Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Forbes on Benghazi
#9

'ArtM72' pid='11738' datel Wrote:I guess there are a lot of different stories out there. Maybe we should wait and see what really happened. By the way, the story that in places contradicts Fox wasn't by Forbes, it was by a contributor to Forbes. Might make a difference as to its accuracy. I don't know what "hostile surveillance" means. I also don't quite understand how fighting occurred at the annex for four hours with only four mortar rounds by the enemy. When the two CIA contractors were killed at 4 am local the US rapid response team was already on site together with 10 trucks of Libyan military friendlies. And since you keep on bringing it up, just what difference did it make whether this was a "terrorist attack" or an attack by unhappy Gaddafi loyalists or LIbyan nationalists who just didn't want to see an English school opened in their country? You never answered that, most probably because you'd have to admit that it makes no difference. Lots of different stories, lots of questions, lots of opinions. I guess it is more satisfying to have an early answer to everything, whether or not it is the right answer, especially if it can be used to beat up the President. In my America politics used to end at the nation's shores. In my America the Republican party didn't actively work to illegally disenfranchise voters. (I say illegally because in every case these hypocrites wrapping themselves in the Constitution have had their laws overturned by the courts). In my America we used to talk about speaking softly and carry a big stick. Today's conservative has none of those old values. It sucks, but it is true.

**********

Art, your partisanship blinds you or Spartina's comment describes you.  Which one?

1) Hostile Surveillance:  "For any attack, from the most simple to the most sophisticated, Hostile Surveillance is the earliest stage at which the professional security operator is likely to become aware of a potential hostile intent. Whether it is by terrorist or criminal groups, or single-purpose activists committed to disrupting AGM’s, making anti-globalization protests or simply obtaining high- profile media coverage, the ability to conduct hostile surveillance without fear of being spotted or diverted is one of the major considerations during Target Selection."

2) Not all 4 hr. battles require non-stop mortar attacks.  You think they were attacking with rubber bands?

3) Don't you think the US rapid response team should have been dispatched earlier Art?  Like maybe with the drone?  Like maybe while the WH was watching live, the initial assault on the Embassy after being warned the Embassy was under hostile surveillance?

4)  ..."And since you keep on bringing it up, just what difference did it make whether this was a "terrorist attack" or an attack by unhappy Gaddafi loyalists or LIbyan nationalists who just didn't want to see an English school opened in their country? You never answered that, most probably because you'd have to admit that it makes no difference."..    Really Art?

I have answered this Art, likely 6 times already.  Obama and his heralds LIED about the nature of the attack by LYING and calling the attack a result of a protest over an offensive video gone bad.    So, the big deal is, again, Obama chose politics over the protecting the Embassy and politics over the truth of the nature of the attack.  Then in 2nd debate he LIED again and claimed he identified it as an 'act of terror'  in Rose Garden comments he day after.  A bold faced lie, and millions of viewers knew it.

5) ..."I guess it is more satisfying to have an early answer to everything, whether or not it is the right answer, especially if it can be used to beat up the President. In my America politics used to end at the nation's shores. In my America the Republican party didn't actively work to illegally disenfranchise voters."...

An early answer is not at issue.  At issue is the EARLY LIE and subsequent cover up by Obama.    Good Lord Art, Obama and Hillary lied to the face of the father of Tyrone Woods, as his son was returned to him in a box.  Then an American that made a tasteless video was arrested and threatened with charges.  That's acceptable to you is it Art?  Get it yet?  The rest of your paragraph is pure malarkey.

6)  "When the two CIA contractors were killed at 4 am local the US rapid response team was already on site together with 10 trucks of Libyan military friendlies."  

Sure...... And the American Ambassador had been dead for what 14 hrs?  Had been brutally murdered, sodomized and dragged through the streets by then Art.  Perhaps if early requests for help were honored all would be alive today.

7)  "Maybe we should wait and see what really happened."  I think we already know.  At issue is not the minutea.

Reply



Messages In This Thread
Forbes on Benghazi - by Tree - 10-26-2012, 07:19 AM
RE: Forbes on Benghazi - by ArtM72 - 10-26-2012, 11:39 AM
RE: Forbes on Benghazi - by Tree - 10-26-2012, 08:48 PM
RE: Forbes on Benghazi - by ArtM72 - 10-26-2012, 11:25 PM
RE: Forbes on Benghazi - by Tree - 10-27-2012, 05:14 AM
RE: Forbes on Benghazi - by ArtM72 - 10-28-2012, 02:58 AM
RE: Forbes on Benghazi - by Tree - 10-28-2012, 06:15 AM
RE: Forbes on Benghazi - by ArtM72 - 10-28-2012, 10:18 AM
RE: Forbes on Benghazi - by Tree - 10-28-2012, 11:18 AM
RE: Forbes on Benghazi - by ArtM72 - 10-28-2012, 02:38 PM
RE: Forbes on Benghazi - by Tree - 10-29-2012, 12:24 AM
RE: Forbes on Benghazi - by admin - 10-29-2012, 05:52 AM
RE: Forbes on Benghazi - by Tree - 10-29-2012, 06:54 AM
RE: Forbes on Benghazi - by admin - 10-29-2012, 08:19 AM
RE: Forbes on Benghazi - by Tree - 10-30-2012, 04:16 AM
RE: Forbes on Benghazi - by admin - 10-30-2012, 06:08 AM
RE: Forbes on Benghazi - by Tree - 10-30-2012, 07:22 AM
RE: Forbes on Benghazi - by admin - 10-30-2012, 08:45 AM
RE: Forbes on Benghazi - by Tree - 10-30-2012, 12:18 PM
RE: Forbes on Benghazi - by admin - 10-30-2012, 01:21 PM
RE: Forbes on Benghazi - by admin - 11-01-2012, 02:37 AM
RE: Forbes on Benghazi - by Libtardius Maximus - 11-01-2012, 02:46 AM
RE: Forbes on Benghazi - by ArtM72 - 11-01-2012, 03:41 AM
RE: Forbes on Benghazi - by ArtM72 - 11-01-2012, 05:12 AM
RE: Forbes on Benghazi - by Tree - 11-01-2012, 06:07 AM
RE: Forbes on Benghazi - by ArtM72 - 11-01-2012, 06:55 AM
RE: Forbes on Benghazi - by admin - 11-05-2012, 06:12 AM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)