• 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!

How Can This Not Be at the Top of the News Everywhere?

sawyerloggingon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
14,697
Reaction score
5,704
Location
Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
When I first heard Tyron Woods had laser painted the mortar position I wondered why he did so if there was not a weapon in the vicinity to bomb it. I didn't say anything here because I really don't know that much about these new weapons but some very interesting facts and questions about this are coming out. Stuff like this is breaking out all over the web in military and other sites.


"The Benghazi coverup is much worse than you think. Clearly there were air assets on the scene above the CIA annex and they were denied permission to fire.
Tyrone Woods was painting a target with a ground laser designator (GLD). Those are only used when the air asset is overhead, ready to fire. The jihadis can use cell phones with night-vision capabilities to see the laser beam, which then pinpoints the location of the person using the GLD. As a former Navy SEAL, Woods would’ve known that. He would only have exposed himself if he thought that the mortar squad was about to be taken out. The air asset didn’t fire, and Woods and Glen Doherty were killed by the mortar squad.
There was either a Spectre gunship or an armed Predator or Reaper drone overhead, and it was denied permission to fire. That’s the only explanation that fits. Woods would not have used his GLD for any other reason than to paint a target for an immediate air strike.
Only the commander of AFRICOM and the president have the authority to tell the air asset to not fire in this situation.”

How Can This Not Be at the Top of the News Everywhere? - By Kathryn Jean Lopez - The Corner - National Review Online
 
There was a drone overhead and transmitting video. So far, the folks who were in charge won't say if it was armed or not. The coverup here is an Obamanation.
 
As with soooo many of the Right Wing outrages it might not be on all the news sites either because it isnt true or there is no evidence it is true.
 
If the default is permission to attack and there are only 2 people who can over-tide that decision, why would they have done so? It seems more like nobody knew what was going on so where would this decision have occurred.

Any thoughts? (this is a non-partisan question)
 
I still haven't got a good answer for what is supposedly covered up?

There has to be some awful crime/blunder/secret to protect if you want to cover something up. What was it?

You also have to have a reasonable expectation that you can cover it up. Having an ambassador killed isn't one of those instances.
 
From what I have seen and read there were no assets that could get there in time. I doubt that anyone gave a no fire order unless they had the wrong ordanecnce on board that would cause a lot of colateral damage and kill our own guys. Not everthing in the air can put firepower on specific targets in an urban battle enviornment. I dont know what was there, I doubt anyone without a securtiy clearnece does either, and that includes Fox News.
 
From what I have seen and read there were no assets that could get there in time. I doubt that anyone gave a no fire order unless they had the wrong ordanecnce on board that would cause a lot of colateral damage and kill our own guys. Not everthing in the air can put firepower on specific targets in an urban battle enviornment. I dont know what was there, I doubt anyone without a securtiy clearnece does either, and that includes Fox News.

The big question here is why did Tyron paint a target and let the enemy see his position if he didn't think the target would be immediately taken out? My guess is the drone circling overhead was armed. Time will tell, the truth is coming out.
 
Tyrone Woods was painting a target with a ground laser designator (GLD). Those are only used when the air asset is overhead, ready to fire. The jihadis can use cell phones with night-vision capabilities to see the laser beam, which then pinpoints the location of the person using the GLD. As a former Navy SEAL, Woods would’ve known that. He would only have exposed himself if he thought that the mortar squad was about to be taken out. The air asset didn’t fire, and Woods and Glen Doherty were killed by the mortar squad.

There was either a Spectre gunship or an armed Predator or Reaper drone overhead, and it was denied permission to fire. That’s the only explanation that fits. Woods would not have used his GLD for any other reason than to paint a target for an immediate air strike.

What if Woods thought there was an armed drone about to fire overhead, but the drone was not armed? Is there evidence to support the assertion that "there was either a Sectre gunship or an armed Predator or Reaper drone overhead"? I have read that it was an unarmed surveillance drone.
 
Last edited:
What if Woods thought there was an armed drone about to fire overhead, but the drone was not armed? Where is the evidence to support the assertion that "there was either a Sectre gunship or an armed Predator or Reaper drone overhead"? I have read that it was an unarmed surveillance drone.

Where did you read it was unarmed? Everyone I have seen interviewed on the subject that would know refuses to answer.
 
Where did you read it was unarmed? Everyone I have seen interviewed on the subject that would know refuses to answer.
I may have implied it from it being referred to as a "surveillance" drone. Sorry.
 
I am not sure I bleieve Fox. They call him a Former Seal, they did not call him CIA or any other BoS. I think "painting" the target may or may not have happened. He might have been working for a security firm. Fox is the only one carrying this story because it is thier agenda. Even if they do get the facts right sometimes, they have completely lost any creditiblility, I will have to wait and see. There is an investigation going on, ya know.
 
I may have implied it from it being referred to as a "surveillance" drone. Sorry.

No problem, I am seriously looking for facts here. The idea of these guys calling for air support, thinking they have it, painting the target thus exposing their position and then having someone pull the plug on the air strike sickens me and I want the truth.
 
It probably did not happen.
No problem, I am seriously looking for facts here. The idea of these guys calling for air support, thinking they have it, painting the target thus exposing their position and then having someone pull the plug on the air strike sickens me and I want the truth.
 
Once again, without thinking about the sources. If I were presdient and I was the evil ******* you all think Obama is and I hated America, somewhere in the world a shooting war would have broke out, and Bengazi (sp?) would have been as good a place as any. Everytime there is an attack on Americans abroad and the POTUS puts the hammer down there is a surge of Americanism and support of the military that goes all the way up to the CIC. i dont think there was any assets there, I imagine that was no different than any of the other diplomatic outposts around the world. I think Fox and the RW nut blogoshpere is the only one on the story because they are trying to make the presidnet look bad. I personally think the National Enquier has more creditablity and they had Bush posing with a real Alien.
 
As with soooo many of the Right Wing outrages it might not be on all the news sites either because it isnt true or there is no evidence it is true.

When did truth and evidence stop our news media from conjecture and possible evidence? I would say the news media is having selective integrity at this point.
 
Once again, without thinking about the sources. If I were presdient and I was the evil ******* you all think Obama is and I hated America, somewhere in the world a shooting war would have broke out, and Bengazi (sp?) would have been as good a place as any.

Disagreed. Obama's tactic is to surrender and/or sell out, not to fight.
 
How Can This Not Be at the Top of the News Everywhere?

because Fox has destroyed its credibility to the point that those who aren't on the right ignore the network or automatically assume what they report is hopelessly biased or even false. i look at this story, and i what i see is fox trying to manufacture a controversy in order to help Mitt Romney.

a fox story about Obama is about as accurate and objective as an MSNBC story about Bush. they sold their credibility for ratings, and this is the result.
 
And you know this how? How many Muslims has the US killed since he has been POTUS? Yea, I dont know either, but lots.
Disagreed. Obama's tactic is to surrender and/or sell out, not to fight.
 
Once again, without thinking about the sources. If I were presdient and I was the evil ******* you all think Obama is and I hated America, somewhere in the world a shooting war would have broke out, and Bengazi (sp?) would have been as good a place as any. Everytime there is an attack on Americans abroad and the POTUS puts the hammer down there is a surge of Americanism and support of the military that goes all the way up to the CIC. i dont think there was any assets there, I imagine that was no different than any of the other diplomatic outposts around the world. I think Fox and the RW nut blogoshpere is the only one on the story because they are trying to make the presidnet look bad. I personally think the National Enquier has more creditablity and they had Bush posing with a real Alien.

Wait just a minute. Not sure who your "you all" is--you surely aren't including anyone who wants the truth? You surely wouldn't be describing the millions of Americans (and others) who realize that, for whatever reason, something isn't "kosher" as thinking Obama is "evil."
 
You all is any one that believes Fox news and the right wing blogoshpere speaks the gospel.
Wait just a minute. Not sure who your "you all" is--you surely aren't including anyone who wants the truth? You surely wouldn't be describing the millions of Americans (and others) who realize that, for whatever reason, something isn't "kosher" as thinking Obama is "evil."
 
Back
Top Bottom