It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by elouina
Ok so I posted the videos of the committee hearing.. Can someone here honestly tell me that they watched them? Much new evidence came out in the hearing. This tidbit is what alarmed me the most. There were terrorists attacks at Benghazi, a month or so earlier than Sept 11, that were covered up They called them tests of the security. On one of those occasions a wall was blown out. Now how outrageous is all of this?
edit on 28-10-2012 by elouina because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by MrInquisitive
reply to post by JacKatMtn
So this whole thread is about an article by FOX news claiming a source on the ground during the Benghazi attack?
This is the same FOX news that showed a picture of Frederick Douglass when it had a news segment about the Lincoln-(Stephen) Douglas debate, and is notorious for putting up the picture of the wrong person when a story on a Democratic politician comes up, and even misrepresents the political affiliation of some Republicans.
It is also the same network whose audience is the least informed of all viewers/consumers of news (google "fox news audience less informed" to find a plethora of links on this subject).
So if you expect me or other eschewers of FAUX News to accept this story as fact, think again. If this went down as right-wingers/Obama haters claim and their is some witness to it, then that person should come forward as a whistle blower. Until then it is just an unsubstantiated claim from a "news" network not known for disseminating facts.
Originally posted by MrInquisitive
reply to post by JacKatMtn
So this whole thread is about an article by FOX news claiming a source on the ground during the Benghazi attack?
This is the same FOX news that showed a picture of Frederick Douglass when it had a news segment about the Lincoln-(Stephen) Douglas debate, and is notorious for putting up the picture of the wrong person when a story on a Democratic politician comes up, and even misrepresents the political affiliation of some Republicans.
It is also the same network whose audience is the least informed of all viewers/consumers of news (google "fox news audience less informed" to find a plethora of links on this subject).
So if you expect me or other eschewers of FAUX News to accept this story as fact, think again. If this went down as right-wingers/Obama haters claim and their is some witness to it, then that person should come forward as a whistle blower. Until then it is just an unsubstantiated claim from a "news" network not known for disseminating facts.edit on 28-10-2012 by MrInquisitive because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by girlofmountain1
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
Well if the other news agencies would cover the story we might see it there too. But noooooooo, they cant talk about something that might not make the President look good. Thats their GUY!!
The U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, was operating under a lower security standard than a typical consulate when it was attacked this month, according to State Department officials.
The mission was a rented villa and considered a temporary facility by the agency, which allowed a waiver that permitted fewer guards and security measures than a standard embassy or consulate, according to the officials.
"Someone made the decision that the mission in Benghazi was so critical that they waived the standard security requirements, which presents unique challenges to the diplomatic security service as you can imagine," said Fred Burton, vice president for Intelligence at STRATFOR, an intelligence analysis group.
While standards were lower at the compound, security had been enhanced at the post after a number of incidents this year that included a failed bombing attempt against the compound in June, according to sources.
Several security changes were made over the past few months, the officials said. These included additional barriers and barbed wire, increased lighting, chain link fences, additional sand bags and closed circuit television.
Originally posted by Swills
reply to post by Grimpachi
As far as the drones are concerned you're only gonna be reading conflicting reports but either way the battle lasted for seven hours so if the drone did come 2 hours into the battle it still had 5 hours of footage. What you need to know is this, the Gov't knew the attacks happened in the past and more to come, especially on 9/11/12. So in my opinion, the drone(s) were filming the attack from start to finish.edit on 28-10-2012 by Swills because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by Swills
I guess we will have to disagree on some of those assertions. Like I said the stand down order has been contested and I will wait and see what the truth is.
Originally posted by antonia
Originally posted by Swills
reply to post by antonia
Do you deny the US Gov't denied them security and knew the attacks were coming?
They knew the consulate was under threat, but diplomats in the area were always under threat. This does not prove they knew there was going to be an attack on that day.
Originally posted by queenofswords
Originally posted by Swills
reply to post by Grimpachi
As far as the drones are concerned you're only gonna be reading conflicting reports but either way the battle lasted for seven hours so if the drone did come 2 hours into the battle it still had 5 hours of footage. What you need to know is this, the Gov't knew the attacks happened in the past and more to come, especially on 9/11/12. So in my opinion, the drone(s) were filming the attack from start to finish.edit on 28-10-2012 by Swills because: (no reason given)
Please clarify. You think the drones were there specifically and for the direct purpose to record this attack from start to finish???!
Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by Swills
I guess we will have to disagree on some of those assertions. Like I said the stand down order has been contested and I will wait and see what the truth is. On the subject of sending in troops blindly we are too far apart on that issue. I have been in a few situations where I felt it was a suicide mission so I am glad to know we aren’t all just pawns and some thought actually goes into risking people’s lives.
It would be interesting to know just how often threats are made on Facebook.
For example, following a May 22 early-morning attack on a facility that housed the International Committee on the Red Cross, a Facebook page claimed responsibility, and said the attack was a warning and a “message for the Americans disturbing the skies over Derna.” That reference was likely to American surveillance drones over a city that provided fighters to al Qaeda in Iraq in the last decade.
In June a Facebook page associated with militants linked to the late Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi posted a threat to Stevens based on the route he took for his morning jog. The Facebook page also posted a picture of Stevens. The letter to Clinton notes that “after stopping these morning runs for about a week, the Ambassador resumed them.”