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.
What happened to holding an administration to account when they lie and good men die?
Now the evidence I've posted on this shows these men were left to die and staked out like goats.
They really are named that and this really IS what our own government seemed to believe was superior to the United States MARINES the Consulate had been asking for.
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Originally posted by Taiyed
Just stating the facts.
I should more accurately say, the large majority don't care.
You speak for the majority or the majority of your insignificant circle?
Post Script:
Your insignificant circle is as important as my circle.....I speak nothing of knowing what the 'majority' believes or thinks as they are individuals.edit on 2-11-2012 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by zonetripper2065
reply to post by Taiyed
OK even that aside he was stopped from deploying special forces who were ready and willing to go.
and THAT ^^^ is the Sheikh who is supposedly the "exchange value" of the purported kidnapping attempt/failure of Ambassador Stevens.
Heck....part of the people taking credit for the IED that blew out the side wall of the consulate well before this night happened, named themselves after the 'Blind Sheikh' the U.S. is still holding for the 1993 WTC terrorist attack
Originally posted by Taiyed
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
What happened to holding an administration to account when they lie and good men die?
Who lied?
And how did that supposed lie cause anyone to die?
Now the evidence I've posted on this shows these men were left to die and staked out like goats.
No, your evidence doesn't show that at all. This is the fantasy you have built up in your head.
They really are named that and this really IS what our own government seemed to believe was superior to the United States MARINES the Consulate had been asking for.
And can you imagine the faux outrage from the Right if Obama would have sent American troops into Libya???
You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth.
Nothing Obama would have done would please you, admit that right now and save all the faux outrage you are pretending to have.
Again, most people don't care. How dissapointed are you going to be when after the election this story just dies and everyone forgets about the fantasy built up Rambos that the Right has created?
Originally posted by Taiyed
reply to post by ownbestenemy
Isn't it all "Monday morning quarterback[ing]"? Even to the points you are making, you are speculating and discerning your opinion on facts after the matter; as is everyone else. Sadly, we must rely on fragmented reports and sources because no one is speaking forthright in regards to what happened that evening.
I am offering zero speculations my friend.
I am simply re-stating the facts released by the intelligence community.
I am not the one using rumors from blogs or "sources on the ground" to create a fantasy picture of something that didn't happen.
You are doing the speculating, you have no clue if there was a communication failure. You are completely making that up in your head with zero facts to back up your opinion.
Do you just blindly defend a man that in the least should be tried for impeachment. We vets do care and are mad as helllll.
You have no clue that the communication was in place and that there was no breakdown of it. You are completely making that up in your head with zero facts to back up your opinion.
Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
glad to see you finally got here ...and THAT ^^^ is the Sheikh who is supposedly the "exchange value" of the purported kidnapping attempt/failure of Ambassador Stevens.
Heck....part of the people taking credit for the IED that blew out the side wall of the consulate well before this night happened, named themselves after the 'Blind Sheikh' the U.S. is still holding for the 1993 WTC terrorist attack
Originally posted by Taiyed
You know too much to debate me about it, classic.
How many times now in this very thread have people tried to dodge my questions to them because only they know the real facts?
Originally posted by amfirst1
The bottom line is they wanted the Ambassador dead, so they set him up. It's pretty simple. If they wanted to send in support they could have done it. They had bases nearby and drones in the sky, including General Ham being ordered to stand down. It's obvious the Ambassador was involved in something and they wanted him shut up for good.
Originally posted by GrantedBail
reply to post by shaneslaughta
American soil? What are you talking about?