View Full Version : Benghazi
USS COLE - a small craft approached the port side of the destroyer, and an explosion occurred, creating a 40-by-40-foot gash in the ship's port side
1st WTC attack - The World Trade Center bombing occurred on February 26, 1993, when a truck bomb was detonated below the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York, NY. The 1,336 lb (606 kg) urea nitrate–hydrogen gas enhanced device[1] was intended to knock the North Tower (Tower One) into the South Tower (Tower Two), bringing both towers down and killing thousands of people
OK HERE IS MY POINT
1. When they say they don't have enough intel to send in more troops (put more people in harms way) (while the attacks are occurring) then I am in 100% agreeance. There could have been a van or small vehichle waiting to level 3 city blocks killing hundreds of american reinforcements. PERIOD
2. I know those two guys were heroic, but when you are told to STAND DOWN, there is a reason.
3. Not one person on fox news will ever say that Obama acted correctly with Sandy even though he did everything RIGHT to prevent another Katrina. They just want to keep hammering on the Benghazi issue.
What is wrong with sending in the AC130 that can blow the pimple off a gnats *** as 2 miles? OR sending in ARMED drone. They had the intel, they had the requests for help. So you are ok with sacrificing the lives of the ambassador and his entourage for their incompetence in Foreign affairs without even trying to help them?
What is wrong with sending in the AC130 that can blow the pimple off a gnats *** as 2 miles? OR sending in ARMED drone. They had the intel, they had the requests for help. So you are ok with sacrificing the lives of the ambassador and his entourage for their incompetence in Foreign affairs without even trying to help them?
And you'd consider it ok to level a city in response? That is what an AC130 would do. It's a flying artillery platform, not a precsion weapon. An Apache might have been ok.
Also, this wouldn't have happened under Gaddafi.
And you'd consider it ok to level a city in response? That is what an AC130 would do. It's a flying artillery platform, not a precsion weapon. An Apache might have been ok.
Also, this wouldn't have happened under Gaddafi.
Your ignorance in our military capabilities certainly shows on this one, Will. The AC130 Spectre (Spooky) can level a city, but it can also do a surgical strike and take a freckle off your face and leave your nose intact.
Your ignorance in our military capabilities certainly shows on this one, Will. The AC130 Spectre (Spooky) can level a city, but it can also do a surgical strike and take a freckle off your face and leave your nose intact.
Well, my knowledge of it comes from a level in COD. While I suppose it could take out individual people, I doubt it's quite as precise as you claim.
BladeEWG
11-08-2012, 06:49
WILL! you always manage to crack me up.
This one got me
"Also, this wouldn't have happened under Gaddafi. "
;)
"3. Not one person on fox news will ever say that Obama acted correctly with Sandy even though he did everything RIGHT to prevent another Katrina. They just want to keep hammering on the Benghazi issue."
the US government needs to rethink it's entire natural defence strategy. The current default natural disaster approach is just plain wrong (Wait for a disaster to happen, then send in the troops and $ to help the people and rebuild.).
Katrina and Sandy floodings were not neccessary, if folks had thought things through and made proper preparations. Yes good levy's like we have build in the netherlands cost a lot of money to build and maintain, but compared to the cost of repairing and rebuilding, not to mention the lives lost it is cheap as can be.
Next month i believe a report will be published by a few dutch university's on how to secure New York from flooding with dutch style levy's. Will be interesting to see how New York moves on in the future
MellonColly
11-08-2012, 16:09
good point scav. We are very reactive here in the US. Need to look ahead a bit
As someone with 19 years of Military Service in two branches and a few hours logged with COD I would like to say that the entire issue was indeed FUBAR. I'm not going to analyse every detail from start to finish but there was horrible mistakes made before, during and after. It's a common mistake, the men in the field have a better perspective than the higher paid people not in theater. The facts point to this.
It's also a common reason for experienced enlisted troops hating officers and bureaucrats. The officer MIGHT have the big pitcher but rarely understands the task at hand. An example of this was depicted in Heartbreak Ridge (1986) when a Supply Officer tell a Veteran Sargent to stand down to which he disobeys the orders and winds up having a successful mission.
For the record, two Ex-Navy SEALS with prompt go orders and proper support really could have wiped out every attacker in the place. SEALs improvise very well, it's what they are trained for. The support they needed was indeed available and would have been there in time had it been dispatched. (Example: The C-130 or other asset could have taken out the mortar team that was targeted by embassy security.)
Honestly, even if there is a small chance of success in combat you have to make the hard choice to go in. In this case the Ambassador was simply left to die. It was 100% preventable and is obvious incompetence.
I think everyone is just mad because they are having an extremely hard time finding a way to blame George W. Bush for this.
As someone with 19 years of Military Service in two branches and a few hours logged with COD I would like to say that the entire issue was indeed FUBAR. I'm not going to analyse every detail from start to finish but there was horrible mistakes made before, during and after. It's a common mistake, the men in the field have a better perspective than the higher paid people not in theater. The facts point to this.
It's also a common reason for experienced enlisted troops hating officers and bureaucrats. The officer MIGHT have the big pitcher but rarely understands the task at hand. An example of this was depicted in Heartbreak Ridge (1986) when a Supply Officer tell a Veteran Sargent to stand down to which he disobeys the orders and winds up having a successful mission.
For the record, two Ex-Navy SEALS with prompt go orders and proper support really could have wiped out every attacker in the place. SEALs improvise very well, it's what they are trained for. The support they needed was indeed available and would have been there in time had it been dispatched. (Example: The C-130 or other asset could have taken out the mortar team that was targeted by embassy security.)
Honestly, even if there is a small chance of success in combat you have to make the hard choice to go in. In this case the Ambassador was simply left to die. It was 100% preventable and is obvious incompetence.
I think everyone is just mad because they are having an extremely hard time finding a way to blame George W. Bush for this.
While the two SEALS may have been able to kill all of the attackers at the time, once word got out of a "massacre of libyan civilans" by US troops, all hell would break loose across not just libya but the whole middle east. It would be open season on every westerner in general and americans in particular. I seriously doubt that they could have got him out of the country alive in those circumstances.
While the two SEALS may have been able to kill all of the attackers at the time, once word got out of a "massacre of libyan civilans" by US troops, all hell would break loose across not just libya but the whole middle east. It would be open season on every westerner in general and americans in particular. I seriously doubt that they could have got him out of the country alive in those circumstances.
1. It's already open season on every westerner.
2. Even if they spun it as a slaughter of Innocent Libyan Civilians it wouldn't make a difference in anyone's opinion towards the US. The logical ones would see the facts of reality and the extremist that actually believe it was anything other than defending a consulate are all ready willing to blow themselves up.
3. Yes, with proper support they could have gotten out of there or at least made it to the better defended CIA outpost one mile away to wait for a helo.
4. The level of chaos in the middle east really can't get much worse outside of Iran Nuking someone. Terrorist, Drones, Military and other things kill hundreds of "innocent" people every year.
I personally think the USA and Britain should completely pull out of the middle east. They all hate us and only use us for our aid money and oil purchases. Seriously, I've been to a few countries over there and most only care about their religion and money. I say let them figure it out for themselves and the rest of us should just stay the hell away.
MellonColly
11-08-2012, 23:15
I agree we need to pull out and just let them do their thing. We've already seen that the civilians will revolt if they don't like their ruler. Yes it may take awhile and be bloody but this is the better course than us "doing it for them" . We give them something else to hate while we are there oppressing them with our democracy mongering(TM)
I'm going to make myself very unpopular with the following remarks, but every one seems to be forgetting that an army is nothing more than an extention of economic policy. In the bigger scheme of things the death of the SEAL's and ambassador + aides is of little significance except for their loved ones who will bear the loss the rest of their lives. Countries like france, italy, GB will not pull out of libya as their vested interests with Shell, GDF etc are simply to big. same reason with Iraq and same reason why nothing is or will be done with egypt, syria and lebanon.
The death of the seals is unfortunate to say the least, and might have been prevented in this instance. On the other hand, although the SEALs are quite capable there is little you can do against bomtrucks, IED's etc, and you never quite know what kind of resistance they would have met when trying to move / escape haveing evaded the mortar team.
1. It's already open season on every westerner.
I would like to comment on that one: Every american is an idiot.
have you been to middle east? plus i seriously doubt your military expertise just because you seem to not like the chain of command... lol "field soldier knows better".
heyneken
11-09-2012, 11:24
1. It's already open season on every westerner.
I would like to comment on that one: Every american is an idiot.
have you been to middle east? plus i seriously doubt your military expertise just because you seem to not like the chain of command... lol "field soldier knows better".
Blaa don't meddle in things that are not yours to meddle in. Can't you see the murricans are talking?
MellonColly
11-09-2012, 14:26
stay out ferrreners!
1. It's already open season on every westerner.
I would like to comment on that one: Every american is an idiot.
have you been to middle east? plus i seriously doubt your military expertise just because you seem to not like the chain of command... lol "field soldier knows better".
I wouldn't say we are all idiots but we really have a hard time defending ourselves due to the actions of many of our beloved citizens both abroad and at home.
I have been to several countries in the middle east. My point was not so much about the chain of command as it was that the person on scene often has a better perspective of the actual conditions than someone far removed from it.
Well, my knowledge of it comes from a level in COD. While I suppose it could take out individual people, I doubt it's quite as precise as you claim.
OHHHHHH yeah, sorry, ok you got it from COD, I must be mistaken then...
OHHHHHH yeah, sorry, ok you got it from COD, I must be mistaken then...
Hey, I never claimed to be an expert on the US military :(
1. It's already open season on every westerner.
2. Even if they spun it as a slaughter of Innocent Libyan Civilians it wouldn't make a difference in anyone's opinion towards the US. The logical ones would see the facts of reality and the extremist that actually believe it was anything other than defending a consulate are all ready willing to blow themselves up.
3. Yes, with proper support they could have gotten out of there or at least made it to the better defended CIA outpost one mile away to wait for a helo.
4. The level of chaos in the middle east really can't get much worse outside of Iran Nuking someone. Terrorist, Drones, Military and other things kill hundreds of "innocent" people every year.
I personally think the USA and Britain should completely pull out of the middle east. They all hate us and only use us for our aid money and oil purchases. Seriously, I've been to a few countries over there and most only care about their religion and money. I say let them figure it out for themselves and the rest of us should just stay the hell away.
I agree we need to pull out and just let them do their thing. We've already seen that the civilians will revolt if they don't like their ruler. Yes it may take awhile and be bloody but this is the better course than us "doing it for them" . We give them something else to hate while we are there oppressing them with our democracy mongering(TM)
I'm going to make myself very unpopular with the following remarks, but every one seems to be forgetting that an army is nothing more than an extention of economic policy. In the bigger scheme of things the death of the SEAL's and ambassador + aides is of little significance except for their loved ones who will bear the loss the rest of their lives. Countries like france, italy, GB will not pull out of libya as their vested interests with Shell, GDF etc are simply to big. same reason with Iraq and same reason why nothing is or will be done with egypt, syria and lebanon.
The death of the seals is unfortunate to say the least, and might have been prevented in this instance. On the other hand, although the SEALs are quite capable there is little you can do against bomtrucks, IED's etc, and you never quite know what kind of resistance they would have met when trying to move / escape haveing evaded the mortar team.
Well I am sure a lot of you will say,. "dogma has lost his mind" or " he is just old, pay no attention" But the US cannot pull out of the middle east. If the US and Britain were to pull completely out, then Israel would cease to exist in short order.
I do agree that we should not be trying to spread our form of govt to those that don't want it. I also agree that the Middle east is already a powder keg that only cares about their religion, or the subversion of a religion and money. IF we were to get to be independent of their oil, then we could choose not to buy it form them, but that would take EVERYONE. Then, let them eat the only other thing that they have in abundance over there, sand.
Hey, I never claimed to be an expert on the US military :(
Well I do study US military and with one Spooky, the entire attack could have been stopped. Probably too late for the Ambassador, but the people there (at the embassy) attacking wouldn't have had the opportunity to go hide. They can in fact precisely take a target and not "level an entire town" with that platform.
But to tell you the truth, I probably would have been ok with the leveling of an entire town in order to protect even one of our ambassadors. That was an attack on sovereign territory just as all British embassies are British territory.
Well I am sure a lot of you will say,. "dogma has lost his mind" or " he is just old, pay no attention" But the US cannot pull out of the middle east. If the US and Britain were to pull completely out, then Israel would cease to exist in short order.
I do agree that we should not be trying to spread our form of govt to those that don't want it. I also agree that the Middle east is already a powder keg that only cares about their religion, or the subversion of a religion and money. IF we were to get to be independent of their oil, then we could choose not to buy it form them, but that would take EVERYONE. Then, let them eat the only other thing that they have in abundance over there, sand.
Why is it the job of the US and Britain to protect Israel at all costs? Especially Britain, which has suffered terrorist attacks in the past from Israel. Pull out and let them fend for themselves. I agree with you about ending oil dependency, but to do that you'll need to break the power of the oil companies.
Well I do study US military and with one Spooky, the entire attack could have been stopped. Probably too late for the Ambassador, but the people there (at the embassy) attacking wouldn't have had the opportunity to go hide. They can in fact precisely take a target and not "level an entire town" with that platform.
But to tell you the truth, I probably would have been ok with the leveling of an entire town in order to protect even one of our ambassadors. That was an attack on sovereign territory just as all British embassies are British territory.
That..... is a scary line of thought. I didn't think you were that bloodthirsty.
Why is it the job of the US and Britain to protect Israel at all costs? Especially Britain, which has suffered terrorist attacks in the past from Israel. Pull out and let them fend for themselves. I agree with you about ending oil dependency, but to do that you'll need to break the power of the oil companies.
Should we have let Britain fend for themselves 70 years ago? Should we have left the French to learn German? Should we have left Australia to fend for itself back then as well? Should we have allowed Nazi Germany alone to take what it wanted as long as they stayed on their side of the pond?
Why was it our job to send Supplies via convoy across the Atlantic when we weren't attacked?
That..... is a scary line of thought. I didn't think you were that bloodthirsty.
I am not bloodthirsty, I am just tired of ***** footing around with these people who have no respect for human life. If they want to meet Allah, let us arrange the meeting.
Those who attack our people for trying to help them. Those thinking that that want to bring Sharia to the world. Just wait WIll, they are already in Britain. These monkeys that live in caves and huts want the world to live in huts and caves. Sorry, I am not giving up my house nor my freedom.
Should we have let Britain fend for themselves 70 years ago? Should we have left the French to learn German? Should we have left Australia to fend for itself back then as well? Should we have allowed Nazi Germany alone to take what it wanted as long as they stayed on their side of the pond?
Why was it our job to send Supplies via convoy across the Atlantic when we weren't attacked?
It wasn't. But would you have wanted Nazi Germany to take full control over all of Europe? Hitler's future plans involved a united Europe fighting the US, which you would have lost badly. Between the Kriegsmarine, French Navy, IJN and the Royal Navy (either captured or allied to the Germans) the US fleet would have been wiped out. At the start of the war the USN was roughly on a par with the RN. With all the other fleets added together, the Atlantic fleet would have been torn to pieces. Then you would start seeing landings by Axis forces all along the east coast.
And how can you possibly compare Europe to Israel in any case? Britain and France are states with over 1500 years of history. Israel has what, 65? It was carved out of Palestine without any regard for the wishes of the Palestinians, (along with jewish terrorist groups like the Irgun and Stern gang killing British soldiers trying to ensure an orderly transition) and kept afloat with massive miltary aid. If you cut it off, there would not be some immediate all out attack by all the arabs. Israel's nukes alone would stop that. What you would see is Israel not being able to mess with the region any more, and actually having to make a few concessions to their neighbours.
I don't understand how a patriotic American could support a state which has launched unprovoked attacks on US troops (USS Liberty), sold US tech to China, and now threatens to drag the US into war with Iran.
It wasn't. But would you have wanted Nazi Germany to take full control over all of Europe? Hitler's future plans involved a united Europe fighting the US, which you would have lost badly. Between the Kriegsmarine, French Navy, IJN and the Royal Navy (either captured or allied to the Germans) the US fleet would have been wiped out. At the start of the war the USN was roughly on a par with the RN. With all the other fleets added together, the Atlantic fleet would have been torn to pieces. Then you would start seeing landings by Axis forces all along the east coast.
And how can you possibly compare Europe to Israel in any case? Britain and France are states with over 1500 years of history. Israel has what, 65? It was carved out of Palestine without any regard for the wishes of the Palestinians, (along with jewish terrorist groups like the Irgun and Stern gang killing British soldiers trying to ensure an orderly transition) and kept afloat with massive miltary aid. If you cut it off, there would not be some immediate all out attack by all the arabs. Israel's nukes alone would stop that. What you would see is Israel not being able to mess with the region any more, and actually having to make a few concessions to their neighbours.
I don't understand how a patriotic American could support a state which has launched unprovoked attacks on US troops (USS Liberty), sold US tech to China, and now threatens to drag the US into war with Iran.
Are their people any less human or deserving of protection than the British of Europe? Do they not deserve to live?
How can you possibly compare your life or the lives of Europeans as more worthy of living than anyone else's? Who cares how long they have been around. USA has been around just over 240 years but yet, who was it that came to the aid of Europe?
Do you seriously say that Anglo loves are more worthy of living that the Jews?
Are their people any less human or deserving of protection than the British of Europe? Do they not deserve to live?
How can you possibly compare your life or the lives of Europeans as more worthy of living than anyone else's? Who cares how long they have been around. USA has been around just over 240 years but yet, who was it that came to the aid of Europe?
Do you seriously say that Anglo loves are more worthy of living that the Jews?
The point is they have no real right to be there. Britain is the homeland of the English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh. France is the homeland of the many French cultures. Israel is supposed to be the Jewish homeland, yet less than half of the world's Jews live there. It's little more than a colony, on a par with South Africa under Apartheid.
This isn't about survival. The US pulling out of the middle east will not result in every Jew in Israel being killed. It will knock them off their pedestal somewhat, but considering their behaviour, that will be for the better.
Will, I really did not realize you were bigoted.
We will again agree to disagree and I will not continue in this one anymore.
I am.quitting smoking and my patience is nonexistent at the moment.
Just look up USS Liberty on Google. You might have second thoughts about how much of a US ally Israel is.
I know about the USS liberty. Merry Christmas... Hey Macarena...
Divine Intervention
11-11-2012, 16:56
Just read an article about how apparently the Benghazi consulate was mainly a CIA operation.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/9650199/CIA-confirms-role-in-US-consulate-attack-in-Benghazi.html
is this redirecting some of the blame placed on Obama, back towards CIA? From what I understand the Administration has been accused of not listening to its intelligence agencies...but if the intelligence agency itself was the target, knew about it, and had the resource to defend itself (CIA has quite a nice budget), surely cant be blaming Bama too much?
anyway, this might all have been discussed already, not really following the situation.
The point is they have no real right to be there. Britain is the homeland of the English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh. France is the homeland of the many French cultures. Israel is supposed to be the Jewish homeland, yet less than half of the world's Jews live there. It's little more than a colony, on a par with South Africa under Apartheid.
This isn't about survival. The US pulling out of the middle east will not result in every Jew in Israel being killed. It will knock them off their pedestal somewhat, but considering their behaviour, that will be for the better.
why do you say they have no right to be there?
why do you say they have no right to be there?
Because their claim to it is tenuous at best. "God gave us the land several thousand years ago" Since then the vast majority of jews have lived elsewhere in the world, mainly Europe and the US. There wasn't any organised effort to create a "Jewish Homeland" until well into the 19th century, and by that time the land had been occupied by others for centuries. The only measure by which Israel can be considered legitimate is by the argument of "Might makes right" and that is a dark path indeed. Some would say that the jews need a homeland so they won't be persecuted, but in which western country has there been serious attemps at this since WW2? If the jews are a religion, they don't need a homeland, since there is no "Christian" homeland, no "Islamic" homeland or a specific land for any other religion, and if they are a race, there is no reason why they could not have occupied areas that weren't already taken.
the CIA director was too busy mailing his mistress 300x a day to forward the intel to his friends in Tampa (central command, ussoc) and Washington (pent / white house) :P
but that seems to be standard practice in the US Army ;-)
no wonder the grunts are misbehaving on the ground when the top 3 (former) generals lead by such high standards ;-)
Because their claim to it is tenuous at best. "God gave us the land several thousand years ago" Since then the vast majority of jews have lived elsewhere in the world, mainly Europe and the US. There wasn't any organised effort to create a "Jewish Homeland" until well into the 19th century, and by that time the land had been occupied by others for centuries. The only measure by which Israel can be considered legitimate is by the argument of "Might makes right" and that is a dark path indeed. Some would say that the jews need a homeland so they won't be persecuted, but in which western country has there been serious attemps at this since WW2? If the jews are a religion, they don't need a homeland, since there is no "Christian" homeland, no "Islamic" homeland or a specific land for any other religion, and if they are a race, there is no reason why they could not have occupied areas that weren't already taken.
Its also political suicide to suggest not supporting Isreal 100% if you're an American politician. I think you underestimate the Jewish presence in America.
Because their claim to it is tenuous at best. "God gave us the land several thousand years ago" Since then the vast majority of jews have lived elsewhere in the world, mainly Europe and the US. There wasn't any organised effort to create a "Jewish Homeland" until well into the 19th century, and by that time the land had been occupied by others for centuries. The only measure by which Israel can be considered legitimate is by the argument of "Might makes right" and that is a dark path indeed. Some would say that the jews need a homeland so they won't be persecuted, but in which western country has there been serious attemps at this since WW2? If the jews are a religion, they don't need a homeland, since there is no "Christian" homeland, no "Islamic" homeland or a specific land for any other religion, and if they are a race, there is no reason why they could not have occupied areas that weren't already taken.
Umm no.
United Nations Resolution 181 partitioned the territory from the British Mandate for Palestine into two states - one for Jews and one for Palestinian Arabs. All of the Arab countries objected to the creation of the Jewish state and fought a war against its creation. This was Israel's War of Independence in 1948. Despite their superior numbers, the Arab countries lost the war and the Palestinian state never materialized because of this loss. In the war that was waged, the territory allotted to be the Palestinian state by the UN partition resolution was divided between Israel and Jordan. The "Palestinian Arabs" were rejected by every single Arab country, with the exception of the small percentage that ended up in refugee camps in Jordan where they remain to this day.
Its also political suicide to suggest not supporting Isreal 100% if you're an American politician. I think you underestimate the Jewish presence in America.
Yes
Its also political suicide to suggest not supporting Isreal 100% if you're an American politician. I think you underestimate the Jewish presence in America.
Not true. Obama has been the least supportive of any president I can think of and yet he carried most of the Jewish vote. Israel practically endorsed Romney is this last election.
Umm no.
United Nations Resolution 181 partitioned the territory from the British Mandate for Palestine into two states - one for Jews and one for Palestinian Arabs. All of the Arab countries objected to the creation of the Jewish state and fought a war against its creation. This was Israel's War of Independence in 1948. Despite their superior numbers, the Arab countries lost the war and the Palestinian state never materialized because of this loss. In the war that was waged, the territory allotted to be the Palestinian state by the UN partition resolution was divided between Israel and Jordan. The "Palestinian Arabs" were rejected by every single Arab country, with the exception of the small percentage that ended up in refugee camps in Jordan where they remain to this day.
Not sure exactly how any of that negates my post. If Resolution 181 makes Israel legitmate then they have an obligation to allow a fully independent Palestinian state, which they have been opposed to for years (and supported in this by the US).
Umm no.
United Nations Resolution 181 partitioned the territory from the British Mandate for Palestine into two states - one for Jews and one for Palestinian Arabs. All of the Arab countries objected to the creation of the Jewish state and fought a war against its creation. This was Israel's War of Independence in 1948. Despite their superior numbers, the Arab countries lost the war and the Palestinian state never materialized because of this loss. In the war that was waged, the territory allotted to be the Palestinian state by the UN partition resolution was divided between Israel and Jordan. The "Palestinian Arabs" were rejected by every single Arab country, with the exception of the small percentage that ended up in refugee camps in Jordan where they remain to this day.
well it is actually right there for you to read into two states this breach of the resolution on the israeli part technicly means that israel has no right to exist because the resolutions stipulations says there is supose to be 2 states not 1 in other words israel is just squatting ....
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.