Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Update on Benghazi


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Update on Benghazi Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Update on Benghazi - 11/5/2013 6:00:51 PM   
TheHeretic


Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline 		Sorry, Ron, but leading with Nazi slurs just throws you and the gotta-potty dance avatar back off the screen.

Bye.

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.


(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 61
RE: Update on Benghazi - 11/5/2013 7:43:29 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Um, did Bush lie about any of those attacks? The "cause" of any of those attacks? Did Bush have his UN envoy lie to the UN about the attacks?

I'm pretty sure W never even held a press conference on any of them.


Huh. So, there was no lie about the attacks. There was no lie about the cause of the attacks. There was no lie to the UN about the attacks.

You missed the point. W never even discussed them. He never even acknowledged they had happened.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 62
RE: Update on Benghazi - 11/5/2013 11:47:35 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

One quote of actionable intelligence, more when I have time:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/militia-hired-state-dept-warned-it-wouldn-t-protect-stevens-movements-benghazi

You think that is actionable intelligence? All that shows is a militia said it wasn't going to work for us any more.


Yeah?

So you think not having an escort as you walk around an active insurgency - you don't think thats actionable, huh?
You don't think you could engage new escorts, send marines, recall the ambassador?

The Ambassador knew it was a chaotic situation and that his personal safety was not guaranteed. He went any way. That's part of the job. A job which BTW the conservatives have mercilessly trashed for decades. The irony of you guys suddenly rushing to defend a diplomat is just too much.

And actionable intelligence has a meaning. That is it is intelligence that lets us take a specific action to foil a plot or achieve some other goal. This is far from actionable intelligence. It is simply a group saying they weren't going to be available to be paid by us anymore. No where did they say it was because guys they hate and have tried to wipe out were about to attack the US consulate.



Again. Thats simply not true.

If you recall - I told you that the embassy staff was told by the militia that there was going to be an attack. They were going to stay home because their family was being threatened.

If you read the link - one of the guys stayed home. This story is corroborated again and again - do your own homework and look it up.

As for the rest of this


Actionable intelligence:
Anniversary of 9-11 is coming up: Possible action: Get more guards
Actionable intelligence: Every western embassy and presence bombed into leaving: Action: Keep aircraft and RR group in theater.
Actionable intelligence: Your guards are affiliated with terrorist groups: Possible actions: Fire the guards? Get new ones. Improve the security of the compound.
AI: Warning that an attack was imminent at the compound. Possible actions: move the mission. Get more guards.
AI: Catch the militia filming your compound: Possible action: Interrogate him. Move the mission. Call in RR team.



(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 63
RE: Update on Benghazi - 11/6/2013 2:29:14 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Again. Thats simply not true.

If you recall - I told you that the embassy staff was told by the militia that there was going to be an attack. They were going to stay home because their family was being threatened.

You claimed that but it isn't true. What really happened is weeks earlier a militia said they'd no longer work for us. That is no proof of something about to happen.

quote:

Actionable intelligence:
Anniversary of 9-11 is coming up: Possible action: Get more guards
Actionable intelligence: Every western embassy and presence bombed into leaving: Action: Keep aircraft and RR group in theater.
Actionable intelligence: Your guards are affiliated with terrorist groups: Possible actions: Fire the guards? Get new ones. Improve the security of the compound.
AI: Warning that an attack was imminent at the compound. Possible actions: move the mission. Get more guards.
AI: Catch the militia filming your compound: Possible action: Interrogate him. Move the mission. Call in RR team.

None of that is actionable. None of it gives a target to deal with or any sign that something would happen at a specific place and time.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 64
RE: Update on Benghazi - 11/6/2013 2:37:15 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline 		Snicker

I gave 7 cases of events- and the ACTION it could have prompted that would have been prudent and prevented the tragedy.

That is the very definition of "actionable intelligence"

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 65
RE: Update on Benghazi - 11/6/2013 2:41:58 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Snicker

I gave 7 cases of events- and the ACTION it could have prompted that would have been prudent and prevented the tragedy.

That is the very definition of "actionable intelligence"


No. it is not. When people who are in the intelligence business say actionable intelligence it has a specific meaning. You simply tossed it out there like it supported the lies you've been repeating about a tragedy you only care about because FNC told you to and because you so hate the President you will clutch at any opportunity to portray the man negatively.

It is boring and pathetic. Your side lost the election. The American people were not deceived or tricked, your side simply failed to make the case that a rich PoS with no empathy who only cared about himself and his friends should run this country. It is long past time to get over it and move on.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 66
RE: Update on Benghazi - 11/6/2013 2:59:01 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Snicker

I gave 7 cases of events- and the ACTION it could have prompted that would have been prudent and prevented the tragedy.

That is the very definition of "actionable intelligence"


No. it is not. When people who are in the intelligence business say actionable intelligence it has a specific meaning. You simply tossed it out there like it supported the lies you've been repeating about a tragedy you only care about because FNC told you to and because you so hate the President you will clutch at any opportunity to portray the man negatively.

It is boring and pathetic. Your side lost the election. The American people were not deceived or tricked, your side simply failed to make the case that a rich PoS with no empathy who only cared about himself and his friends should run this country. It is long past time to get over it and move on.


Go to a dictionary. You're wrong.

dictionary.com:
Definition: information with a practical and relevant application, esp. about users of goods and services for purposes of business planning and strategy
Usage: business


Collins English dictionary:

(military) the necessary background information that will enable someone to deal quickly and efficiently with a particular situation


Regarding the rest: I'm afraid your fixation with attempting to abscribe views to me is, as pretty usual, again wrong.
I did not vote for Romney. Who I did vote for is none of your business, but I am, of course, happy to tell you I didn't vote for the current clown either. Romney was not "my" candidate. I held he was unelectable from the beginning.

Evangelicals just wouldn't vote for a mormon.
As opposed to dimocrats, who were happy to vote for a moron.

Now of course that isn't really true - it was just poetic. Obama is plenty smart enough. And plenty likable enough - well if you're chris mathews maybe a touch too likable... His policies bite.


< Message edited by Phydeaux -- 11/6/2013 3:02:59 AM >

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 67
RE: Update on Benghazi - 11/6/2013 4:00:12 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Sorry, Ron, but leading with Nazi slurs just throws you and the gotta-potty dance avatar back off the screen.

Bye.


Thanks, noisome idiots are tiresome. L:eading with Alinsky slurs is not your finest hour, but that escapes you.  

< Message edited by mnottertail -- 11/6/2013 4:02:07 AM >

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to TheHeretic)
Profile   Post #: 68
RE: Update on Benghazi - 11/6/2013 4:11:12 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
If you recall - I told you that the embassy staff was told by the militia that there was going to be an attack.


Yeah, you say and repeat a lot of stupid shit.  That don't give it any special place in the truth and veracity arena. 

quote:


I gave 7 cases of events- and the ACTION it could have prompted that would have been prudent and prevented the tragedy.


Where?  It was not on this thread.  Ken has the sense of actionable intelligence right as concerns military ops, and your dictionary (although watered down) does too.  They agree, a nobody sending an uneasy email to another nobody parked in computers....there is just something that lacks the necessary background information that will enable someone to deal quickly and efficiently with a particular situation, for instance. 


Again, just because YOU say it, don't make it so.  That's why you don't get to actually read the emails between the nobodies.



_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 69
RE: Update on Benghazi - 11/6/2013 4:24:15 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
That he was going to get the people responsible, and then his segue constructed so it was Saddam, and that he was training al-queda, and the list goes on, it was a long-chained, multi-faceted lie.


Yep. That's exactly the same as telling the American people and the UN that the attack was due to a youtube video.

Exactly the same.

We went after al Qaeda.
We went after bin Laden.

Oddly enough, though, Bush had all the authority to go after Saddam as Obama had for Libya, and Syria. Now, correct me if I'm wrong (or if I'm right, I know that part doesn't always matter to some ), but if someone is going to base their criticism of Bush's military foray into Iraq on his not having the authority to do so, then that same criticism should be leveled at the Obama Administration.

Maybe 9/11 was a prescient attack for that youtube video...



Nope that is exactly not the same thing, even to a simpleton.
Well, what we should have did, according to his words, would be go after Saudia Arabia.
We didnt go after Bin Laden, he let him go (*TWICE*)  Obama had to kill the fucker.
I think if someone is going base their criticism of Bush's military foray into Iraq on his not having the authority to do so, your peroration for that is correct.  When someone does that, let me know, I will stand with you.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 70
RE: Update on Benghazi - 11/6/2013 5:00:14 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Um, did Bush lie about any of those attacks? The "cause" of any of those attacks? Did Bush have his UN envoy lie to the UN about the attacks?

I'm pretty sure W never even held a press conference on any of them.

Huh. So, there was no lie about the attacks. There was no lie about the cause of the attacks. There was no lie to the UN about the attacks.

You missed the point. W never even discussed them. He never even acknowledged they had happened.


No? What was there to discuss? It sure seems like things were pretty cut and dried. The news went out. There was no deflection or spin as to the cause. Did you read the parts that I quoted? In a couple of them, the quoted material was quoting President Bush. How does that line up with him not acknowledging they happened?

You may think - I'm not sure how - that any or all of those 13 instances are the same as Benghazi, but you are completely wrong. You questioned whether Bush had sent warplanes. Of course not. In suicide bombings, car bombings, and brief gunfights, there isn't much time at all to respond by scrambling jets. Outside of the times our ambassador was killed by a car bomb (suicide bomber rammed a bomb-filled car into the ambassador's vehicle) and 7 Americans died in a coordinated bombing attack on 3 housing compounds, there weren't any American losses. One of the attacks wasn't even directed at Americans, but at the local security presence guarding the American embassy.

We get it. You hate(d) W. He isn't the President. He wasn't at fault for any of these 13 events. He didn't lie to us about any of these 13 events. He didn't send our UN representative to the UN to lie about any of these 13 events.

I get that there is a disagreement about the timing of the Benghazi attack and whether there was enough time to scramble American forces to help. I, personally, don't know if the President was right or wrong in that. I would like you to notice, however, that my complaint about Benghazi has always been framed around the deceitful response after the attack, not the response during the attack.




_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 71
RE: Update on Benghazi - 11/6/2013 6:22:21 AM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline
We don`t want to even know what he`s doing when he throws his stalin slurs......TMI for sure....

_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 72
RE: Update on Benghazi - 11/6/2013 10:13:47 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
(military) the necessary background information that will enable someone to deal quickly and efficiently with a particular situation

And none of the bullshit you posted reach that standard. As to your claims about not supporting cons, I'm sick to death ofr cons coming here and declaiming every loser they trot forth as their standard bearers after they lose. It's not even remotely believable. Next you'll be claiming to be a "moderate independent."

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 73
RE: Update on Benghazi - 11/6/2013 10:16:24 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
You may think - I'm not sure how - that any or all of those 13 instances are the same as Benghazi, but you are completely wrong. You questioned whether Bush had sent warplanes. Of course not. In suicide bombings, car bombings, and brief gunfights, there isn't much time at all to respond by scrambling jets. Outside of the times our ambassador was killed by a car bomb (suicide bomber rammed a bomb-filled car into the ambassador's vehicle) and 7 Americans died in a coordinated bombing attack on 3 housing compounds, there weren't any American losses. One of the attacks wasn't even directed at Americans, but at the local security presence guarding the American embassy.


They're all exactly like Benghazi. Bush didn't send warplanes despite not knowing if the attacks would continue or not. Exactly what cons are attacking the President for.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 74
RE: Update on Benghazi - 11/6/2013 10:49:33 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
You may think - I'm not sure how - that any or all of those 13 instances are the same as Benghazi, but you are completely wrong. You questioned whether Bush had sent warplanes. Of course not. In suicide bombings, car bombings, and brief gunfights, there isn't much time at all to respond by scrambling jets. Outside of the times our ambassador was killed by a car bomb (suicide bomber rammed a bomb-filled car into the ambassador's vehicle) and 7 Americans died in a coordinated bombing attack on 3 housing compounds, there weren't any American losses. One of the attacks wasn't even directed at Americans, but at the local security presence guarding the American embassy.

They're all exactly like Benghazi. Bush didn't send warplanes despite not knowing if the attacks would continue or not. Exactly what cons are attacking the President for.


Firefight vs. car bomb - one is over pretty quick, while the other might not end so quick.

Was the mortar attack on an empty consulate like Benghazi?

Was the car bomb driven into the ambassador's vehicle like Benghazi?

And, while we're at it, I don't know if Obama could have helped the situation in Benghazi by scrambling jets. I don't know if that's true or not. One side says one thing while the other side says the other. Which is why - not that it seems like you've noticed - my criticism is in how the situation was handled after the attack was over. In case you missed it, I'm neither critical, nor supportive of Obama's actions during the Benghazi attack. I sure hope that got through...


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 75
RE: Update on Benghazi - 11/6/2013 11:03:45 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
You may think - I'm not sure how - that any or all of those 13 instances are the same as Benghazi, but you are completely wrong. You questioned whether Bush had sent warplanes. Of course not. In suicide bombings, car bombings, and brief gunfights, there isn't much time at all to respond by scrambling jets. Outside of the times our ambassador was killed by a car bomb (suicide bomber rammed a bomb-filled car into the ambassador's vehicle) and 7 Americans died in a coordinated bombing attack on 3 housing compounds, there weren't any American losses. One of the attacks wasn't even directed at Americans, but at the local security presence guarding the American embassy.

They're all exactly like Benghazi. Bush didn't send warplanes despite not knowing if the attacks would continue or not. Exactly what cons are attacking the President for.


Firefight vs. car bomb - one is over pretty quick, while the other might not end so quick.

Was the mortar attack on an empty consulate like Benghazi?

Was the car bomb driven into the ambassador's vehicle like Benghazi?

And, while we're at it, I don't know if Obama could have helped the situation in Benghazi by scrambling jets. I don't know if that's true or not. One side says one thing while the other side says the other. Which is why - not that it seems like you've noticed - my criticism is in how the situation was handled after the attack was over. In case you missed it, I'm neither critical, nor supportive of Obama's actions during the Benghazi attack. I sure hope that got through...


W could not have known when informed of each incident if it was over or not. Exactly what cons are attacking the President over. That's a simple fact.

After the fact the President had an official spread misinformation. Exactly as anyone involved in the investigation would have wanted.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 76
RE: Update on Benghazi - 11/6/2013 11:24:11 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline 		my criticism is in how the situation was handled after the attack was over.

So the question is do you disaprove of presidents lying or just black presidents lying?

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 77
RE: Update on Benghazi - 11/6/2013 11:26:37 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
You may think - I'm not sure how - that any or all of those 13 instances are the same as Benghazi, but you are completely wrong. You questioned whether Bush had sent warplanes. Of course not. In suicide bombings, car bombings, and brief gunfights, there isn't much time at all to respond by scrambling jets. Outside of the times our ambassador was killed by a car bomb (suicide bomber rammed a bomb-filled car into the ambassador's vehicle) and 7 Americans died in a coordinated bombing attack on 3 housing compounds, there weren't any American losses. One of the attacks wasn't even directed at Americans, but at the local security presence guarding the American embassy.

They're all exactly like Benghazi. Bush didn't send warplanes despite not knowing if the attacks would continue or not. Exactly what cons are attacking the President for.

Firefight vs. car bomb - one is over pretty quick, while the other might not end so quick.
Was the mortar attack on an empty consulate like Benghazi?
Was the car bomb driven into the ambassador's vehicle like Benghazi?
And, while we're at it, I don't know if Obama could have helped the situation in Benghazi by scrambling jets. I don't know if that's true or not. One side says one thing while the other side says the other. Which is why - not that it seems like you've noticed - my criticism is in how the situation was handled after the attack was over. In case you missed it, I'm neither critical, nor supportive of Obama's actions during the Benghazi attack. I sure hope that got through...

W could not have known when informed of each incident if it was over or not. Exactly what cons are attacking the President over. That's a simple fact.
After the fact the President had an official spread misinformation. Exactly as anyone involved in the investigation would have wanted.


Bullshit.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 78
RE: Update on Benghazi - 11/6/2013 11:46:17 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		how did they know a carbomb was gonna be the whole fuckoree, except after the fact ?(hint, hint)

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 79
RE: Update on Benghazi - 11/6/2013 12:09:19 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
Indisputable facts:

1. The consult never passed security standards. It was waived by a member of Obama's team.
2. The security detachment was 1/4 the size of the security detachment in paris.
3. An active insurgency campaign was targeting western organizations over the previous year. We were the last one.
4. More than 400 security breaches were logged.

If you think the level of security was appropriate - you, and the president were tragicly wrong.
Especially with 9/11 coming up - and with the immediate clues - the militia pulling out and the militia forewarning us, and pictures being taken of the compound.

During the fight, the men on the ground requested backup. They were initially promised it. And Obama's administration overruled the request.
On what basis did they overturn it? Why? I know exactly why - do you?

After the fight, they lied for political advantage.
They spent $350K for "we're sorry apology tour"
They jailed the man that made the video. Is there any doubt if it weren't for the fact he was a scape goat, he'd still be free?

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 80
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Update on Benghazi Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109