The father of a Benghazi victim destroys CNN's Costello's attempts to deflect for Hilary.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Orionx2

What you guys are not understanding is that there may have been a reason to lie about what happened in Benghazi because those people in Benghazi may have been doing something they should not have been doing.

Classified support for rebels, including running guns.

There is a lot more to this than we know and you guys are clutching pearls over the scratch on the surface.

So you can't prove your own claim.

That's all I need to know.

Nope you can't...

Hillary has been on the spotlight since her husband was in office. People have concocted conspiracies around her because they dislike her and have to resort to conspiracies to justify it.

Know why? Because there is no real evidence to substantiate their claims.

All of it is conspiratorial nuttery.

What we don't know is why she lied.

So ~~no proof and conspiratorial nuttery but then you admit she is a liar.

And oh wait

It's quite possible that something else was going on in Benghazi and they had to lie to cover their asses.

Why? It may have been a classified operation.

That sure sounds like some of that conspiratorial nuttery.


Really Introvert you keep contradicting yourself...

a reply to: projectvxn

Yes I am. This operation is no different than any other embassy protection or response situation. It should NEVER have gone down the way it did. PERIOD.

It should not have gone down the way it did...but it did. This is not the first time we have had attacks and causalities at an embassy. During the Bush presidency we had 60 people die in 13 attacks. Why are we making a bigger deal out of this than those that sacrificed their lives in previous attacks?

Stupid question, actually. You know why.

That is SOP.

Things don't always go as planned, as we know.

Don't patronize me.

Just trying to show a bit of respect, while highlighting your illogical approach.

My bad.

a reply to: misfit312

I have not spoken in absolutes. Only speculating.

Surely you know the difference, right?

a reply to: introvert

The SOP is about the response.

Not about the casualties of the initial attack.

I'm willing to accept the fact that we didn't see it coming.

We certainly didn't see Herat coming.

But I am not willing to accept sitting on our asses for 12 hours waiting for orders that would never come. That is unacceptable and this comment shows that you do not understand what QRF means(Quick Response Force)...

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: CynConcepts

All of it is conspiratorial nuttery.

Classic Introvert...

When ya got nothin...pull out the nuttery card..

play on...player.

a reply to: projectvxn

Benghazi was unique in that the attacks occurred at two separate locations over the span of many hours and the attack was carried out by well over a hundred men.

originally posted by: Tucket

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: CynConcepts

All of it is conspiratorial nuttery.

Classic Introvert...

When ya got nothin...pull out the nuttery card..

play on...player.

I will. Thank you.

I have no problem speculating on certain things, but when conspiracy is contradicted by verifiable facts, we must call a nut a nut.

Yeah, I went to the meme. So what?

a reply to: introvert

Benghazi was unique in that the attacks occurred at two separate locations over the span of many hours and the attack was carried out by well over a hundred men.

To which there were plenty of assets to respond.

The situation was not "unique". It's a situation that has played out many times before in places like Afghanistan.

I can say without a shred of doubt that the people who could have responded if they had received the order would have put those people down fast.

The FIRST thing that would have gone in would have been the UH60DAP followed by the Delta teams they had on standby.

Here's the DAP

a reply to: projectvxn

It's unfortunate that higher level military people disagree with you, like Gen. Petraeus.

a reply to: introvert

Then, from now on, we can just ignore your opinion on everything, no matter your training or experience, right? I mean of course unless you were right there and privy to all the details.
Right?

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: projectvxn

It's unfortunate that higher level military people disagree with you, like Gen. Petraeus.

I don't give a flying F what the hell that guy has to say.

He's a political tool and has been a very long time.

Nice strawman by the way.

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: introvert

Then, from now on, we can just ignore your opinion on everything, no matter your training or experience, right? I mean of course unless you were right there and privy to all the details.
Right?

Sure, unless there are facts to prove what is claimed.

It's about time you guys learned how to properly debate.

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: projectvxn

It's unfortunate that higher level military people disagree with you, like Gen. Petraeus.

I don't give a flying F what the hell that guy has to say.

He's a political tool and has been a very long time.

Nice strawman by the way.

But he's a military expert, well beyond your level that has access to information you do not.

Why are you now going to dismiss military experience and expertise?

Guess you are proving my point.

How ironic.

a reply to: introvert

But he's a military expert, well beyond your level that has access to information you do not.

He also directly answered to the President.

He going to do and say what the president tells him to do and say.

My knowledge is operational. I know the SOP and how we are supposed to respond when the call goes out.

We did not respond in Benghazi as prescribed by SOP. That is a FACT. The only way SOP can be disregarded is if someone MADE THAT CALL.

Who made that call and why?

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Tucket

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: CynConcepts

All of it is conspiratorial nuttery.

Classic Introvert...

When ya got nothin...pull out the nuttery card..

play on...player.

I will. Thank you.

I have no problem speculating on certain things, but when conspiracy is contradicted by verifiable facts, we must call a nut a nut.

You do have a problem though..

some weird phobia against discussing conspiracies....on a conspiracy site no less..

nuttery..

Beyond everything else, how messed up is it that Hillary, the Obama administration, the media and all their supporters, think it's completely normal to blame a video creator for the violent actions of religious fanatics who don't like the video creator's rightful opinion?

Something dark is is taking us all over.

a reply to: projectvxn

You've already trapped yourself in your own hypocrisy and have proven my point that this is more about politics than fact.

That's all I need to know.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: projectvxn

It's unfortunate that higher level military people disagree with you, like Gen. Petraeus.

The guy who was convicted of transporting confidential information, like Hillary?

a reply to: Tucket

A decent conspiracy has an element of fact.

The nuts tend to dismiss fact.

Not my problem.