Collarchat.com

Join Our Community		 Collarchat.com

Home  Login  Search 

RE: Benghazi


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Benghazi Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Benghazi - 7/30/2013 12:16:49 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

If I may, first, the F16's would have been carrying anti-personnel cluster ordinance, not precision ordinance. Second, at the very least, an f16 equipped for recon could have been dispatched.

I have not been able to find out if a surveillance satellite was in position to get real time intel of the situation, all any reports discuss are images from before the attack occurred.

Sometime during the attack a Predator was over the scene. There may have been other recon assets monitoring the site as well (as usual for this stuff its classified).

quote:

I have noted a few statements about special ops troops being less than an hours flight from Benghazi. Speaking as a former airborne trooper, I have never heard of an airdrop into an urban area. So the troops would have to have been landed at an airport, transit the distance between there and the consulate, and deal with what ever resistance encountered.

There 4 special ops guys with nothing but sidearms. The actual embassy security guys went several hours earlier. That included at least one of the guys who was killed by the mortar attack.

quote:

My question is, why was security at the compounds so insufficient? Or more to the point, considering that they were located in a basically hostile area, why were they even there to begin with? I mean we closed our embassy in Syria didnt we? For much the same reasons.

That is a question that is answered by the State Department investigation. They had a limited budget and since switching to private contractors instead of Marines it is very difficult to put more boots on the ground and the Benghazi consulate was not considered important enough for the extra expense. The guy who made that call is in the process of being fired.

However Benghazi may have been chaotic but the town's people and leadership were essentially friendly. They came to our aid and were the ones who actually got into the building and got the Ambassador to a hospital even though it was too late.


Absolute BS.

First: Regarding there not being enough funding. 16 marines guard the paris embassy. Obama's administration cut the security detail for libya from 16 to 4 despite the pleadings of the career security offices (3 of them). It is ridiculous to say there wasn't enough money to fund a security detail. It *is* accurate to say that the obama administration exhibited rank incompetence in managing the security.

For example: They removed the dedicated air asset. Which was a DEADLY error.
They cut the security detail. (Deadly error).
They ignored attack warnings.
They approved a compound that did not meet the existing security standards.
The CIA violated operational security by constantly meeting contacts in the same place - a Macdonalds of all place.
They failed to have a rapid response force in place as protocol required.

This is why the Obots don't want an investigation - these facts will get out.

Regarding the "guy that made the call to cut the security is in the process of getting fired" that is absolute BS. The three guys that are getting fired - were all on record of wanting more security and they were overruled by political appointees.

The claim that the 4 guys had nothing but sidearms is again, bs. They were manning a machine gun when they were killed, and there were other weapons available. Finally, there were multiple reconnaisance aircraft in the air at the time.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 101
RE: Benghazi - 7/30/2013 12:26:01 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline 		You know, the bottom line for me - is the US government didn't even try to save this men.
And for politics. Obama killed these men to get re-elected.

Africom was *ordered* to stand down. When they refused, the commander in chief was relieved of duty.
The commander of the Stennis was relieved of duty.

They never even tried to save these guys.

How dare you say this is about Clinton.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 102
RE: Benghazi - 7/30/2013 3:38:05 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Absolute BS.

First: Regarding there not being enough funding. 16 marines guard the paris embassy. Obama's administration cut the security detail for libya from 16 to 4 despite the pleadings of the career security offices (3 of them). It is ridiculous to say there wasn't enough money to fund a security detail. It *is* accurate to say that the obama administration exhibited rank incompetence in managing the security.

For example: They removed the dedicated air asset. Which was a DEADLY error.
They cut the security detail. (Deadly error).
They ignored attack warnings.
They approved a compound that did not meet the existing security standards.
The CIA violated operational security by constantly meeting contacts in the same place - a Macdonalds of all place.
They failed to have a rapid response force in place as protocol required.

This is why the Obots don't want an investigation - these facts will get out.

Regarding the "guy that made the call to cut the security is in the process of getting fired" that is absolute BS. The three guys that are getting fired - were all on record of wanting more security and they were overruled by political appointees.

The claim that the 4 guys had nothing but sidearms is again, bs. They were manning a machine gun when they were killed, and there were other weapons available. Finally, there were multiple reconnaisance aircraft in the air at the time.

Here are the facts. During the W administration the State Department shifted to private contractors for security in areas considered dangerous. That costs about an order of magnitude more per person than USMC. Marines now provide security only in places like Paris where security is not considered as important as the visual od Marines in dress uniforms at the gate.

That huge increase in cost makes it difficult to provide protection everywhere it is needed. Add to that Congress cutting the State Department's budget for security and you have a recipe for disaster.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/27/benghazi-attack-followed-deep-cuts-in-state-depart/?page=all
(moonie source provided to satisfy right wingers, a real source can be provided if anyone else wants it)

The 4 guys who were not allowed to fly to Benghazi were manning a MG when they were killed? Really? How does that work? (A quick reminder no active duty military were killed and only 2 of the 4 who did die were security contractors)

It's actually 4 guys being fired and there is no documentation that the decisions on security arrangements were over ruled by a political appointee. That is more right wing fever dreams.

But the fact remains, while things need to get fixed the GOP is all over this because they think they can cause trouble for Obama and Clinton. That's why they lie about it (remember the doctored emails?) and ignore the actual investigations that have documented the real mistakes and failings and how to fix them. Why have there been no hearings on going back to Marines providing embassy security? What about some attempt to restore the hundreds of millions cut from the State Department security budget since 2010?

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 103
RE: Benghazi - 7/30/2013 3:56:38 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

You know, the bottom line for me - is the US government didn't even try to save this men.
And for politics. Obama killed these men to get re-elected.

Africom was *ordered* to stand down. When they refused, the commander in chief was relieved of duty.
The commander of the Stennis was relieved of duty.

A lie and not even one that is hard to disprove.
http://www.examiner.com/article/debunking-the-case-of-general-carter-ham-1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Ham

In short the General was not relieved, served in that post for the full 2 year assignment and then retired at age 62 after 38 or 39 years of service.

As to the USS Stennis she was no where near Benghazi. That is another lie circulated by the right wing echo chamber. She left home port in Washington state on Aug. 27 and was in the Indian Ocean prior to relieving Enterprise in the 5th Fleet (Persian Gulf). I've done quite a bit of looking and there was no US carrier in the Med at the time. You can look here and see for yourself
http://www.gonavy.jp/CVLocation.html

quote:

They never even tried to save these guys.

Actually they did. The security contractors in Tripoli were flown out when the attack began and one of those guys was one of those who died.
quote:


How dare you say this is about Clinton.


Because it is? This is all about going after Obama now and Clinton before 2016.

< Message edited by DomKen -- 7/30/2013 3:57:24 AM >

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 104
RE: Benghazi - 7/30/2013 5:02:36 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
~ FR ~

I gotta admit it adds some comic relief when people start claiming superpowers that allow them discern the hidden motives of other posters. But my favorite is still the "mysterious base" argument:

The unsupported combat radius of an F-16 is 340 miles. The straight line distance between Sigonella and Benghazi is 470 miles. The straight line distance between Sigonella and Benghazi is 470 miles. Unless there is a mysterious unknown base more than 100 miles closer to Benghazi no F-16 support was possible in the time available.

A close second, worthy of honorable mention, was the F-16's lack of anti-personnel capabilities except for 250lb bombs:

What kind of antipersonnel ordinance do you think the F-16 could drop? There are no rocket pods or the like for the F-16. Any anti personnel ordinance it drops would be essentially a bomb... And if you really think they'd fly a F-16 all that way to drop a pair of 250lb bombs (since the other hardpoints would have to be occupied with droptanks to get there even with refueling) you're really off the deep end.

Damn I love threads like this!



K.

< Message edited by Kirata -- 7/30/2013 5:08:31 AM >

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 105
RE: Benghazi - 7/30/2013 7:20:29 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


A close second, worthy of honorable mention, was the F-16's lack of anti-personnel capabilities except for 250lb bombs:

What kind of antipersonnel ordinance do you think the F-16 could drop? There are no rocket pods or the like for the F-16. Any anti personnel ordinance it drops would be essentially a bomb... And if you really think they'd fly a F-16 all that way to drop a pair of 250lb bombs (since the other hardpoints would have to be occupied with droptanks to get there even with refueling) you're really off the deep end.

Damn I love threads like this!



K.

I'm still waiting for you to name the anti personnel ordinance that an F-16 could carry that is not what most people would call a bomb. You can back up your assertion can't you?

And I didn't say the only weapon the F-16 could drop is the 250lb bomb. I said it would stupid for them to carry that light a load all that way which was in reply to your dismissal of the combat radius of the F-16 when carrying 2000lb bombs.

I'll continue waiting for you to present those mythical non bomb antipersonnel weapons that can be carried by the F-16.

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 106
RE: Benghazi - 7/30/2013 7:43:17 AM   
RacerJim


Posts: 1583
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline 		The F-16 has a combat radius of 740 nm (1,370 km) w/ 2 2,000-lb bombs + 2 AIM-9 + 1,040 US gal external tanks

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 107
RE: Benghazi - 7/30/2013 7:46:06 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		Cute and what the fuck would you do with that in an enclosed embassy compound?

Fly overhead and buzz the compound, take a couple of nanoseconds or so? OH, thats gonna scare the shit out of everybody. Not. Full flaps and every trick you can maybe get them down to about 140 knots (@162 mph or @238 fps). how many embassy compounds in a mile?


Blow everybody the fuck up?

Do any of you cooks and latrine cleaners have any experience in military arts after basic?

Slowest airspeed attainable for one of those is? Turning radius for one of those is at what G force?

< Message edited by mnottertail -- 7/30/2013 8:01:21 AM >

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to RacerJim)
Profile   Post #: 108
RE: Benghazi - 7/30/2013 8:07:11 AM   
MasterCaneman


Posts: 3842
Joined: 3/21/2013
Status: offline 		You got a point there. I've seen Air Force and Navy birds practicing ground attack, and in a built-up area, even with smart weapons, it'd be pointless and counterproductive due to the collateral damage they could cause. And, they need competent and properly equipped ground controllers to guide them in.

_____________________________

Age and treachery will always overcome youth and ambition.

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting. ~ Sun Tzu

Goddess Wrangler



(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 109
RE: Benghazi - 7/30/2013 8:13:33 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterCaneman

You got a point there. I've seen Air Force and Navy birds practicing ground attack, and in a built-up area, even with smart weapons, it'd be pointless and counterproductive due to the collateral damage they could cause. And, they need competent and properly equipped ground controllers to guide them in.



Yup, no saving going on with one of those, you are gonna take a whole bunch of motherfuckers and their cats and dogs out, and a couple of bed and breakfasts, even at their slowest speed and longest sightline at target. Ambassador and the whole deal are dead in that vignette as well.

A situation like that would be best scenario, a couple of reinforced platoons would be shitting in tall cotton, but best you'd be able to get would be maybe a couple of squads pretty bare.

What combat ready troops were in the area? How long to get from afghanistan, and including round up time, cuz I imagine only malingerers and cooks back at the barracks there. half a day?



_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to MasterCaneman)
Profile   Post #: 110
RE: Benghazi - 7/30/2013 8:59:54 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline 		Again, quoting the ultimate f-16 website:

The aircraft’s conformal fuel tanks carry more fuel, and their 40% range increase gives the planes a mission radius of 1,025 miles. Those larger tanks will feed GE’s new F110-GE-132 engine, which produces up to 32,500 pounds of thrust to offset the plane’s increased weight. The 132 is a derivative of the proven F110-GE-129, a 29,000-pound thrust class engine that powers the majority of F-16 C/D fighters worldwide.

This means that the planes could take off from avianno, 1200 miles fly to benghazi, perform a combat mission and return to sigonella (475 miles) while still under their combat range (375 miles under it). Without external tanks.

And it really doens't matter what you arm chair generals think - I provided a link from a decorated f-16 pilot who said that f-16's could EASILY have gotten there in time - even if they chose the lank in sigonella option.

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 111
RE: Benghazi - 7/30/2013 9:09:44 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline 		I have provided links of F-16s doing strafing runs in support of green berets:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVJOOjUlGek

Here's a quote from AirForce Magazine say they do strafing all the time - and there is little collateral damage:

We’re using the gun quite a bit in the Iraq and Afghanistan operations. The fighters are using lots of 20 mm off F-15Es and F-16s and 30 mm off A-10s to hit ground targets. Why is that? For individuals, the gun is probably one of the most accurate weapons, with the least collateral damage. That 20 mm will end the bad guy’s life, but stray rounds will just drive into the ground, and that’s it.

In Iraq, the adversary uses both road networks and riverine networks. There have been a number of occasions where boats have been identified carrying insurgents on the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, and we’ve used 20 mm and 30 mm guns to destroy those boats. A moving target is hard to hit with a bomb. With a gun, it’s no big deal. In one instance, the enemy was getting ready to move people somewhere to do something later that night, but we removed them from the fight.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 112
RE: Benghazi - 7/30/2013 9:17:54 AM   
MasterCaneman


Posts: 3842
Joined: 3/21/2013
Status: offline 		True as well, but remember, they had good ground control in those instances. Yes, I know there were ex-SF on the ground there, but if the descriptions of the scene as described were accurate, it would have been hard to call in a bird to do what was needed. Now mind you, I never had to deal with stuff like that when hellzapoppin' all around, but it's a pretty involved process to get a combat aircraft lined up the right way for a successful strafing run.

_____________________________

Age and treachery will always overcome youth and ambition.

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting. ~ Sun Tzu

Goddess Wrangler



(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 113
RE: Benghazi - 7/30/2013 9:29:06 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		The strafing runs were done in a combat zone where they didnt give the glimmer of a good goddamn fuck who was killed.

And dont hand me horseshit about minimal collateral damage. I don't care what armchair generals pull up for rather foolish and doesn't really show a goddamn thing websites or 'surgical strike' PR.

So as you see, the f-16 wouldn't have saved anyone out of the deal, but killed alot of innocent motherfuckers. And we would be in another war and lots more people would die.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to MasterCaneman)
Profile   Post #: 114
RE: Benghazi - 7/30/2013 9:35:16 AM   
SimplyMichael


Posts: 7229
Joined: 1/7/2007
Status: offline 		What you and i see in that video is worlds apart.

And quoting the airforce about aircraft shows a SERIOUS lack of depth on the subject. Google, F4 and dog dighting, the A1 skyraider, the history of the A10, and the Marines opinion of the Air Force.


(in reply to MasterCaneman)
Profile   Post #: 115
RE: Benghazi - 7/30/2013 9:41:42 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Again, quoting the ultimate f-16 website:

The aircraft’s conformal fuel tanks carry more fuel, and their 40% range increase gives the planes a mission radius of 1,025 miles. Those larger tanks will feed GE’s new F110-GE-132 engine, which produces up to 32,500 pounds of thrust to offset the plane’s increased weight. The 132 is a derivative of the proven F110-GE-129, a 29,000-pound thrust class engine that powers the majority of F-16 C/D fighters worldwide.

This means that the planes could take off from avianno, 1200 miles fly to benghazi, perform a combat mission and return to sigonella (475 miles) while still under their combat range (375 miles under it). Without external tanks.

And it really doens't matter what you arm chair generals think - I provided a link from a decorated f-16 pilot who said that f-16's could EASILY have gotten there in time - even if they chose the lank in sigonella option.


You got any evidence the 2 squadrons at Aviano actually fly those F-16E's that have the new engines? According the squadron factsheets they both fly the older F-16C's.
http://www.aviano.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=4352
http://www.aviano.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=4353

It is really time you realized that F-16's couldn't do the mission without tankers and would have been of next to no help once they did arrive. We were not going to bomb a friendly town and we never saw the mortar that actually killed the 2 security contractors so we couldn't have bombed it.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 116
RE: Benghazi - 7/30/2013 9:43:02 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

What you and i see in that video is worlds apart.

And quoting the airforce about aircraft shows a SERIOUS lack of depth on the subject. Google, F4 and dog dighting, the A1 skyraider, the history of the A10, and the Marines opinion of the Air Force.



Don't the Marines still have the policy of not asking for close air support from the USAF since they disliked being attacked by their own side?

(in reply to SimplyMichael)
Profile   Post #: 117
RE: Benghazi - 7/30/2013 10:31:06 AM   
DaddySatyr


Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

What you and i see in that video is worlds apart.

And quoting the airforce about aircraft shows a SERIOUS lack of depth on the subject. Google, F4 and dog dighting, the A1 skyraider, the history of the A10, and the Marines opinion of the Air Force.



I wonder if the part in red was typed with a straight face?

The Air Force isn't a good source for aircraft? Well, whatever, I guess.

I don't know much about the F-16 or any specific aircraft but I do know that the people in the USAF know more about them than me (or most people, here)



Regards,



Chuck Yaeger

_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to SimplyMichael)
Profile   Post #: 118
RE: Benghazi - 7/30/2013 10:35:16 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		Very straight face. The propaganda organs of the armed services branches and their PR contain about as much factual and realistic information and analysis as the Drudge report, infowars, prison-planet, Limbaugh, Brietbart, Boortz, DailyMail, and DailyCaller (at a minimum) combined.

'Surgical Strike' it ain't a civilian misnomer nor creation, but it is for your comfort.

< Message edited by mnottertail -- 7/30/2013 10:39:33 AM >

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to DaddySatyr)
Profile   Post #: 119
RE: Benghazi - 7/30/2013 11:00:19 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

You know, the bottom line for me - is the US government didn't even try to save this men.
And for politics. Obama killed these men to get re-elected.

Africom was *ordered* to stand down. When they refused, the commander in chief was relieved of duty.
The commander of the Stennis was relieved of duty.

A lie and not even one that is hard to disprove.
http://www.examiner.com/article/debunking-the-case-of-general-carter-ham-1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Ham


Not a lie. Even your link admits it doesn't really know what happened.
You have a number of misrepresentations. The Commander of Africom is a 3 year term of duty that is normally renewed. Ham was relieved 18 months into it.
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/rumors-of-general-ham-being-relieved-could-be-true

"A spokesperson for the Navy declined to give details on the allegation, but Stars and Stripes reports that ”it is highly unusual for the Navy to replace a carrier strike group commander during its deployment.”

The news comes just two days after Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced the replacement for Gen. Carter Ham, who was serving as commander of U.S. Africa Command. ”

Details are scarce, but some can’t help wonder about the timing of these military shake-ups."

Highly unusual as in - it hasn't been done in 50 years.
quote:




As to the USS Stennis she was no where near Benghazi. That is another lie circulated by the right wing echo chamber. She left home port in Washington state on Aug. 27 and was in the Indian Ocean prior to relieving Enterprise in the 5th Fleet (Persian Gulf). I've done quite a bit of looking and there was no US carrier in the Med at the time. You can look here and see for yourself
http://www.gonavy.jp/CVLocation.html


And your link doesn't actually have any information on the location of the stennis. It says it entered the area of responsibility of the 7th fleet.
It does, interestingly enough say that it received orders to return to base on Sep-11, 2012. The day of the attack.

I didn't know what to make of the stennis story - thats why I haven't been discussing it. However, the commanders of the US Navy's 5th fleet website says:

U.S. 5TH FLEET AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY -- Senior officers from U.S. Central Command embarked aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74), to meet with the leadership and crew, Nov. 30.

Vice Adm. John Miller, commander, U.S. Naval Forces Central Command/U.S. 5th Fleet/Combined Maritime Forces, addressed the crew during an all hands call on the flight deck while Lt. Gen David Goldfein, commander, U.S. Air Forces Central Command addressed the squadrons of Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 9.

“Stennis is the lone representative of naval aviation in the U.S. 5th Fleet and we’re grateful to have you and put you to good use,” said Miller during an all hands call.

quote:




quote:

They never even tried to save these guys.

Actually they did. The security contractors in Tripoli were flown out when the attack began and one of those guys was one of those who died.


Actually they didn't. The CIA people defied orders twice. Which is why Hicks testified that the military commander of the relief force that DIDNT get sent said that it was the first time ever he'd seen diplomats have more balls than military.

Regarding the CIA disobeying -:
"CIA personnel led by ex-Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, who later lost his life in the attack during the September 11 Ansar al Sharia attack on U.S. installations in Benghazi, disobeyed orders to "stand down." Defying orders, Woods and other CIA personnel braved enemy fire to return to the consulate to rescue Ambassador Chris Stevens and information officer Sean Smith. Hours later, as the battle continued at the CIA annex one mile from the consulate, requests for laser-targeted fire from a Specter gunship, and additional support from special forces in Signonella, Italy, were repeatedly denied by unknown U.S. Defense and State Department officials.

This new information, as first reported by Fox News, may clarify the motivation for the lengthy time period during which Obama administration officials insisted that the incident was a spontaneous riot of local people objecting to the controversial Innocence of Muslims film.


quote:


How dare you say this is about Clinton.


Because it is? This is all about going after Obama now and Clinton before 2016.

Just because this is politics to you - to me this is about 4 americans died. And an entire spynet was rolled up.


< Message edited by Phydeaux -- 7/30/2013 11:05:56 AM >

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Benghazi Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.219