they are capable of doing:



Why wasn't it used?
Click to expand...
 
Hatuey said:
Okay, so if we get up in arms about 4 dead Americans, will you ask for Bush's head over 3000?
Click to expand...


In reality, Bush didn't start any wars. The wars were started by the nations that attacked us on 9/11.
 
mak2 said:
How would you use it?
Click to expand...

Did you watch the second video? The Spectre is capable of taking out individual targets with pinpoint accuracy. Think of what it could have done against a mob of a hundred or so terrorists...or a mortar position.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom