• 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

sangha said:
BFD

So what?
Click to expand...

Request for more security were ignored. Military back up were told to " stand down". After a hole had been blown through the Compound wall.

Obama pushed a blatant lie right before an election and the State Department changed the talking points because it was politically expediant.

A state dept lawyer insisted that he be in the room with the whistleblowers while they were being questioned.

These people were left behind. This President went to bed when our Embassy was under attack. He didn't feel Americans dying via Terrorist was worthy of his ongoing attention.

Hillary lied to the Fathers face that she was " going to get the man who made this videk" when she knew alla long it was a terrorist attack.

And it's not a " BFD " ??
 
Fenton said:
Request for more security were ignored. Military back up were told to " stand down". After a hole had been blown through the Compound wall.

Obama pushed a blatant lie right before an election and the State Department changed the talking points because it was politically expediant.

A state dept lawyer insisted that he be in the room with the whistleblowers while they were being questioned.

These people were left behind. This President went to bed when our Embassy was under attack. He didn't feel Americans dying via Terrorist was worthy of his ongoing attention.

Hillary lied to the Fathers face that she was " going to get the man who made this videk" when she knew alla long it was a terrorist attack.

And it's not a " BFD " ??
Click to expand...

Don't care
 
sangha said:
Don't care
Click to expand...

Then why are you posting in this thread ?

Just understand that millions of Americans DO care and don't like being lied to by their President.
 
What does Aviano have to do with it?

Turkey was less than 600 miles - we have bases there,
Egypt (Alexandria) less than 600 miles,
Greece (Athens) 450 miles,

Add to that the combat range of an F15 exceeds 1200 miles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_Eagle

You guys act like it takes congress to schedule a mid air fueling. The military doesn't work that way, but when politicians get in the way the military doesn't work at all.


sangha said:
Aviano to Benghazi is at least 1600 miles round trip. That requires mid air refueling. This things can't be scheduled within minutes.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
American said:
Read your post and consider the similarity.
Click to expand...

OK, from 6 months ago, I see that I didn't think an invasion of Libya to save 4 lives was good. You turned that into I don't have a problem with drones in Pakistan. I don't particularly, but I don't get the connection.
 
Fenton said:
Request for more security were ignored. Military back up were told to " stand down". After a hole had been blown through the Compound wall.
Click to expand...

Once that point had been reached, was there really much that could be done? Once the hole's been blown through the wall, you're a bit late to the party.

Would you have been in favor of invading Libya to save 4 lives? That's basically what you're talking about.

Why did the Ambassador go to Benghazi when he knew it was unsafe? He could have stayed in Tripoli.

You're worried about the President not being exactly transparent about National Security, but you can't answer these questions. Basically, what do you want to have been done differently?
 
rocket88 said:
Once that point had been reached, was there really much that could be done? Once the hole's been blown through the wall, you're a bit late to the party.

Would you have been in favor of invading Libya to save 4 lives? That's basically what you're talking about.

Why did the Ambassador go to Benghazi when he knew it was unsafe? He could have stayed in Tripoli.

You're worried about the President not being exactly transparent about National Security, but you can't answer these questions. Basically, what do you want to have been done differently?
Click to expand...

We wouldn't have needed to "invade" Libya as it was Libyan government that offered the C130 to transport US security personnel to Benghazi from Tripoli...
 
CalGun said:
This sums up a lot about you and American leftist in general that put their personal hand outs ahead of other peoples lives.
Click to expand...

The American people, as a whole, do not care about whether or not Banghazi was the result of a spontaneous protest, or a planned attack by a terrorist group
 
MaggieD said:
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...

If I remember correctly, some moron President back in 1994 authorised the signing of the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention ban on CS gas (teargas) that prohibits the U.S. military using CS gas on the enemy. The U.S. military is only allowed to use CS gas on American soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen.
 
APACHERAT said:
If I remember correctly, some moron President back in 1994 authorised the signing of the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention ban on CS gas (teargas) that prohibits the U.S. military using CS gas on the enemy. The U.S. military is only allowed to use CS gas on American soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen.
Click to expand...

Well, thanks for making me look that up so we both learn something. ;)

Although most often associated with civilian police forces, tear gas and pepper spray still play a role with the U.S. military – primarily with the U.S. Marine Corps – which uses the non-lethal agents to help with riot and crowd control. Marines are also trained on how to use tear gas and pepper spray for self-defense, either against other people or animals such as bears and dogs.

U.S. Marines are frequently exposed to tear gas and pepper spray during training. This helps familiarize Marines with the effects of the agents and teaches them how to function and perform their jobs after they have been exposed to the gas and spray. Although the U.S. Army concluded in a 1993 report that exposure to pepper spray and tear gas may lead to serious problems such as cancer and heart disease, these agents continue to be used as a means of subduing enemies and civilian populations without killing them.
Click to expand...

Tear Gas And Pepper Spray Help U.S. Marines Control Riots And Other Civil Unrest
 
Then shame on them, and those like you for empowering them with your rabid defense for partisan pleasure rather than what is right and should be corrected.


sangha said:
The American people, as a whole, do not care about whether or not Banghazi was the result of a spontaneous protest, or a planned attack by a terrorist group
Click to expand...
 
MaggieD said:
Well, thanks for making me look that up so we both learn something. ;)



Tear Gas And Pepper Spray Help U.S. Marines Control Riots And Other Civil Unrest
Click to expand...

>" Use of CS in war is prohibited under the terms of the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention, signed by most nations in 1993 with all but five other nations signing between the years of 1994 through 1997. The reasoning behind the prohibition is pragmatic: use of CS by one combatant could easily trigger retaliation with much more toxic chemical weapons such as nerve agents. Only five nations have not signed the Chemical Weapons Convention and are therefore unhindered by restrictions on the use of CS gas: Angola, Egypt, North Korea, Somalia, and Syria.[18]

Domestic police use of CS is legal in many countries, however, as the Chemical Weapons Convention prohibits only military use... "<

>" Members of the United States armed forces are exposed to CS during initial training, and during training refresher courses or equipment maintenance exercises, using CS tablets that are melted on a hotplate. This is to demonstrate the importance of properly wearing a gas or protective mask, as the agent's presence quickly reveals an improper fit or seal of the mask's rubber gaskets against the face. Following exposure while wearing a mask, recruits are ordered to remove the masks and endure exposure in the room for one minute. These exercises also encourage confidence in the ability of the equipment to protect the wearer from such chemical attacks. Such an event is a requirement for graduation from United States Army Basic Training, Air Force Basic Military Training, Navy Basic Training, and Marine Corps recruit training.[62] CS gas in the form of grenades is also used extensively in the United States Marine Corps in some service schools. CS gas is used during the final field exercise of the Scout Sniper Basic Course to simulate being compromised. In addition, it is used during the 25 km (16 mi) escape-and-evasion exercise ("Trail of Tears"), the last event before graduation from the course. It is also used during several events in the Marine Corps Basic Reconnaissance Course (BRC) including some rucksack runs and escape-and-evasion exercises. While students going through the course are given the opportunity to bring and wear a gas mask for the event, usually none are worn because once donned, gas masks could not be removed until the end of the exercise. This could last anywhere from 3–12 hours and would make running 25 km while wearing 125 lb (57 kg) of gear virtually impossible.

[edit] VietnamIt has been reported that thousands of tons of CS gas were used by the U.S. forces in Vietnam to bring Viet Cong into the open. It was also used by the North Vietnamese forces in some battles like Hue in 1968 or during the Easter Offensive in 1972 "<


CS gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
^^The attack on the embassy in Libya was not a part of a war. It was a terrorist attack. The use of CS gas would be allowed
 
Is the Fox News still making hay about this?

Sounds like a CONSPIRACY THEORY to me.
 
head of joaquin said:
How is being wrong about a chaotic situation lying? Be specific. Enough with your rightiwing noise machine rubbish.
Click to expand...

At the very least, not being able to tell the press at that time that they did not have enough information to say with certainty what was happening, shows a level of inexcusable ineptitude on the part of people that should have known better.
 
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...

Witnesses Relate Frustration Over Response To Benghazi Attack : The Two-Way : NPR
 
rocket88 said:
Once that point had been reached, was there really much that could be done?
Once the hole's been blown through the wall, you're a bit late to the party.

Would you have been in favor of invading Libya to save 4 lives? That's basically what you're talking about.

Why did the Ambassador go to Benghazi when he knew it was unsafe? He could have stayed in Tripoli.

You're worried about the President not being exactly transparent about National Security, but you can't answer these questions. Basically, what do you want to have been done differently?
Click to expand...


Uhh....they blew a 12 foot in the compound wall on JUNE 6TH...

The President was and is far more than just not transparent,he's lying.
 
Fenton said:
Uhh....they blew a 12 foot in the compound wall on JUNE 6TH...
.
Click to expand...

OK, if there was a hole in the wall, why did the Ambassador go there? Seems to me that he'd want to stay where there wasn't a hole.
 
rocket88 said:
Why are people picking up on what was said 6 months ago? That was on 11/2, and the article I posted was of that time.
Click to expand...

Perhaps to show that the media, and the deniers, were so wrong 6 months ago.
 
mac said:
Perhaps to show that the media, and the deniers, were so wrong 6 months ago.
Click to expand...

And maybe they were. But what I posted was the most current information of the time. Hindsight is wonderful.
 
rocket88 said:
And maybe they were. But what I posted was the most current information of the time. Hindsight is wonderful.
Click to expand...

...and should shed light on quite a few things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom