BENGHAZI!!!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-10-2015, 05:56 PM
RE: BENGHAZI!!!
We run weapons illegally out of all our embassies?

I'll take that bet.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-10-2015, 05:58 PM
RE: BENGHAZI!!!
(23-10-2015 05:56 PM)BnW Wrote:  We run weapons illegally out of all our embassies?

I'll take that bet.

Of course. Who doesn't?

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like GirlyMan's post
23-10-2015, 06:16 PM
RE: BENGHAZI!!!
I have no doubt that this is not the first time we've done something illegal out of a US embassy. I suspect that has been business-as-usual since the end of WWII. Doesn't make it ok, though. And, that she allowed it to happen means Clinton bears responsibility for the death of those 4 people.

There are legitimate questions about the actions our government took in Benghazi and other places. The American public deserves the truth on these issues. And, into our 8th investigation on this particular event, we can be very confident that relevant questions won't ever be asked and there will be no truth sought or revealed.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BnW's post
23-10-2015, 06:29 PM
RE: BENGHAZI!!!
The simple fact is, they asked for more security multiple times. The requests were repeatedly denied. Whether that denial came from Hillary herself is the important part. There is no proof that she was the final person that made the decisions. However, someone should have been fired, and they were right to ask her why NOT ONE person had been disciplined or lost a paycheck for the failure. After they were killed she didn't call one person into her office and say "hey, what the fuck? You denied their request for extra security 20 times? You're fucking fired. Clean out your desk you moron."

Not one shred of accountability. She was in charge. She could have punished someone for failing to bring the situation to her attention. But she did nothing.

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Lord Dark Helmet's post
23-10-2015, 06:33 PM
RE: BENGHAZI!!!
(23-10-2015 06:29 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  The simple fact is, they asked for more security multiple times. The requests were repeatedly denied.

I keep hearing that and I don't dispute it but I'd like to see citations. I've heard other reports say they were offered and refused extra security as unnecessary.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-10-2015, 06:41 PM
RE: BENGHAZI!!!
(23-10-2015 06:33 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(23-10-2015 06:29 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  The simple fact is, they asked for more security multiple times. The requests were repeatedly denied.

I keep hearing that and I don't dispute it but I'd like to see citations. I've heard other reports say they were offered and refused extra security as unnecessary.

I posted a link a few pages back to a document from July 2012 requesting 13 additional security officers. The panel members yesterday during the testimony kept mentioning "20 times" they requested extra security. Also there is a slew of documents on the house website showing their requests.

Edit: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interact...-security/

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-10-2015, 06:54 PM (This post was last modified: 23-10-2015 06:58 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: BENGHAZI!!!
(23-10-2015 06:41 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  
(23-10-2015 06:33 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  I keep hearing that and I don't dispute it but I'd like to see citations. I've heard other reports say they were offered and refused extra security as unnecessary.

I posted a link a few pages back to a document from July 2012 requesting 13 additional security officers. The panel members yesterday during the testimony kept mentioning "20 times" they requested extra security. Also there is a slew of documents on the house website showing their requests.

Where are me and onlinebiker getting the info that the ambassador in fact felt additional security was not necessary? If it's been debunked please show me. And I'm not sure what level of extra security you would like. A squad of 8 men would've just meant 8 more dead men. It would've taken a platoon to prevent the deaths. Do we have embassies with a platoon of 50 or more soldiers protecting them? And even that was not sufficient for the Beirut Barracks Bombing.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
23-10-2015, 07:07 PM
RE: BENGHAZI!!!
(23-10-2015 06:54 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(23-10-2015 06:41 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  I posted a link a few pages back to a document from July 2012 requesting 13 additional security officers. The panel members yesterday during the testimony kept mentioning "20 times" they requested extra security. Also there is a slew of documents on the house website showing their requests.

Where are me and onlinebiker getting the info that the ambassador in fact felt additional security was not necessary? If it's been debunked please show me. And I'm not sure what level of extra security you would like. A squad of 8 men would've just meant 8 more dead men. It would've taken a platoon to prevent the deaths. Do we have embassies with a platoon of 50 or more soldiers protecting them? And even that was not sufficient for the Beirut Barracks Bombing.

I googled it earlier (the thing about the ambassador turning away extra security) and all I found were 3 year old stories that preceded the release of the documents showing he had requested extra security. Not sure the entire story with that, perhaps he turned down extra security before he thought there was a risk but changed his mind later?

He specifically requested 13 extra security personnel. 13 extra marines would have been at least something. 13 marines could seriously fuck some shit up, or at least deter it.

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Lord Dark Helmet's post
23-10-2015, 07:18 PM (This post was last modified: 23-10-2015 07:24 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: BENGHAZI!!!
(23-10-2015 07:07 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  
(23-10-2015 06:54 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Where are me and onlinebiker getting the info that the ambassador in fact felt additional security was not necessary? If it's been debunked please show me. And I'm not sure what level of extra security you would like. A squad of 8 men would've just meant 8 more dead men. It would've taken a platoon to prevent the deaths. Do we have embassies with a platoon of 50 or more soldiers protecting them? And even that was not sufficient for the Beirut Barracks Bombing.

I googled it earlier (the thing about the ambassador turning away extra security) and all I found were 3 year old stories that preceded the release of the documents showing he had requested extra security. Not sure the entire story with that, perhaps he turned down extra security before he thought there was a risk but changed his mind later?

Maybe so. Gonna look more for the story.

(23-10-2015 07:07 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  He specifically requested 13 extra security personnel. 13 extra marines would have been at least something. 13 marines could seriously fuck some shit up, or at least deter it.

You are right. 13 Marines could've easily secured the compound against a mob. There'd be a lot of collateral damage. Makes me wonder what is the typical level of security for a US Embassy?

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-10-2015, 07:39 PM
RE: BENGHAZI!!!
(22-10-2015 09:48 PM)yakherder Wrote:  
(22-10-2015 09:45 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  Murdering civilians whenever the fuck they felt like it?

What are they? Cop wannabes?

Easy to believe that bullshit when you've only seen one experienced one side of the story.

Experienced it? What about the civilians they gunned down. In case you forgot:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/13/us/blackwa...entencing/

Quote:Ex-Blackwater contractors sentenced in Nusoor Square shooting in Iraq

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: