10-28-2012, 02:38 PM
Tree -
I won't carry this on beyond this post.
As your definition states, "hostile surveillance" can cover a wide range of future events. Benghazi is a city loaded with hostiles. Do you think the Ambassador was used to being watched as just a normal part of his dangerous job? Stevens probably shouldn't have been there at all, but from what I've heard about him that's just the kind of hero he was, frequently putting his job ahead of his own personal safety.
I still have seen nothing but allegation suggesting the drone was onsite prior to the attack. In fact a Fox article (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/...ya-attack/) stated that there wasn't one. Don't let contradictions or fact confirmation get in your way. "Minutia" you say.
You are not even thinking about checking your statements against the facts. If the attack started at 10 pm local and the friendlies were at the annex at 3 am then just how do you come out with the Ambassador being dead for 14 hours by 4 am? And brutally murdered? Smoke inhalation was the cause of death. And dragged through the streets? It was reported and confirmed by Bloomberg the body was transported to the local hospital by friendlies and they identified it by making calls with the cell phone that was in his pocket. Sodomized? Anything somebody can dream up some will repeat often enough that it will become the truth for others. Don't let facts get in the way of a good story, right?
Take a look at the email at http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Pol...-know-when. At 4:54 pm September 11th the email reported fighting at the compound had ceased, the compound cleared and a team was onsite attempting to locate COM personnel. A little more reliable than Fox's unnamed sources I suspect. And just would the rationale be for ordering an F-15 sortie at that time? Panetta has publicly stated there was no real time information on which to plan a military response. That further suggests either Panetta was lying or there was no drone on site at the time of the attack.
Your continuing to make a big deal about the name put on the attack and characterizing it as a lie is simply ridiculous. Later in the same article it is stated:
"Both Mr. Obama and the US ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, have come under attack from Republicans for claiming days after the attack that the deadly assault began as a demonstration inspired by anti-US demonstrations elsewhere over the anti-Islam video. CIA documents released recently reveal that Obama and Ambassador Rice were describing what happened according to the information the Central Intelligence Agency was providing at the time."
I guess that bit of information doesn't count, does it?
My final comment on this matter. Personal certitude and faith based forensics have been human maladies for a long time. Those are diseases no amount of logic and fact checking will ever cure. I'll not try further.
I won't carry this on beyond this post.
As your definition states, "hostile surveillance" can cover a wide range of future events. Benghazi is a city loaded with hostiles. Do you think the Ambassador was used to being watched as just a normal part of his dangerous job? Stevens probably shouldn't have been there at all, but from what I've heard about him that's just the kind of hero he was, frequently putting his job ahead of his own personal safety.
I still have seen nothing but allegation suggesting the drone was onsite prior to the attack. In fact a Fox article (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/...ya-attack/) stated that there wasn't one. Don't let contradictions or fact confirmation get in your way. "Minutia" you say.
You are not even thinking about checking your statements against the facts. If the attack started at 10 pm local and the friendlies were at the annex at 3 am then just how do you come out with the Ambassador being dead for 14 hours by 4 am? And brutally murdered? Smoke inhalation was the cause of death. And dragged through the streets? It was reported and confirmed by Bloomberg the body was transported to the local hospital by friendlies and they identified it by making calls with the cell phone that was in his pocket. Sodomized? Anything somebody can dream up some will repeat often enough that it will become the truth for others. Don't let facts get in the way of a good story, right?
Take a look at the email at http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Pol...-know-when. At 4:54 pm September 11th the email reported fighting at the compound had ceased, the compound cleared and a team was onsite attempting to locate COM personnel. A little more reliable than Fox's unnamed sources I suspect. And just would the rationale be for ordering an F-15 sortie at that time? Panetta has publicly stated there was no real time information on which to plan a military response. That further suggests either Panetta was lying or there was no drone on site at the time of the attack.
Your continuing to make a big deal about the name put on the attack and characterizing it as a lie is simply ridiculous. Later in the same article it is stated:
"Both Mr. Obama and the US ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, have come under attack from Republicans for claiming days after the attack that the deadly assault began as a demonstration inspired by anti-US demonstrations elsewhere over the anti-Islam video. CIA documents released recently reveal that Obama and Ambassador Rice were describing what happened according to the information the Central Intelligence Agency was providing at the time."
I guess that bit of information doesn't count, does it?
My final comment on this matter. Personal certitude and faith based forensics have been human maladies for a long time. Those are diseases no amount of logic and fact checking will ever cure. I'll not try further.