The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-26-2012, 09:31 AM   #1
Irish Stout
Ring of Famer
 
Irish Stout's Avatar
 
Run for it Marty!

Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 3,909

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Wesley Woodyard
Default The Bengahzi Debacle

If this story continues to develop in this fashion, what exactly does it meant?

Quote:
Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. Consulate and subsequent attack several hours later was denied by U.S. officials -- who also told the CIA operators twice to "stand down" rather than help the ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz2AQJMVMnH
I'm not sure that any of this is necessarily any worse than "black hawk down" under Clinton or a handful of incidents under Bush... but the response by the Whitehouse has created a firestorm of accusations... and more really could be uncovered based on this Fox News report.

Last edited by Irish Stout; 10-26-2012 at 09:46 AM..
Irish Stout is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 10-26-2012, 09:39 AM   #2
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 54,427

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irish Stout View Post
If this story continues to develop in this fashion, what exactly does it meant?



I'm not sure that any of this is necessarily any worse than "black hawk down" under Clinton or a handful of incidents under Bush... but the response by the Whitehouse has created a firestorm of accusations.
I hope this proves to be untrue. Not responding when fellow Americans are under fire is a treasonous act, AFAIC.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2012, 09:53 AM   #3
Garcia Bronco
Hokie since 1993
 

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 46,840

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Tom Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
I hope this proves to be untrue. Not responding when fellow Americans are under fire is a treasonous act, AFAIC.
I agree....I hope it's not true.
Garcia Bronco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2012, 05:42 AM   #4
elsid13
Lost In Space
 
elsid13's Avatar
 
Bóg, Honor, Ojczyzna

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: DC
Posts: 19,752
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
I hope this proves to be untrue. Not responding when fellow Americans are under fire is a treasonous act, AFAIC.
No it wasn't a treasonous act but the correct tactical decision. Only in the movies does a undermanned lightly armed force attack and "win" against prepared larger force. The on the ground American response force didn't have either surprise, support fire or preparation to engage or win against this terrorist force. The correct action was to regroup, consolidate defense positions and prepare for follow-on attack (which they did). If they attempted to rush to the rescue of 4 Americans left at the other facility we would most likely be grieving over the lost of 26 additional American lives.
elsid13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2012, 05:48 AM   #5
Spider
Mr Diplomacy
 
Spider's Avatar
 
I survived Tebow Mania at the Mane

Join Date: May 2001
Location: Elway was just an arm =MacGruder
Posts: 84,163

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Von Miller
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elsid13 View Post
No it wasn't a treasonous act but the correct tactical decision. Only in the movies does a undermanned lightly armed force attack and "win" against prepared larger force. The on the ground American response force didn't have either surprise, support fire or preparation to engage or win against this terrorist force. The correct action was to regroup, consolidate defense positions and prepare for follow-on attack (which they did). If they attempted to rush to the rescue of 4 Americans left at the other facility we would most likely be grieving over the lost of 26 additional American lives.
thats just crazy talk ....next thing you will be saying is ....Rambo isnt real
Spider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2012, 05:52 AM   #6
elsid13
Lost In Space
 
elsid13's Avatar
 
Bóg, Honor, Ojczyzna

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: DC
Posts: 19,752
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider View Post
thats just crazy talk ....next thing you will be saying is ....Rambo isnt real
That going to be my October "surprise" to DramaLlama and Trump.
elsid13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2012, 06:01 AM   #7
Spider
Mr Diplomacy
 
Spider's Avatar
 
I survived Tebow Mania at the Mane

Join Date: May 2001
Location: Elway was just an arm =MacGruder
Posts: 84,163

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Von Miller
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elsid13 View Post
That going to be my October "surprise" to DramaLlama and Trump.
that drama lama. is one whacky mofo ....I guess hr goes and goes until he ruins a screen name then comes up with a new one ...Then expects everyone to think he has a clue .... as for the Donald he has gone batshiat crazy
Spider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2012, 06:08 AM   #8
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 54,427

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elsid13 View Post
No it wasn't a treasonous act but the correct tactical decision. Only in the movies does a undermanned lightly armed force attack and "win" against prepared larger force. The on the ground American response force didn't have either surprise, support fire or preparation to engage or win against this terrorist force. The correct action was to regroup, consolidate defense positions and prepare for follow-on attack (which they did). If they attempted to rush to the rescue of 4 Americans left at the other facility we would most likely be grieving over the lost of 26 additional American lives.
Spoken like a diplomat. I was in the infantry. It doesn't matter how many. When your buddies are under fire, you back them up. Period. Anyway, we're not talking about highly trained forces here. If some special forces guys show up and start laying down focused fields of fire on these little ****heads, I guarantee you, they run.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2012, 08:16 AM   #9
elsid13
Lost In Space
 
elsid13's Avatar
 
Bóg, Honor, Ojczyzna

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: DC
Posts: 19,752
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
Spoken like a diplomat. I was in the infantry. It doesn't matter how many. When your buddies are under fire, you back them up. Period. Anyway, we're not talking about highly trained forces here. If some special forces guys show up and start laying down focused fields of fire on these little ****heads, I guarantee you, they run.
Roh,

We both know that we aren't talking about SF unit that has trained together and mission is to take it to bad guys. We are talking a mixed PMA unit that been geared to provide diplomatic security. It also appears we are talking about 10 out 26 individual were actually trained operators with experience, while the rest we either diplomats or Intel analysts.

When operational command order them to stand still based upon live feeds from two unarmed UAVs, then most likely it was the right call. Especially when they are facing 100 plus fighters that are high on "victory" and still have intact command and control. Remember lesson #1 tactical thinking is never attempt to reinforce a defeat.

Last edited by elsid13; 10-27-2012 at 08:18 AM..
elsid13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2012, 08:42 AM   #10
ant1999e
Ring of Famer
 
ant1999e's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: BFE
Posts: 6,251

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Money Ball
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elsid13 View Post
Roh,

We both know that we aren't talking about SF unit that has trained together and mission is to take it to bad guys. We are talking a mixed PMA unit that been geared to provide diplomatic security. It also appears we are talking about 10 out 26 individual were actually trained operators with experience, while the rest we either diplomats or Intel analysts.

When operational command order them to stand still based upon live feeds from two unarmed UAVs, then most likely it was the right call. Especially when they are facing 100 plus fighters that are high on "victory" and still have intact command and control. Remember lesson #1 tactical thinking is never attempt to reinforce a defeat.
I think you truly are "lost in space". When even the libs are disagreeing with you, that's gotta tell you something.
ant1999e is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2012, 09:56 AM   #11
Irish Stout
Ring of Famer
 
Irish Stout's Avatar
 
Run for it Marty!

Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 3,909

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Wesley Woodyard
Default

One thing I would like to point out in all of this that I didn't realize until today. The Bengahzi attack was not actually on a Consulate and there was and is not a consulate in Bangahzi. The building was just a meeting place and thus why there was no security. You'd think if the Obama administration was really trying to down play the attacks they would bring this up.

Quote:
However, as WND was first to report, the building was not a consulate and at no point functioned as one. Instead, the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi served as a meeting place to coordinate aid for the rebel-led insurgencies in the Middle East, according to Middle Eastern security officials.

Among the tasks performed inside the building was collaborating with Arab countries on the recruitment of fighters – including jihadists – to target Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.

The distinction may help explain why there was no major public security presence at what has been described as a “consulate.” Such a presence would draw attention to the shabby, nondescript building that was allegedly used for such sensitive purposes.

Since the mission was attacked last month, countless news media reports around the world have referred to the obscure post as a U.S. consulate. That theme continues to permeate the media, with articles daily referencing a “consulate” in Benghazi.

U.S. officials have been more careful in their rhetoric while not contradicting the media narrative that a consulate was attacked.

In his remarks on the attack, Obama has referred to the Benghazi post as a “U.S. mission.” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has similarly called the post a “mission.”

A consulate typically refers to the building that officially houses a consul, who is the official representatives of the government of one state in the territory of another. The U.S. consul in Libya, Jenny Cordell, works out of the embassy in Tripoli.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/now-reute...ghazi-attacks/

http://www.usembassy.gov

Last edited by Irish Stout; 10-26-2012 at 09:59 AM..
Irish Stout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2012, 10:11 AM   #12
baja
Elite Sissie
 
baja's Avatar
 
Because

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 59,682

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Cito's Sissies
Default

Now I get it. There some dirty little secrets going on at the 'mission' that must not be revealed . So much so that the WH is willing to absorb the political fall out the cover story is bring days before the election. Must be some sensitive shiit.
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2012, 11:22 AM   #13
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 54,427

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baja View Post
Now I get it. There some dirty little secrets going on at the 'mission' that must not be revealed . So much so that the WH is willing to absorb the political fall out the cover story is bring days before the election. Must be some sensitive shiit.
That's probably a pretty good explanation for it. Obviously, the CIA is involved.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2012, 12:02 PM   #14
pricejj
jungle
 
pricejj's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Louisville, CO
Posts: 8,763
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baja View Post
Now I get it. There some dirty little secrets going on at the 'mission' that must not be revealed . So much so that the WH is willing to absorb the political fall out the cover story is bring days before the election. Must be some sensitive shiit.


Obama sold guns to the Libyan rebels, and as usual, they ended up in the wrong hands (i.e. Muslim Brotherhood/Al Qaeda), and were used to kill Americans.

Sounds eerily familiar to Fast and Furious.
pricejj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2012, 01:23 PM   #15
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,850
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pricejj View Post
Reagan sold guns to the Afghan rebels, and as usual, they ended up in the wrong hands (i.e. Taliban), and were used to kill Americans.
Fixed it for ya.
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2012, 01:27 PM   #16
Irish Stout
Ring of Famer
 
Irish Stout's Avatar
 
Run for it Marty!

Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 3,909

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Wesley Woodyard
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pricejj View Post
Obama sold guns to the Libyan rebels, and as usual, they ended up in the wrong hands (i.e. Muslim Brotherhood/Al Qaeda), and were used to kill Americans.

Sounds eerily familiar to Fast and Furious.
Also sounds eerily familiar to what every Presidential admin has done since... 1930 or so.... because you know, thats exactly what they've done.
Irish Stout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2012, 02:22 PM   #17
pricejj
jungle
 
pricejj's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Louisville, CO
Posts: 8,763
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irish Stout View Post
Also sounds eerily familiar to what every Presidential admin has done since... 1930 or so.... because you know, thats exactly what they've done.
I don't know if that's true, but it's obvious that you don't have a problem with it, as long as a Democrat is President.
pricejj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2012, 02:29 PM   #18
Irish Stout
Ring of Famer
 
Irish Stout's Avatar
 
Run for it Marty!

Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 3,909

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Wesley Woodyard
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pricejj View Post
I don't know if that's true, but it's obvious that you don't have a problem with it, as long as a Democrat is President.
I don't like it now, I didn't like it under Clinton, Bush or Reagan. That being said, it has been the policy of the US for a long time.
Irish Stout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2012, 03:59 PM   #19
Spider
Mr Diplomacy
 
Spider's Avatar
 
I survived Tebow Mania at the Mane

Join Date: May 2001
Location: Elway was just an arm =MacGruder
Posts: 84,163

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Von Miller
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pricejj View Post
Obama sold guns to the Libyan rebels, and as usual, they ended up in the wrong hands (i.e. Muslim Brotherhood/Al Qaeda), and were used to kill Americans.

Sounds eerily familiar to Fast and Furious.
dont you ever get tired of being an idiot ?
Spider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2012, 11:19 AM   #20
DAN_BRONCO_FAN
Ring of Famer
 
DAN_BRONCO_FAN's Avatar
 
weed will win

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: colorado springs area
Posts: 3,027

Adopt-a-Bronco:
miles
Default

well this is very interesting

it wasnt a embassy for starters
oh this government they are the kansas city chiefs of governments
DAN_BRONCO_FAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2012, 11:39 AM   #21
DAN_BRONCO_FAN
Ring of Famer
 
DAN_BRONCO_FAN's Avatar
 
weed will win

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: colorado springs area
Posts: 3,027

Adopt-a-Bronco:
miles
Default

is it time for a overhaul of the gov from the white house to the cia fbi Secretary of state . this current government is inept . i hope Romney can fix it if not its time to vote 3rd party
DAN_BRONCO_FAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2012, 10:57 PM   #22
Jetmeck
Not a Chief's board
 
Jetmeck's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 6,299
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAN_BRONCO_FAN View Post
is it time for a overhaul of the gov from the white house to the cia fbi Secretary of state . this current government is inept . i hope Romney can fix it if not its time to vote 3rd party
Putting Bush 3.0 in would hardly help and raher stupid to think so since his policies and even advisors are identical.

Story broke on FOX NEWS.........ENOUGH said until some REAL facts come out.
Jetmeck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2012, 09:00 PM   #23
Vegas_Bronco
Ring of Famer
 
Vegas_Bronco's Avatar
 
Fear is a lack of preparation.

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Now 64 Yards Out
Posts: 5,069

Adopt-a-Bronco:
1 Elam 1
Default

Hilary wants to kick Baraq's azz right now...this is going to get messy. Sad story - one of the toughest decisions they have made today. This really makes us look weak and passive on terror....exact opposite to Obama's statements in the debates.
Vegas_Bronco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2012, 05:08 AM   #24
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
Mo' holla fo' yo' dolla!
 
L.A. BRONCOS FAN's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: In a bunker in an undisclosed location
Posts: 53,762
Default

Bengahzi story = just another fail by the usual right-wing swift boat goons...

GOP's Benghazi Smoking Gun Goes Up in Smoke


—By Adam Serwer
Thu Oct. 25, 2012 8:12 AM PDT



A set of State Department emails were released Wednesday, one reporting that a local Islamist militia had claimed responsibility for the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi that killed four Americans, including the US ambassador to Libya, conservatives thought they had the smoking gun that the Obama administration had lied about what had occurred.

Reuters reported Wednesday that on September 11—the day of the attack—a State Department email with the subject header "Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack" was sent to the White House. The message stated that "Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli." Case closed, conservatives said: The White House had engaged in a cover-up.

"[T]he president and his advisers repeatedly told us the attack was spontaneous reaction to the anti-Muslim video and that it lacked information suggesting it was a terrorist assault," wrote Jennifer Rubin, president of the Washington Post's Mitt Romney fan club.

"Bottom line? Barack Obama was willfully and knowingly lying to the American people," wrote Danielle Pletka, vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. (Of course, the idea that the video played a role is not inconsistent with the idea that the attack was an "act of terror," a phrase the president himself used to describe the attack in the days following the incident.)

There's only one problem—well, actually, there are many, but one big one: The email appears to have been incorrect. Ansar al-Sharia in Benghazi, the group suspected of attacking the consulate, never claimed responsibility for the assault. In fact, according to Aaron Zelin, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy who monitors jihadist activity online, Ansar al-Sharia in Benghazi didn't post about the attack on its Facebook or Twitter page until September 12, the day after the attack. They expressed their approval of the incident, but they didn't take credit; they did imply members of the group might have been involved, according to Zelin, stating, "Katibat Ansar al-Sharia [in Benghazi] as a military did not participate formally/officially and not by direct orders." The statement also justifies the attack by implicitly alluding to the anti-Islam video linked to unrest in other parts of the Middle East, saying, "We commend the Libyan Muslim people in Benghazi [that were] against the attack on the [Muslim] Prophet [Muhammad]."

"It is possible staffers were mistaken in the heat of the moment," wrote Zelin in an email to Mother Jones. "Not only was there no statement from ASB until the following morning, but it did not claim responsibility." (Zelin provided Mother Jones with screenshots of AAS's Twitter feed and Facebook page, which he also provided to CNN. It's possible the posts could have been deleted, but there's no way to prove that.)

Even if the State Department email had been accurate, conservatives pounced on it eagerly without underlying corroboration, thereby providing a pretty good example of how complicated intelligence analysis can be and why it's a bad idea to simply jump on a piece of information that fits your preconceived biases. The email was just one piece of information gathered in the aftermath of the attack. While the White House's initial explanation that the attack had begun as a protest turned out to be wrong, the email itself doesn't bear on two of the major remaining questions: what role the video played and whether the attack was planned or spontaneous.

You'd think that this would be obvious, but in the future it's a good idea to remember that just because someone posts something on Facebook, that doesn't necessarily mean it's true. Even better: Just because someone said someone posted something on Facebook doesn't mean it's true. Even if you really, really want it to be.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2012, 04:04 PM   #25
ant1999e
Ring of Famer
 
ant1999e's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: BFE
Posts: 6,251

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Money Ball
Default

First the state dept. And now the CIA. everyone's backing away from this mess.
ant1999e is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:23 AM.


Denver Broncos