"Rogue" U.S. General Arrested for Ignoring 9/11 Bengzahi Stand-Down Order

reply to post by boomer135

ok, so based on my trusting your input, an F35 wasn't a possibility.
(no offense but nothing in those links say they aren't flying, just performing poorly and costing a bundle) be that as it may, i'm still not in a position to guess what may or may not have been available.

a question for you ... it sounds like you have some military exp under your belt, so, since all i can lay claim to is a KC135 joy ride and some family connections, i do know that the CIA has access to equip of which the military is unaware, do you think it's possible that something was at their disposal/dispatch that night ?

not asking for specifics (unless you know some) ... i just cannot let go of what i heard.
(no, i cannot repeat it verbatim and i wouldn't want it relayed as fact, however, i am convinced those soldiers were expecting airborne assistance)

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by boomer135

 

ok, so based on my trusting your input, an F35 wasn't a possibility.
(no offense but nothing in those links say they aren't flying, just performing poorly and costing a bundle) be that as it may, i'm still not in a position to guess what may or may not have been available.

a question for you ... it sounds like you have some military exp under your belt, so, since all i can lay claim to is a KC135 joy ride and some family connections, i do know that the CIA has access to equip of which the military is unaware, do you think it's possible that something was at their disposal/dispatch that night ?

not asking for specifics (unless you know some) ... i just cannot let go of what i heard.
(no, i cannot repeat it verbatim and i wouldn't want it relayed as fact, however, i am convinced those soldiers were expecting airborne assistance)

Don't get me wrong the jets are flying, but they are not operational yet. We couldn't send a squadron of f-35s overseas tomorrow and ask them to bomb something. Think of it as they are certified for flight by the FAA but are nowhere close to being certified for military operations.

Actually I was a boom operator on Kc-135s for six years. Funny you mention you flew on them once! Yeah the CIA has at their disposal basically whatever they want. Nobody is 100% sure what was overhead that night except the unarmed predators. I've heard stories about why they weren't armed but I don't know for sure what the truth is. But I'll say this again. I listened to the podcast you provided about his father, and I've seen all the official stories and the fake ones. I've came to the conclusion that there was never a guy on the annex roof lasering a mortar location for an airstrike. If somebody saw him using a laser to lase the area for an air assault, then it would have been a pulse laser system which is invisible to the human eye. So it wouldn't give up his position. If it didn't give up his position, then the whole story is bunk.

Originally posted by buckrogerstime
reply to post by Honor93

 

Obama was relatively careful to not jump to any conclusions immediately after the attack. The day after the attack, he told 60 Minutes that it didn't "sound like your normal demonstration."

All while The White House had it plastered all over the media that It was the video! And Obama and Hilary even apologized on Pakistani TV for the crimes of America. And to add insult to injury, an innocent man is still sitting in jail for Obamas lies. (Although I don’t agree with his video , which was freedom of speech.) This man was not in jail the day before this happened.

Can you explain your not feeling outrage that an innocent American is sitting in jail because of Obama's lies? One American is one Anerican too many. Next it could be you or your family. I still can’t get over that we have an American in jail for a presidents lie!

For two weeks this lie was on national TV. How can you possibly defend him when it is sitting right in front of your nose? Please do!

All while The White House had it plastered all over the media that It was the video! And Obama and Hilary even apologized on Pakistani TV for the crimes of America. And to add insult to injury, an innocent man is still sitting in jail for Obamas lies. (Although I don’t agree with his video , which was freedom of speech.) This man was not in jail the day before this happened.

Can you explain your not feeling outrage that an innocent American is sitting in jail because of Obama's lies? One American is one Anerican too many. Next it could be you or your family. I still can’t get over that we have an American in jail for a presidents lie!

For two weeks this lie was on national TV. How can you possible defend him when it is sitting right in front of your nose? Please do!

Seriously? You think that an American is in jail because of Obama lying is more important than the loss of American lives because Obama may have not acted during the assault? You need to change your priorities...Were here expressing outrage over the loss of life and your worried about a guy in jail.

And by the way he's not in jail because of Obama. He's in jail for violating his parole by using the internet or computers after being sentenced to 21 months in prison followed by five years of parole. So get your facts straight before coming to this very informative forum with lies and deceit.

news.oneindia.in...

The Egyptian American director of the anti-Islam film that triggered widespread protests was yesterday detained in Los Angeles for violating probation conditions.

Since Nakoula Basseley Nakoula had committed cheque fraud, he was handed a 21-month prison term in 2010. Nakoula was directed to not use computers or the Internet for 60 months without permission.

However, federal prosecutors found that the 55-year-old Coptic Christian had lied to his probation officers and used aliases. Assistant US Attorney Robert Dugdale described Nakoula as a flight risk and pointed out a "lengthy pattern of deception"

Originally posted by boomer135

All while The White House had it plastered all over the media that It was the video! And Obama and Hilary even apologized on Pakistani TV for the crimes of America. And to add insult to injury, an innocent man is still sitting in jail for Obamas lies. (Although I don’t agree with his video , which was freedom of speech.) This man was not in jail the day before this happened.

Can you explain your not feeling outrage that an innocent American is sitting in jail because of Obama's lies? One American is one Anerican too many. Next it could be you or your family. I still can’t get over that we have an American in jail for a presidents lie!

For two weeks this lie was on national TV. How can you possible defend him when it is sitting right in front of your nose? Please do!

Seriously? You think that an American is in jail because of Obama lying is more important than the loss of American lives because Obama may have not acted during the assault?

Do you realize what you just typed here? You are admitting that you feel it is totally acceptable for a president to lie. And it is also totally acceptable for a president to throw a man in jail under false pretenses. Everything our for fathers stood against. You really do need to pick up and move to a communistic country that agrees with your principles. Then you will get to see what the US really is all about. All while you are sitting in jail for speaking your mind.

And BTW, all crimes and inaction committed by our president are terribly wrong.

Like I said, this man was not in jail the day before this happened. They just used the probation business as an excuse to lock him up. They can do whatever they like since they are in control. Just like a police officer can falsely "claim" you resisted arrest. Ah yes, another issue for another day...

reply to post by elouina

Can you explain your not feeling outrage that an innocent American is sitting in jail because of Obama's lies?

ummm, why would i explain a feeling i don't embrace ?

i do feel outrage for such incident, why would you think otherwise ?
no offense intended, but the man is ALIVE which cannot be said of four others of whom are the topic of this thread.

i do not elevate one situation over the other, they are both equally bad, just for different reasons.

trust me, it isn't the first time and it certainly won't be the last.
yeah, that's a cynical opinion but it's mine.

For two weeks this lie was on national TV. How can you possibly defend him when it is sitting right in front of your nose? Please do!

what are you going on about ?
please link your misunderstanding.
who am i defending ?? and what gave you that opinion ?

ETA -- NVM elouina ... i see you weren't responding to me directly even though it's highlighted ... carry on.

ya know, after more and more details emerge, IF Gen Ham was "relieved of duty" by other than his own initiative/decision (notice i didn't say arrested cause we do know he was relieved) ... i'm beginning to think the reason was more likely in line with the reason given over McCrystal ... speaking badly of superiors.

he probably called BHO a jackazz (or something much more creative) for not instituting CBA and abandoning those men, leading to their eventual demise.

thanks to Boomer for sharing, so i'm posting it here too ... it does tend to explain alot.
www.breitbart.com...

reply to post by boomer135

well, i will take your word for it, just know ... i am trying to learn.
am reading this, and this just cause i can't shake it off that easily.

can you suggest any other valuable reading regarding the issue ?

Do you realize what you just typed here? You are admitting that you feel it is totally acceptable for a president to lie. And it is also totally acceptable for a president to throw a man in jail under false pretenses. Everything our for fathers stood against. You really do need to pick up and move to a communistic country that agrees with your principles. Then you will get to see what the US really is all about. All while you are sitting in jail for speaking your mind.

And BTW, all crimes and inaction committed by our president are terribly wrong.

Like I said, this man was not in jail the day before this happened. They just used the probation business as an excuse to lock him up. They can do whatever they like since they are in control. Just like a police officer can falsely "claim" you resisted arrest. Ah yes, another issue for another day...

edit on 6-11-2012 by elouina because: (no reason given)

Um, no that's not what I said. I said that we are here disgusted with the loss of American lives in Libya and your here crying for the release of a guy who made the video. A guy, I remind you, who is NOT being held by the Obama administration and has violated his parole stemming from a 2010 charge of check fraud. He's currently serving 60 months of probation with the conditions that he doesn't use any alias's or you the computer and internet. He's broken 8 violations of his parole and was denied bail. If he's so innocent, then why did the Secret Service question him on Sept 28th, 2012, 17 days after the attacks? For the record, his parole officer is the one who turned him into the US Marshalls. It was with the US Marshalls, not the Secret Service, that he left the court with to go to protective custody. I already showed you my source. Where's yours?

So before you come on this thread and start blabbing out lies about this man why don't you learn some of the facts first. Like the fact that he stole over 800,000 dollars from people while writing these checks, or the fact that he's also a porn movie director. But above all, if your gonna come here and boycott for his release from jail while we talk about the death of Americans, maybe you should go move to another country, if they will take you that is.

Well by now we all have seen that CIA Director David Petraeus is quitting the CIA after the FBI discovered he was having an affair with his biographer. Could this be a cover for the Bengzahi attacks? Well lets take a look at some other info that may hold some wait...

First, the Petraeus retirement. Here's my local newspaper report on why its happening.
www.kansascity.com...
Specifically look at this:

The affair was discovered during an FBI investigation, according to officials briefed on the developments. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the matter. Petraeus carried on the affair with his biographer and reserve Army officer Paula Broadwell, according to several U.S. officials with knowledge of the situation. They spoke anonymously because they were not authorized to discuss the investigation that led to the resignation publicly.

The FBI discovered the relationship by monitoring Petraeus' emails, after being alerted Broadwell may have had access to his personal email account, two of the officials said. Broadwell did not respond to voice mail or email messages seeking comment. Petraeus' resignation shocked Washington's intelligence and political communities. It was a sudden end to the public career of the best-known general of the post 9/11 wars, a man sometimes mentioned as a potential Republican presidential candidate. His service was effusively praised Friday in statements from lawmakers of both parties.

This is particularly interesting though...

The resignation comes at a sensitive time. The administration and the CIA have struggled to defend security and intelligence lapses before the attack that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three others. It was an issue during the presidential campaign that ended with Obama's re-election Tuesday.

The CIA has come under intense scrutiny for providing the White House and other administration officials with talking points that led them to say the Benghazi attack was a result of a film protest, not a militant terror attack. It has become clear that the CIA was aware the attack was distinct from the film protests roiling across other parts of the Muslim world.

So, um, are they publicly saying that the CIA provided the White House with false information that led them to say the attacks were not a militant terror attack?

And the kicker:

Morell rather than Petraeus now is expected to testify at closed congressional briefings next week on the Sept. 11 attacks on the consulate in Benghazi.

CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell is who is taking over for Petraeus until someone can be found to replace him. But how the hell is he getting out of testifying in front of Congress on November 15th? Just because he left early gets him out of trouble for the attacks? That's crap to me.

So who else might be on the chopping block. Lets take a look...
A look at those expected to leave cabinet and potential replacements in parentheses...www.kansascity.com...=omni_popular

- Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. (Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.; U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice; former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman; Deputy Secretary of State William Burns).
- Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. (White House chief of staff Jack Lew; former Bill Clinton chief of staff Erskine Bowles).
-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. (Ashton Carter, Panetta's deputy; Michele Flournoy, former Defense Department policy chief). - White House senior adviser David Plouffe.

The first one I highlighted. U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice-hmmm, isn't she the one that told the world at the U.N. that it was all about the video???

The second one is obvious. Leon Panetta will be gone for this debacle as well. That's a no brainer. However, I don't see any of the replacements a good choice. They need a well known name in that position.

Well just wanted to comment in something other than the 280+ post on his firing here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Have a nice day

Originally posted by wasaka
According to this report, once General Ham received the order to stand down his response was to screw it, he was going to help anyhow. Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command.

If true, the General had the balls to ignoring an order to not do what he thought was the right thing to do. This tale closely follows a current ABC TV show, Last Resort.

edit on 30-10-2012 by wasaka because: link to story on Last Resort

I used to think that if America revolted the troops would stand down from harming other Americans but now i'm not so sure! God help us all now cause noone else can.

So... based of this one gleans the intelligence that, not all of the special forces elements of the USA are in agreement with the political arm of the nation? Hm.

I call bull#.

Originally posted by nosacrificenofreedom
I used to think that if America revolted the troops would stand down from harming other Americans but now i'm not so sure! God help us all now cause noone else can.

I dont think the 2 situations are the same so we need to be careful on this one..

As much as I dislike Obama he is the commander in chief.. It sets a very dangerous precedent for our military to ignore orders from the civilian leadership. Thats one slope I dont think we should be anywhere close to.

Well, it seems the last few good men out there are being arrested by the powers thet be....good thing he made it that far.