RE: Update on Benghazi

RE: Update on Benghazi (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

TheHeretic -> RE: Update on Benghazi (11/5/2013 6:00:51 PM)
Sorry, Ron, but leading with Nazi slurs just throws you and the gotta-potty dance avatar back off the screen. Bye.

DomKen -> RE: Update on Benghazi (11/5/2013 7:43:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Um, did Bush lie about any of those attacks? The "cause" of any of those attacks? Did Bush have his UN envoy lie to the UN about the attacks? I'm pretty sure W never even held a press conference on any of them. Huh. So, there was no lie about the attacks. There was no lie about the cause of the attacks. There was no lie to the UN about the attacks. You missed the point. W never even discussed them. He never even acknowledged they had happened.

Phydeaux -> RE: Update on Benghazi (11/5/2013 11:47:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux One quote of actionable intelligence, more when I have time: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/militia-hired-state-dept-warned-it-wouldn-t-protect-stevens-movements-benghazi You think that is actionable intelligence? All that shows is a militia said it wasn't going to work for us any more. Yeah? So you think not having an escort as you walk around an active insurgency - you don't think thats actionable, huh? You don't think you could engage new escorts, send marines, recall the ambassador? The Ambassador knew it was a chaotic situation and that his personal safety was not guaranteed. He went any way. That's part of the job. A job which BTW the conservatives have mercilessly trashed for decades. The irony of you guys suddenly rushing to defend a diplomat is just too much. And actionable intelligence has a meaning. That is it is intelligence that lets us take a specific action to foil a plot or achieve some other goal. This is far from actionable intelligence. It is simply a group saying they weren't going to be available to be paid by us anymore. No where did they say it was because guys they hate and have tried to wipe out were about to attack the US consulate. Again. Thats simply not true. If you recall - I told you that the embassy staff was told by the militia that there was going to be an attack. They were going to stay home because their family was being threatened. If you read the link - one of the guys stayed home. This story is corroborated again and again - do your own homework and look it up. As for the rest of this Actionable intelligence: Anniversary of 9-11 is coming up: Possible action: Get more guards Actionable intelligence: Every western embassy and presence bombed into leaving: Action: Keep aircraft and RR group in theater. Actionable intelligence: Your guards are affiliated with terrorist groups: Possible actions: Fire the guards? Get new ones. Improve the security of the compound. AI: Warning that an attack was imminent at the compound. Possible actions: move the mission. Get more guards. AI: Catch the militia filming your compound: Possible action: Interrogate him. Move the mission. Call in RR team.

DomKen -> RE: Update on Benghazi (11/6/2013 2:29:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Again. Thats simply not true. If you recall - I told you that the embassy staff was told by the militia that there was going to be an attack. They were going to stay home because their family was being threatened. You claimed that but it isn't true. What really happened is weeks earlier a militia said they'd no longer work for us. That is no proof of something about to happen. quote: Actionable intelligence: Anniversary of 9-11 is coming up: Possible action: Get more guards Actionable intelligence: Every western embassy and presence bombed into leaving: Action: Keep aircraft and RR group in theater. Actionable intelligence: Your guards are affiliated with terrorist groups: Possible actions: Fire the guards? Get new ones. Improve the security of the compound. AI: Warning that an attack was imminent at the compound. Possible actions: move the mission. Get more guards. AI: Catch the militia filming your compound: Possible action: Interrogate him. Move the mission. Call in RR team. None of that is actionable. None of it gives a target to deal with or any sign that something would happen at a specific place and time.

Phydeaux -> RE: Update on Benghazi (11/6/2013 2:37:15 AM)
Snicker I gave 7 cases of events- and the ACTION it could have prompted that would have been prudent and prevented the tragedy. That is the very definition of "actionable intelligence"

DomKen -> RE: Update on Benghazi (11/6/2013 2:41:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Snicker I gave 7 cases of events- and the ACTION it could have prompted that would have been prudent and prevented the tragedy. That is the very definition of "actionable intelligence" No. it is not. When people who are in the intelligence business say actionable intelligence it has a specific meaning. You simply tossed it out there like it supported the lies you've been repeating about a tragedy you only care about because FNC told you to and because you so hate the President you will clutch at any opportunity to portray the man negatively. It is boring and pathetic. Your side lost the election. The American people were not deceived or tricked, your side simply failed to make the case that a rich PoS with no empathy who only cared about himself and his friends should run this country. It is long past time to get over it and move on.

Phydeaux -> RE: Update on Benghazi (11/6/2013 2:59:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Snicker I gave 7 cases of events- and the ACTION it could have prompted that would have been prudent and prevented the tragedy. That is the very definition of "actionable intelligence" No. it is not. When people who are in the intelligence business say actionable intelligence it has a specific meaning. You simply tossed it out there like it supported the lies you've been repeating about a tragedy you only care about because FNC told you to and because you so hate the President you will clutch at any opportunity to portray the man negatively. It is boring and pathetic. Your side lost the election. The American people were not deceived or tricked, your side simply failed to make the case that a rich PoS with no empathy who only cared about himself and his friends should run this country. It is long past time to get over it and move on. Go to a dictionary. You're wrong. dictionary.com: Definition: information with a practical and relevant application, esp. about users of goods and services for purposes of business planning and strategy Usage: business Collins English dictionary: (military) the necessary background information that will enable someone to deal quickly and efficiently with a particular situation Regarding the rest: I'm afraid your fixation with attempting to abscribe views to me is, as pretty usual, again wrong. I did not vote for Romney. Who I did vote for is none of your business, but I am, of course, happy to tell you I didn't vote for the current clown either. Romney was not "my" candidate. I held he was unelectable from the beginning. Evangelicals just wouldn't vote for a mormon. As opposed to dimocrats, who were happy to vote for a moron. Now of course that isn't really true - it was just poetic. Obama is plenty smart enough. And plenty likable enough - well if you're chris mathews maybe a touch too likable... His policies bite.

mnottertail -> RE: Update on Benghazi (11/6/2013 4:00:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Sorry, Ron, but leading with Nazi slurs just throws you and the gotta-potty dance avatar back off the screen. Bye. Thanks, noisome idiots are tiresome. L:eading with Alinsky slurs is not your finest hour, but that escapes you.

mnottertail -> RE: Update on Benghazi (11/6/2013 4:11:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux If you recall - I told you that the embassy staff was told by the militia that there was going to be an attack. Yeah, you say and repeat a lot of stupid shit. That don't give it any special place in the truth and veracity arena. quote: I gave 7 cases of events- and the ACTION it could have prompted that would have been prudent and prevented the tragedy. Where? It was not on this thread. Ken has the sense of actionable intelligence right as concerns military ops, and your dictionary (although watered down) does too. They agree, a nobody sending an uneasy email to another nobody parked in computers....there is just something that lacks the necessary background information that will enable someone to deal quickly and efficiently with a particular situation, for instance. Again, just because YOU say it, don't make it so. That's why you don't get to actually read the emails between the nobodies.

mnottertail -> RE: Update on Benghazi (11/6/2013 4:24:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail That he was going to get the people responsible, and then his segue constructed so it was Saddam, and that he was training al-queda, and the list goes on, it was a long-chained, multi-faceted lie. Yep. That's exactly the same as telling the American people and the UN that the attack was due to a youtube video. Exactly the same. We went after al Qaeda. We went after bin Laden. Oddly enough, though, Bush had all the authority to go after Saddam as Obama had for Libya, and Syria. Now, correct me if I'm wrong (or if I'm right, I know that part doesn't always matter to some [8D]), but if someone is going to base their criticism of Bush's military foray into Iraq on his not having the authority to do so, then that same criticism should be leveled at the Obama Administration. Maybe 9/11 was a prescient attack for that youtube video... Nope that is exactly not the same thing, even to a simpleton. Well, what we should have did, according to his words, would be go after Saudia Arabia. We didnt go after Bin Laden, he let him go (TWICE) Obama had to kill the fucker. I think if someone is going base their criticism of Bush's military foray into Iraq on his not having the authority to do so, your peroration for that is correct. When someone does that, let me know, I will stand with you.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Update on Benghazi (11/6/2013 5:00:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Um, did Bush lie about any of those attacks? The "cause" of any of those attacks? Did Bush have his UN envoy lie to the UN about the attacks? I'm pretty sure W never even held a press conference on any of them. Huh. So, there was no lie about the attacks. There was no lie about the cause of the attacks. There was no lie to the UN about the attacks. You missed the point. W never even discussed them. He never even acknowledged they had happened. No? What was there to discuss? It sure seems like things were pretty cut and dried. The news went out. There was no deflection or spin as to the cause. Did you read the parts that I quoted? In a couple of them, the quoted material was quoting President Bush. How does that line up with him not acknowledging they happened? You may think - I'm not sure how - that any or all of those 13 instances are the same as Benghazi, but you are completely wrong. You questioned whether Bush had sent warplanes. Of course not. In suicide bombings, car bombings, and brief gunfights, there isn't much time at all to respond by scrambling jets. Outside of the times our ambassador was killed by a car bomb (suicide bomber rammed a bomb-filled car into the ambassador's vehicle) and 7 Americans died in a coordinated bombing attack on 3 housing compounds, there weren't any American losses. One of the attacks wasn't even directed at Americans, but at the local security presence guarding the American embassy. We get it. You hate(d) W. He isn't the President. He wasn't at fault for any of these 13 events. He didn't lie to us about any of these 13 events. He didn't send our UN representative to the UN to lie about any of these 13 events. I get that there is a disagreement about the timing of the Benghazi attack and whether there was enough time to scramble American forces to help. I, personally, don't know if the President was right or wrong in that. I would like you to notice, however, that my complaint about Benghazi has always been framed around the deceitful response after the attack, not the response during the attack.

Owner59 -> RE: Update on Benghazi (11/6/2013 6:22:21 AM)
We don`t want to even know what he`s doing when he throws his stalin slurs......TMI for sure....[X(]

DomKen -> RE: Update on Benghazi (11/6/2013 10:13:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux (military) the necessary background information that will enable someone to deal quickly and efficiently with a particular situation And none of the bullshit you posted reach that standard. As to your claims about not supporting cons, I'm sick to death ofr cons coming here and declaiming every loser they trot forth as their standard bearers after they lose. It's not even remotely believable. Next you'll be claiming to be a "moderate independent."

DomKen -> RE: Update on Benghazi (11/6/2013 10:16:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri You may think - I'm not sure how - that any or all of those 13 instances are the same as Benghazi, but you are completely wrong. You questioned whether Bush had sent warplanes. Of course not. In suicide bombings, car bombings, and brief gunfights, there isn't much time at all to respond by scrambling jets. Outside of the times our ambassador was killed by a car bomb (suicide bomber rammed a bomb-filled car into the ambassador's vehicle) and 7 Americans died in a coordinated bombing attack on 3 housing compounds, there weren't any American losses. One of the attacks wasn't even directed at Americans, but at the local security presence guarding the American embassy. They're all exactly like Benghazi. Bush didn't send warplanes despite not knowing if the attacks would continue or not. Exactly what cons are attacking the President for.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Update on Benghazi (11/6/2013 10:49:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri You may think - I'm not sure how - that any or all of those 13 instances are the same as Benghazi, but you are completely wrong. You questioned whether Bush had sent warplanes. Of course not. In suicide bombings, car bombings, and brief gunfights, there isn't much time at all to respond by scrambling jets. Outside of the times our ambassador was killed by a car bomb (suicide bomber rammed a bomb-filled car into the ambassador's vehicle) and 7 Americans died in a coordinated bombing attack on 3 housing compounds, there weren't any American losses. One of the attacks wasn't even directed at Americans, but at the local security presence guarding the American embassy. They're all exactly like Benghazi. Bush didn't send warplanes despite not knowing if the attacks would continue or not. Exactly what cons are attacking the President for. Firefight vs. car bomb - one is over pretty quick, while the other might not end so quick. Was the mortar attack on an empty consulate like Benghazi? Was the car bomb driven into the ambassador's vehicle like Benghazi? And, while we're at it, I don't know if Obama could have helped the situation in Benghazi by scrambling jets. I don't know if that's true or not. One side says one thing while the other side says the other. Which is why - not that it seems like you've noticed - my criticism is in how the situation was handled after the attack was over. In case you missed it, I'm neither critical, nor supportive of Obama's actions during the Benghazi attack. I sure hope that got through...

DomKen -> RE: Update on Benghazi (11/6/2013 11:03:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri You may think - I'm not sure how - that any or all of those 13 instances are the same as Benghazi, but you are completely wrong. You questioned whether Bush had sent warplanes. Of course not. In suicide bombings, car bombings, and brief gunfights, there isn't much time at all to respond by scrambling jets. Outside of the times our ambassador was killed by a car bomb (suicide bomber rammed a bomb-filled car into the ambassador's vehicle) and 7 Americans died in a coordinated bombing attack on 3 housing compounds, there weren't any American losses. One of the attacks wasn't even directed at Americans, but at the local security presence guarding the American embassy. They're all exactly like Benghazi. Bush didn't send warplanes despite not knowing if the attacks would continue or not. Exactly what cons are attacking the President for. Firefight vs. car bomb - one is over pretty quick, while the other might not end so quick. Was the mortar attack on an empty consulate like Benghazi? Was the car bomb driven into the ambassador's vehicle like Benghazi? And, while we're at it, I don't know if Obama could have helped the situation in Benghazi by scrambling jets. I don't know if that's true or not. One side says one thing while the other side says the other. Which is why - not that it seems like you've noticed - my criticism is in how the situation was handled after the attack was over. In case you missed it, I'm neither critical, nor supportive of Obama's actions during the Benghazi attack. I sure hope that got through... W could not have known when informed of each incident if it was over or not. Exactly what cons are attacking the President over. That's a simple fact. After the fact the President had an official spread misinformation. Exactly as anyone involved in the investigation would have wanted.

thompsonx -> RE: Update on Benghazi (11/6/2013 11:24:11 AM)
my criticism is in how the situation was handled after the attack was over. So the question is do you disaprove of presidents lying or just black presidents lying?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Update on Benghazi (11/6/2013 11:26:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri You may think - I'm not sure how - that any or all of those 13 instances are the same as Benghazi, but you are completely wrong. You questioned whether Bush had sent warplanes. Of course not. In suicide bombings, car bombings, and brief gunfights, there isn't much time at all to respond by scrambling jets. Outside of the times our ambassador was killed by a car bomb (suicide bomber rammed a bomb-filled car into the ambassador's vehicle) and 7 Americans died in a coordinated bombing attack on 3 housing compounds, there weren't any American losses. One of the attacks wasn't even directed at Americans, but at the local security presence guarding the American embassy. They're all exactly like Benghazi. Bush didn't send warplanes despite not knowing if the attacks would continue or not. Exactly what cons are attacking the President for. Firefight vs. car bomb - one is over pretty quick, while the other might not end so quick. Was the mortar attack on an empty consulate like Benghazi? Was the car bomb driven into the ambassador's vehicle like Benghazi? And, while we're at it, I don't know if Obama could have helped the situation in Benghazi by scrambling jets. I don't know if that's true or not. One side says one thing while the other side says the other. Which is why - not that it seems like you've noticed - my criticism is in how the situation was handled after the attack was over. In case you missed it, I'm neither critical, nor supportive of Obama's actions during the Benghazi attack. I sure hope that got through... W could not have known when informed of each incident if it was over or not. Exactly what cons are attacking the President over. That's a simple fact. After the fact the President had an official spread misinformation. Exactly as anyone involved in the investigation would have wanted. Bullshit.

mnottertail -> RE: Update on Benghazi (11/6/2013 11:46:17 AM)
how did they know a carbomb was gonna be the whole fuckoree, except after the fact ?(hint, hint)

Phydeaux -> RE: Update on Benghazi (11/6/2013 12:09:19 PM)
Indisputable facts: 1. The consult never passed security standards. It was waived by a member of Obama's team. 2. The security detachment was 1/4 the size of the security detachment in paris. 3. An active insurgency campaign was targeting western organizations over the previous year. We were the last one. 4. More than 400 security breaches were logged. If you think the level of security was appropriate - you, and the president were tragicly wrong. Especially with 9/11 coming up - and with the immediate clues - the militia pulling out and the militia forewarning us, and pictures being taken of the compound. During the fight, the men on the ground requested backup. They were initially promised it. And Obama's administration overruled the request. On what basis did they overturn it? Why? I know exactly why - do you? After the fight, they lied for political advantage. They spent $350K for "we're sorry apology tour" They jailed the man that made the video. Is there any doubt if it weren't for the fact he was a scape goat, he'd still be free?

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875