View Full Version : 13 Hours- Michael Bay's Benghazi film
WickedWillis
07-29-15, 11:31
All Michael Bay jokes aside, the trailer for this film looks promising. I just hope they are true to the source material and show exactly what went wrong, and why. I know, it's Hollywood, but I have decent expectations here. Do these men justice, and throw blame where it deserves to be thrown, at a certain Presidential candidate. Good timing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MBjAN7jqsQ
Averageman
07-29-15, 11:53
It looks very promising, I'm hoping it has the desired effect of waking up America.
We have another Post here showing a VFW member raising a sign in front of the POTUS calling him to task for Benghazi, watching that old man get put down chapped my hide.
Here's to hoping this puts some sand in to the panties of someone's bid for POTUS.
WickedWillis
07-29-15, 12:15
It looks very promising, I'm hoping it has the desired effect of waking up America.
We have another Post here showing a VFW member raising a sign in front of the POTUS calling him to task for Benghazi, watching that old man get put down chapped my hide.
Here's to hoping this puts some sand in to the panties of someone's bid for POTUS.
I haven't seen that video yet, but I will seek it out. I'm sure it will get me going as well.
I think I like that it doesn't have any really big name celebrities in it. It will give it some originality.
"What difference does it make"!
KalashniKEV
07-29-15, 13:11
I just hope they are true to the source material and show exactly what went wrong, and why.
Well if they do that, you know all the Kookistani Patriots are going to be frothing at the mouth when they don't see Obama, Hillary, and some General with stars saying, "Who cares?"
I've spoken with people who were in Tripoli on the same contract as Woods and Doherty. They are not fans of all the political spin and foolishness that has taken place.
It's disrespectful.
The Benghazi incident was 3 separate attacks. The first two times it was over, everyone thought it was over. The third engagement was higher intensity and the enemy overran the compound.
The question isn't "Why didn't more help arrive?" nor is it "Why did our Ambassador place himself so far forward on the battlefield with light security in badguy town?"
The question is... and this becomes more obvious each day... "Why did we enable AQIM/ nascent ISIS to overthrow the Brother Leader?"
We should have been right next to the Jamahiriya forces with all their FS2000 freaky space guns shooting these bearded wild men in the face.
Same thing with al Asad... and Saddam Hussein before all of them.
WickedWillis
07-29-15, 13:30
Well if they do that, you know all the Kookistani Patriots are going to be frothing at the mouth when they don't see Obama, Hillary, and some General with stars saying, "Who cares?"
I've spoken with people who were in Tripoli on the same contract as Woods and Doherty. They are not fans of all the political spin and foolishness that has taken place.
It's disrespectful.
The Benghazi incident was 3 separate attacks. The first two times it was over, everyone thought it was over. The third engagement was higher intensity and the enemy overran the compound.
The question isn't "Why didn't more help arrive?" nor is it "Why did our Ambassador place himself so far forward on the battlefield with light security in badguy town?"
The question is... and this becomes more obvious each day... "Why did we enable AQIM/ nascent ISIS to overthrow the Brother Leader?"
We should have been right next to the Jamahiriya forces with all their FS2000 freaky space guns shooting these bearded wild men in the face.
Same thing with al Asad... and Saddam Hussein before all of them.
These are things that I had not thought of regarding this.
KalashniKEV
07-29-15, 14:07
These are things that I had not thought of regarding this.
Not to side track, but to make things even more ridiculous- in the last 24 hours, the terror cell in control of Tripoli, which fancies itself a "government" has taken it upon themselves to sentence Saif al Islam Qadaffi "The Reformer" to death in absentia- the only problem is, he is being held by a different terror cell in Zintan... and they won't hand him over...
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-33688391
Who wants to bet they pay some kind of ransom to the other cell using OUR TAX DOLLARS and then anally rape him to death with a Becker Knife and Tool fighting knife like his father?
Maybe we'll get some really wild cell phone footage out of it again too...
After the death of Izzat Ibrahim al Douri a few months ago, I randomly called out Saif al Islam to lead a Secular Arab Nationalist uprising against ISIS.
The list of people who can do that is getting awfully short these days...
Averageman
07-29-15, 14:28
Well if they do that, you know all the Kookistani Patriots are going to be frothing at the mouth when they don't see Obama, Hillary, and some General with stars saying, "Who cares?"
I've spoken with people who were in Tripoli on the same contract as Woods and Doherty. They are not fans of all the political spin and foolishness that has taken place.
It's disrespectful.
The Benghazi incident was 3 separate attacks. The first two times it was over, everyone thought it was over. The third engagement was higher intensity and the enemy overran the compound.
The question isn't "Why didn't more help arrive?" nor is it "Why did our Ambassador place himself so far forward on the battlefield with light security in badguy town?"
The question is... and this becomes more obvious each day... "Why did we enable AQIM/ nascent ISIS to overthrow the Brother Leader?"
We should have been right next to the Jamahiriya forces with all their FS2000 freaky space guns shooting these bearded wild men in the face.
Same thing with al Asad... and Saddam Hussein before all of them.
As to why, I would have to say it's one of two reasons;
We either have handed over our foreign policy to some totally incompetent people.
or
We've set out to destabilize the whole ME and we're doing a bang up job.
I'm not just putting the whole lode stone on Obama's back on this matter either, I'm pretty sure our dealings in Iraq and Afghanistan under Bush weren't handled much better.
Spurholder
07-29-15, 14:30
Not to side track, but to make things even more ridiculous- in the last 24 hours, the terror cell in control of Tripoli, which fancies itself a "government" has taken it upon themselves to sentence Saif al Islam Qadaffi "The Reformer" to death in absentia- the only problem is, he is being held by a different terror cell in Zintan... and they won't hand him over...
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-33688391
Who wants to bet they pay some kind of ransom to the other cell using OUR TAX DOLLARS and then anally rape him to death with a Becker Knife and Tool fighting knife like his father?
Maybe we'll get some really wild cell phone footage out of it again too...
After the death of Izzat Ibrahim al Douri a few months ago, I randomly called out Saif al Islam to lead a Secular Arab Nationalist uprising against ISIS.
The list of people who can do that is getting awfully short these days...
Side note: that (formerly) red-haired bastid's still alive...supposedly. I've lost count of how many times we've "killed" him since 2003:
https://news.yahoo.com/baath-party-tv-releases-recording-saddam-deputy-165604017.html
KalashniKEV
07-29-15, 14:48
Side note: that (formerly) red-haired bastid's still alive...supposedly. I've lost count of how many times we've "killed" him since 2003:
https://news.yahoo.com/baath-party-tv-releases-recording-saddam-deputy-165604017.html
Good. I hope he still is.
I don't care if he's on the deck of cards- I'd love to have a drink with the dude and just kick it.
What's my name? Say it!
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-HUv5-CaXqFI/VTEtDxMob5I/AAAAAAAAFdo/HEPIeFIofOw/s1600/al-douri_hat.jpg
ICEMAN
The question is... and this becomes more obvious each day... "Why did we enable AQIM/ nascent ISIS to overthrow the Brother Leader?"
We should have been right next to the Jamahiriya forces with all their FS2000 freaky space guns shooting these bearded wild men in the face.
Same thing with al Asad... and Saddam Hussein before all of them.
Gaddafi was planning a gold backed dinar that would have undermined the US Dollar as the petrodollar. Saddam and Asad both were selling oil for gold, euros, not the USD. Iran was at some point too.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-29-15, 20:42
Has anyone read the book this is based on?
SeriousStudent
07-29-15, 21:37
Has anyone read the book this is based on?
Yes, I have.
KalashniKEV
07-29-15, 21:37
Gaddafi was planning a gold backed dinar that would have undermined the US Dollar as the petrodollar. Saddam and Asad both were selling oil for gold, euros, not the USD. Iran was at some point too.
Yes, the Gold African Dinar... backed by real gold! (shiny)
I was going to post that but I thought it might be a little too fringy.
It is 100% true that both the GAD and Saddam trading oil in Euros were contributing factors in their downfall. We must preserve the Dollar as the world's reserve currency, even if it means military force and the death of American servicemen.
If the world loses confidence in the fiat dollar, the whole show is over.
You can't scare enough people without fights over oil or have enough people back you without at least a good manufactured liberation conflict in the ME. Rinse and repeat. But I digress.
I think it's good timing for the movie to be supposedly released in January 2016. Just long enough for plenty to see and still stay fresh enough in people's minds come November.
Mauser KAR98K
07-29-15, 23:01
Wondering how the Clinton machine will keep it suppressed?
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-29-15, 23:07
You can't scare enough people without fights over oil or have enough people back you without at least a good manufactured liberation conflict in the ME. Rinse and repeat. But I digress.
I think it's good timing for the movie to be supposedly released in January 2016. Just long enough for plenty to see and still stay fresh enough in people's minds come November.
And released on dvd just in time for the election...
Wondering how the Clinton machine will keep it suppressed?
The film version will have HRC riding in on a unicorn, dressed as a Viking to save the day..
Or the SEAL protagonist will finish the movie with "it's all Bush's fault."
I'm looking forward to this movie. Looks to have great potential.
Wondering how the Clinton machine will keep it suppressed?
A restraining order (prior restraint) like the Planned Parenthood videos not yet released?
Whiskey_Bravo
07-30-15, 10:21
This looks promising.
I think I like that it doesn't have any really big name celebrities in it. It will give it some originality.
I kind of agree with this in that they didn't go for the Channing Tatum or another hot name currently out but that being said this cast is.... solid. I like that it seems they cast the movie in an effort to put genuine & believable people in the roles rather than names that would sell more tickets at the box office. I like the 'feel' of this cast from the preview and look forward to seeing the entire movie to see how they build the characters (since they are real people) and bring the audience into a story that needs to be told.
Yes, the Gold African Dinar... backed by real gold! (shiny)
I was going to post that but I thought it might be a little too fringy.
It is 100% true that both the GAD and Saddam trading oil in Euros were contributing factors in their downfall. We must preserve the Dollar as the world's reserve currency, even if it means military force and the death of American servicemen.
If the world loses confidence in the fiat dollar, the whole show is over.
There is NOTHING fringe about the truth.
In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
George Orwell
Larry Vickers
07-30-15, 12:13
I'll be interested to see how the 2 Delta Operators are portrayed that led the rescue force to the annex. Both received the 2nd highest award for bravery the U.S. military has ( DSC and Navy Cross - one is a Marine ) and by my sources they should have both gotten the Medal of Honor. We shall see.....
Doc. Holiday
07-30-15, 12:48
I'm interested to see it as well. Who knows how off it will be especially with Michael Bay directing it. With him directing you know there will be a lot of unnessessary explosions.
It looks like it will be a well made movie, but just watching the trailer made me sad.
Not sure I could watch the whole movie.
Has anyone read the book this is based on?
The book was factual, non-emotional, and apolitical. It was a good book. If the movie stays along these lines it will be a good movie.
As LAV mentioned the book references a couple Delta guys, but does not go into great detail about their roles. I would be curious to see it played out and/or understand more of how they contributed.
Whiskey_Bravo
07-30-15, 14:46
I'm interested to see it as well. Who knows how off it will be especially with Michael Bay directing it. With him directing you know there will be a lot of unnessessary explosions.
Yep
34414
KalashniKEV
07-30-15, 15:52
The book was factual, non-emotional, and apolitical.
...because it's not a political story, no matter how much a certain faction wants it to be.
Personally I can't wait till January 2016.
As long as Michael Bay does not deviate too far from the trailer that they have released it should be a good movie.
While I am not a big fan of most of his movies because of all the extra glitter and extra shabangs he does have the proper tools to come out with a good movie.
It's interesting that many of the movies that have come out in recent years, not very many held up to their original fanfare and have actually deviated from the trailers.
WickedWillis
07-30-15, 17:01
The book was factual, non-emotional, and apolitical. It was a good book. If the movie stays along these lines it will be a good movie.
As LAV mentioned the book references a couple Delta guys, but does not go into great detail about their roles. I would be curious to see it played out and/or understand more of how they contributed.
What is the name of the book? I will pick it up this weekend.
What is the name of the book? I will pick it up this weekend.
13 Hours: The inside account of what really happened in Benghazi (http://www.amazon.com/13-Hours-Account-Happened-Benghazi/dp/1455582271/ref=sr_1_fkmr2_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1438295695&sr=8-1-fkmr2&keywords=13+Hours+The+secret+soldiers+of+benghazi)
WickedWillis
07-30-15, 17:40
13 Hours: The inside account of what really happened in Benghazi (http://www.amazon.com/13-Hours-Account-Happened-Benghazi/dp/1455582271/ref=sr_1_fkmr2_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1438295695&sr=8-1-fkmr2&keywords=13+Hours+The+secret+soldiers+of+benghazi)
Now I feel dumb, thank you!
LowSpeed_HighDrag
07-30-15, 20:56
Interest finally piqued enough for me, I just bought "13 Hours" on Amazon. I'd like to know what all of this was really about.
MountainRaven
07-30-15, 22:58
Yes, the Gold African Dinar... backed by real gold! (shiny)
I was going to post that but I thought it might be a little too fringy.
It is 100% true that both the GAD and Saddam trading oil in Euros were contributing factors in their downfall. We must preserve the Dollar as the world's reserve currency, even if it means military force and the death of American servicemen.
If the world loses confidence in the fiat dollar, the whole show is over.
I thought France and the UK were part of the Eurozone. And the UK still uses the Pound. And they were, as I recall, the ones leading the charge against GAD.
I also seem to recall the US being dragged kicking and screaming into the fight - and many persons with near identical views to those who frequent this website criticizing the President for not getting involved.
I'm interested to see it as well. Who knows how off it will be especially with Michael Bay directing it. With him directing you know there will be a lot of unnessessary explosions.
Have you seen Pain & Gain?
Michael Bay film. Based on a true story. I found it to be excellent and very frustrating. Frustrating because it shows that Michael Bay is capable of making good movies (that don't involve explosions or even the US military or ex-US military) and many of the actors in the film are frequently locked into playing stock characters but were proved to be very capable in their acting in the movie. It's also pretty funny - it knows that it's a story in which the truth is stranger than fiction and gleefully points out how stupid the people involved in it were and how far they got and for how long, even with LE from local to federal snooping around.
Obviously, I expect 13 Hours to take a much less ironic take on its own story.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-30-15, 23:05
...because it's not a political story, no matter how much a certain faction wants it to be.
The right didn't make it political. BHO and his circus did that by telling everyone one version of lies after another. BHO's handlers couldn't have it that late in the campaign that the War on Terror was not over or as simple as Barry had told everyone. Rice going on all the Sunday shows and cooking up lies- that everyone knew were lies and deceptions.
Don't blame people on the right for calling a spade a spade and then being called liars for not falling in with BHO's spin machine.
It is simple as BHO not being able to say that there were still bad guys out there. That's all he had to do- instead he tried to shift blame to a youtube video. The inability to even start with a credible accounting of the attack leads to all kinds of theories about what else could be at play.
It wasn't a political story until it ran into Valerie Jarrett's inability to deal with anything that could cast a negative light on Barry.
It is as simple as that.
To me, there are two Benghazi's: one is what actually happened there and the other is the cover-up and obfuscation that keeps on slow rolling out of State and the Administration.
KalashniKEV
07-31-15, 07:31
I thought France and the UK were part of the Eurozone. And the UK still uses the Pound. And they were, as I recall, the ones leading the charge against GAD.
I also seem to recall the US being dragged kicking and screaming into the fight - and many persons with near identical views to those who frequent this website criticizing the President for not getting involved.
1) I said it was a contributing factor, not the-reason. All fiat currencies are threatened by sound money.
2) I don't recall us being dragged kicking and screaming... at all. Additionally, we joined on the wrong side.
3) There's always going to be a contingent of society in favor of going kinetic on everything. Very seldom do they really understand the root cause of the conflict, current situation, or the second and third order effects of intervention. If they have any service to their name, it's worth a spirited discussion. If they don't, it's just basic chicken hawkery.
The right didn't make it political.
Except when they delightfully bathed themselves in the blood of the fallen, and tried to spin another tragic chapter of the GWOT into some kind of attack on the Secretary of State/ likely Presidential candidate.
You're going to be very disappointed when you don't see a bunch of Americans saying, "Yeah, we just won't help our people in contact with the enemy... let's go watch a movie!"
Ridiculous.
To me, there are two Benghazi's: one is what actually happened there and the other is the cover-up and obfuscation that keeps on slow rolling out of State and the Administration.
Some operations are Classified.
It's not a "Cover Up."
Sorry about that.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-31-15, 07:38
Some operations are Classified.
It's not a "Cover Up."
Sorry about that.
An Ambassador was dead, I think the the cat was out of the bag. As if some OPSPEC could have hidden the death of an Arch-Duke and prevented WWI.
KalashniKEV
07-31-15, 07:46
An Ambassador was dead, I think the the cat was out of the bag. As if some OPSPEC could have hidden the death of an Arch-Duke and prevented WWI.
...and that is known.
Interesting that none of these patriotic Congressional servants were anywhere near half as interested in understanding the "HOW?" behind COP Keating, but when there is political capital to be gained... now it's a "Scandal."
The politicization is absolutely shameful.
...and that is known.
Interesting that none of these patriotic Congressional servants were anywhere near half as interested in understanding the "HOW?" behind COP Keating, but when there is political capital to be gained... now it's a "Scandal."
The politicization is absolutely shameful.
No what's shameful is the Left (politicians and the public) NOT demanding answers on what happened. Every time a Republican asks for answers to SIMPLE questions it's for political gain, right? Their constituents demand answers. WE DEMAND ANSWERS. :sarcastic:
(Evidently nobody got the sarcasm)
We've never gotten answers while Obama and his staff have been far from truthful so cavalier about each and every controversy. Let's go golfing while our PR department puts a spin on this. Time and time again they have put this ridiculous, transparent spin on any and every controversy they've been at the heart of.
It
gets
old.
And so does the trolling.
KalashniKEV
07-31-15, 08:27
Their constituents demand answers. WE DEMAND ANSWERS.
Calm down.
What would you like to know?
Let's go golfing while our PR department puts a spin on this.
Actually... and I'm sure you realize this... what you just said is pure, 100% spin, straight from the fraud machine that wants you to believe that the President of the United States is Evil and has somehow replaced the entire civil service chain of command right down to the Station Chiefs and Chiefs of Mission with people who don't care if Americans on their team live or die.
Not only is it disgusting- It's completely and totally ridiculous.
Turn off partisan AM talk radio.
Turn your brain back on.
Have you seen Pain & Gain?
Yes, and I gave it 1 star out of 5 on Netflix. LOL.
Calm down.
What would you like to know?
Actually... and I'm sure you realize this... what you just said is pure, 100% spin, straight from the fraud machine that wants you to believe that the President of the United States is Evil and has somehow replaced the entire civil service chain of command right down to the Station Chiefs and Chiefs of Mission with people who don't care if Americans on their team live or die.
Not only is it disgusting- It's completely and totally ridiculous.
Turn off partisan AM talk radio.
Turn your brain back on.
I'll calm down as soon as you come down from the lofty perch on which you rest. :)
I was being a little facetious and overdramatic especially about golfing. It draws you guys out every time. I don't listen to talk radio and thanks for insulting my intelligence by the way.
I will agree with you on one thing. The truth is stranger than fiction certainly on other controversies. You just cannot make up the ineptness and incompetence of this administration. THAT is what is disgusting and totally ridiculous.
I'd rather this and other political nonsense not be distracting us from the real issues. Either way, RINO and conservatives alike will be demonized by apologists for holding people accountable.
You act as if since some guy wrote an apolitical book about Benghazi then it must be the gospel. The full truth of what happened is out? That's awesome but what you don't understand or fail to recognize is that is not Obama's staff ANSWERING for what they did or mainly didn't do. And I don't mean the day Benghazi went down.
Some operations are Classified.
It's not a "Cover Up."
Just because some of the events may have been classified at some level does not mean there was not a cover up.
That said, for the record, I do not believe there was a deliberate cover up; I think the administration was trying to politicize the event and could not keep various stories straight. The appearance of impropriety leads one to conclude the administration a) did not know what was going on (events leading to the attack) or b) did not care about what was going on (regarding responding to the attack). In any case, there were many questions out of the event that have not been adequately answered (some of the questions are in the book), and hiding behind "it's super top secret" does nothing to quell the inquisitive, especially when most of that whole thing is open source and has been for quite a while.
KalashniKEV
07-31-15, 10:07
You just cannot make up the ineptness and incompetence of this administration... RINO and conservatives alike will be demonized... Obama's staff ANSWERING for what they did or mainly didn't do.
Derangement Syndrome.
OK, got it.
In any case, there were many questions out of the event that have not been adequately answered...
Again... what are those questions?
You're never going to know everything, because that's just the way it is, but beating your chest and saying "WE WANT ANSWERS!" begs a person to ask "What is your question?"
"WE WANT THE TRUTH!" is not a question.
What would you like to know?
Again... what are those questions?
You're never going to know everything, because that's just the way it is, but beating your chest and saying "WE WANT ANSWERS!" begs a person to ask "What is your question?"
"WE WANT THE TRUTH!" is not a question.
What would you like to know?
Not to be a prick, but did you read the book? There were a few questions, maybe more then 5 but less than 15, that were answered with conflicting answers, and never followed up. Maybe they were answered and the answers simple, logical, but if so were answered in such a way as to be clear as mud and as confusing as hell. To answer your question, I do not recall the questions raised in the book, but what the author and source material wanted to know I'd like to know.
Your response of "that's just the way it is" sounds suspiciously like "what difference does it make?" I am not suggesting a lynch mob because of **** ups, but if **** ups occurred because of poor leadership and management, poorly designed SOPs and TTPs and PACE plans, or intentional damage control instead of managing the problem, then "that's just the way it is" does not cut it.
I have been in the mil, I know fog of war and all, so I get that there are questions about which the answers may be lacking, but I not talking about that.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-31-15, 10:52
Derangement Syndrome.
OK, got it.
Again... what are those questions?
You're never going to know everything, because that's just the way it is, but beating your chest and saying "WE WANT ANSWERS!" begs a person to ask "What is your question?"
"WE WANT THE TRUTH!" is not a question.
What would you like to know?
Why did the Administration try to cover up the facts of the attack and spin the blame of a youtube video? Did they really believe that or did they try to cover up the fact that the middle east isn't as quelled as BHO was saying it was in the run up to the election. Either you are inept or a political hack.
"What difference does it make?"- indeed, BHO got re-elected so from a pols point of view, why even still talk about it.
Are you not personally offended with the lies and misdirection that the Administration put out over the attack?
KalashniKEV
07-31-15, 11:14
Not to sound like a broken record... but are there any actual questions here?
I don't think anyone ever said the Middle East was a peaceful place.
Are you not personally offended with the lies and misdirection that the Administration put out over the attack?
I am actually more offended by the lies and misdirection over the Bergdahl affair, but not surprised about either.
I also can see when people like you are being played by political hacks- because I see the situation with clarity, and without political motivation or emotion. (We are both gun owners... can you not see when the Left exploits tragedy and bathes in the blood of the dead after every-single-spree killing?)
If the Ambassador was not in residence at the time and the enemy overran the safehouse/annex/mission, then you never would have heard about it. That's exactly why you put a contract out to secure it instead of using government assets.
My questions lie at the policy level:
1) Why, after fighting the GWOT for many years, did we support the overthrow a secular government by Islamic Radicals?
2) Why would an ambassador-in-a-suit rent a house with a pool in the middle of the number one home town, the number one country, for Foreign Fighters captured in Iraq?
http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r220/Kalashnikev/ScreenShot2014-07-26at75207PM_zpsb0abd7e5.png
Not to sound like a broken record... but are there any actual questions here?
I don't think anyone ever said the Middle East was a peaceful place.
I am actually more offended by the lies and misdirection over the Bergdahl affair, but not surprised about either.
I also can see when people like you are being played by political hacks- because I see the situation with clarity, and without political motivation or emotion. (We are both gun owners... can you not see when the Left exploits tragedy and bathes in the blood of the dead after every-single-spree killing?)
If the Ambassador was not in residence at the time and the enemy overran the safehouse/annex/mission, then you never would have heard about it. That's exactly why you put a contract out to secure it instead of using government assets.
My questions lie at the policy level:
1) Why, after fighting the GWOT for many years, did we support the overthrow a secular government by Islamic Radicals?
2) Why would an ambassador-in-a-suit rent a house with a pool in the middle of the number one home town, the number one country, for Foreign Fighters captured in Iraq?
Ironic that you point out there were no questions (when in fact I addressed that) and you raise two great questions.
The book addresses the second question, to a point.
You say you see the issue with clarity; I think you see it nearsighted.
I do not think that the administration necessarily tried to hide anything; instead I think the administration mishandled it and bungled it and allowed a corporate hubris and pride put them in this mess. That is not to say I think there was not some convenient misplacing of the truth, I just don't know if it was in the West Wing.
Yea, it was obviously just the YouTube video all along... That certainly was not a bold faced lie or anything. It was made political from the get go by the folks pushing that narrative.
But hey, who knows, we can't get Hillary's emails so what difference does it make.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-01-15, 00:34
I just hope that the movie doesn't suck like the Transformers movies. I'd rather Ridley Scott was doing it, or even Berg.
Well if they do that, you know all the Kookistani Patriots are going to be frothing at the mouth when they don't see Obama, Hillary, and some General with stars saying, "Who cares?"
I've spoken with people who were in Tripoli on the same contract as Woods and Doherty. They are not fans of all the political spin and foolishness that has taken place.
It's disrespectful.
The Benghazi incident was 3 separate attacks. The first two times it was over, everyone thought it was over. The third engagement was higher intensity and the enemy overran the compound.
The question isn't "Why didn't more help arrive?" nor is it "Why did our Ambassador place himself so far forward on the battlefield with light security in badguy town?"
The question is... and this becomes more obvious each day... "Why did we enable AQIM/ nascent ISIS to overthrow the Brother Leader?"
We should have been right next to the Jamahiriya forces with all their FS2000 freaky space guns shooting these bearded wild men in the face.
Same thing with al Asad... and Saddam Hussein before all of them.
Yes, and isn't it disrespectful to blame the deaths of these 4 Americans on another American making a YouTube video, rather than on the terrorists who killed them?
...because it's not a political story, no matter how much a certain faction wants it to be.
Well, no, it partly is a political story, because politicians were involved in creating the circumstances of the events, and in its aftermath.
The right didn't make it political. BHO and his circus did that by telling everyone one version of lies after another. BHO's handlers couldn't have it that late in the campaign that the War on Terror was not over or as simple as Barry had told everyone. Rice going on all the Sunday shows and cooking up lies- that everyone knew were lies and deceptions.
Don't blame people on the right for calling a spade a spade and then being called liars for not falling in with BHO's spin machine.
It is simple as BHO not being able to say that there were still bad guys out there. That's all he had to do- instead he tried to shift blame to a youtube video. The inability to even start with a credible accounting of the attack leads to all kinds of theories about what else could be at play.
It wasn't a political story until it ran into Valerie Jarrett's inability to deal with anything that could cast a negative light on Barry.
It is as simple as that.
To me, there are two Benghazi's: one is what actually happened there and the other is the cover-up and obfuscation that keeps on slow rolling out of State and the Administration.
Exactly this.
Not to sound like a broken record... but are there any actual questions here?
I don't think anyone ever said the Middle East was a peaceful place.
I am actually more offended by the lies and misdirection over the Bergdahl affair, but not surprised about either.
I also can see when people like you are being played by political hacks- because I see the situation with clarity, and without political motivation or emotion. (We are both gun owners... can you not see when the Left exploits tragedy and bathes in the blood of the dead after every-single-spree killing?)
If the Ambassador was not in residence at the time and the enemy overran the safehouse/annex/mission, then you never would have heard about it. That's exactly why you put a contract out to secure it instead of using government assets.
My questions lie at the policy level:
1) Why, after fighting the GWOT for many years, did we support the overthrow a secular government by Islamic Radicals?
2) Why would an ambassador-in-a-suit rent a house with a pool in the middle of the number one home town, the number one country, for Foreign Fighters captured in Iraq?
http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r220/Kalashnikev/ScreenShot2014-07-26at75207PM_zpsb0abd7e5.png
If you care to read FromMyColdDeadHand's post, there was a question, and a good one: (direct quote)
"Why did the Administration try to cover up the facts of the attack and spin the blame of a youtube video? Did they really believe that or did they try to cover up the fact that the middle east isn't as quelled as BHO was saying it was in the run up to the election."
Why do you ignore the actual question, and make it seem like this is all a strange witch hunt?
KalashniKEV
08-04-15, 21:11
Why do you ignore the actual question, and make it seem like this is all a strange witch hunt?
No.
Everyone knew what happened and why. Even if they're clueless, they do at least get briefed by professionals.
You're getting lied to every day about 100 things and you don't even know it. This one was just too easily exposed.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-04-15, 21:39
No.
Everyone knew what happened and why. Even if they're clueless, they do at least get briefed by professionals.
You're getting lied to every day about 100 things and you don't even know it. This one was just too easily exposed.
So you can understand why we'd be pissed off by the Admin's misdirection (nicely put) or lies (correct label) on the attack? That we don't need to be spun by the talk-radio/conservative politicians to want to know why the Admin thinks that they can use a reverse yellow journalism to hide an actual attack on us.
You can piss on me and tell me it's rain, just don't tell me that it's warm because if global warming- ehr climate change.
If we are lied to that many times a day, does that mean that we aren't entitled to know anything about anything?
I understand our culture and focus is screwed up. A lion gets poached and the news and twit-o-sphere goes nuts, but falls silent on the Planned Parenthood genocide and parts program, the deaths in a dozen conflicts around the world. But all those things going wrong, being lied about and spun doesn't mean that we let people off for the blatant ones that people throw at us.
No.
Everyone knew what happened and why. Even if they're clueless, they do at least get briefed by professionals.
You're getting lied to every day about 100 things and you don't even know it. This one was just too easily exposed.
This last point, this is the point that so many are making. The overarching question in this thread it seems is, why? You raised a good question in "why did we enable the bad guys?", but that does not invalidate the other questions posed. While I don't know the contractors killed, nor other contractors on the same contract, I do know a couple of others that were there in a separate capacity.
As for getting briefed by professionals, you should understand that there was more than one professional briefer, more than one point of view, more than one agency-related agenda driven by God-knows-what (personal? bad intel? differing analysis?), and the administration's seeming inability to hone in on a couple working theories at the time painted the picture, not helped by the admin's handling/mishandling of the getting the info out, led many to question the admin's motives and speculate as to its agenda.
Calm down.
What would you like to know?
Actually... and I'm sure you realize this... what you just said is pure, 100% spin, straight from the fraud machine that wants you to believe that the President of the United States is Evil and has somehow replaced the entire civil service chain of command right down to the Station Chiefs and Chiefs of Mission with people who don't care if Americans on their team live or die.
Not only is it disgusting- It's completely and totally ridiculous.
Turn off partisan AM talk radio.
Turn your brain back on.
Okay, you nailed it, the current POTUS is a real straight shooter, very pro America, not a Muslim sympathizer, definitely not racist, staunch Constitutionalist and a genuine pillar of American values.
it's frustrating enough to watch this administration make every move possible to bring about the demise of the country without having to skim through posts to keep reading about yet another "phony scandal". Nothing to see here but another Obama (and Clinton) foreign policy success right?
LowSpeed_HighDrag
08-16-15, 22:32
I started the book yesterday morning, I'm on page 237 today. It's a riveting story that I had never heard before.
No way of knowing at this point but if RHC is mentioned at any point at all, it will be as a concerned mother figure or someone 'helplessly' tied up by red tape.
I really have no faith in big Hollywood on historical adaptations. Profit beats truth. Like the Red Dawn remake. Originally it was an update with Red China taking over the Soviet role. China complained. Presto. North Korea, who can barely keep lights on and are always on the verge of famine, invades the US. Even though a total Red Dawn scenario is circumspect to begin with...Red China and the Russians were more plausible at least.
I feel bad for the good men they left hanging but I don't trust them to tell the story true. The last two movies I saw in theaters that looked like anyone gave half a crap were BHD and United 93.
Which probably wouldn't get made today.
No way of knowing at this point but if RHC is mentioned at any point at all, it will be as a concerned mother figure or someone 'helplessly' tied up by red tape.
I really have no faith in big Hollywood on historical adaptations. Profit beats truth. Like the Red Dawn remake. Originally it was an update with Red China taking over the Soviet role. China complained. Presto. North Korea, who can barely keep lights on and are always on the verge of famine, invades the US. Even though a total Red Dawn scenario is circumspect to begin with...Red China and the Russians were more plausible at least.
I feel bad for the good men they left hanging but I don't trust them to tell the story true. The last two movies I saw in theaters that looked like anyone gave half a crap were BHD and United 93.
Which probably wouldn't get made today.
Most definitely not with Hussein occupying the White House.
I do expect to see some movies portraying Trayvon and the "Gentle Giant" as the modern day equivalents to MLK.
sevenhelmet
08-17-15, 11:14
I thought "American Sniper" was a pretty good movie. That the media went nuts trying to suppress and discredit it makes it even better in my mind.
That said, I don't expect this Benghazi film to say anything against HRC or any of the current administration officials, except whoever they already picked to be the "fall guy" for this (probably some mid-level bureaucrat, who will be portrayed as calling all the shots). I would bet the political damage control has already been done.
But... I have not read the book, so I am prepared to be proven wrong.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
08-17-15, 20:58
THE BOOK IS NOTHING ABOUT POLITICS. Stop trying to make the movie about the politics of it people.
sevenhelmet
08-17-15, 21:40
THE BOOK IS NOTHING ABOUT POLITICS. Stop trying to make the movie about the politics of it people.
Noted. I take that as a very good sign.
THE BOOK IS NOTHING ABOUT POLITICS. Stop trying to make the movie about the politics of it people.
To be fair, the book touches on the edges of the politics but purposely sticks to facts and steers clear on accusations. The author really tried, successfully I think, to be apolitical and objective.
Moose-Knuckle
11-11-15, 02:18
The more I hear/read/see of this film the more I get stoked to see it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxHQY1N_WI4
Damn. I didn't realize this was a Michael Bay film.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ok, I'll be your huckleberry and ask some straight questions:
1. Was the Obama Admin running guns thru Benghazi to support the Syrian rebels fighting Assad without congressional approval (a la Iran-Contra)?
2. Did they let the compound go down (sacrifice) in order to protect this secret illegal operation which was nearby?
3. Was the US military given the command to stand down when the help call went out? Anybody else?
4. (I already know this answer from recent testimony) Did HRC/the administration know that this had nothing to do with a youtube video, yet continued to parade it loudly in the press for days in order to cover a) The operation alluded to in #1 above, and b) The President's re-election chances?
Since KEV seems to have personal knowledge...have at it.
KalashniKEV
11-11-15, 13:21
Ok, I'll be your huckleberry and ask some straight questions:
1. Was the Obama Admin running guns thru Benghazi to support the Syrian rebels fighting Assad without congressional approval (a la Iran-Contra)?
Benghazi is in Libya. The supported AQ element there was AQIM, or Al Qaeda in Islamic Mahgreb.
Assad is the President of Syria. The supported AQ element there is JaN, or Jabhat al Nusra.
I understand your enthusiasm to pin this on the O-monster, but the supporters of Al Qaeda are unfortunately on both sides of the aisle.
In fact... if you are following the race... Bush, Carson, Christie, Fiorina, Graham, Kasich, Rubio and Cruz all support a No-Fly Zone in Syria similar to the one in Libya to allow al Qaeda room to strengthen themselves and freedom of movement to take cities.
Here, also, is a pic of John McCain having a backslapping good time with members of al Qaeda (confirmed) and Abu Bakr al Baghdadi (unconfirmed):
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-F5hpPhUF-LM/VBPjePhTF2I/AAAAAAAAJzE/HpaOrxugUFI/s1600/mccain-isis.jpg
2. Did they let the compound go down (sacrifice) in order to protect this secret illegal operation which was nearby?
3. Was the US military given the command to stand down when the help call went out? Anybody else?
That's beyond kooky-ookey, but offensive to anyone who has served (and on Veteran's Day, no less).
Slap yourself.
There were 3 separate attacks on the compound. If they jumped TOC after the first one, they'd all still be alive. For some reason they didn't do it after the second attack either. You can't second guess a leader's actions in combat. Nobody knows what's going to happen next on the battlefield... it's crazy like that.
Perhaps nobody was expecting effective mortar fire?
4. (I already know this answer from recent testimony) Did HRC/the administration know that this had nothing to do with a youtube video, yet continued to parade it loudly in the press for days in order to cover a) The operation alluded to in #1 above, and b) The President's re-election chances?
Since KEV seems to have personal knowledge...have at it.
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-11-15, 13:53
There were 3 separate attacks on the compound. If they jumped TOC after the first one, they'd all still be alive. For some reason they didn't do it after the second attack either. You can't second guess a leader's actions in combat. Nobody knows what's going to happen next on the battlefield... it's crazy like that.
Perhaps nobody was expecting effective mortar fire?
Nobody expect mortar fire or inquisitions.
Wouldn't you wait for someone to come get you rather than run all around at night with who knows what out&about?
KalashniKEV
11-11-15, 14:05
Nobody expect mortar fire or inquisitions.
Wouldn't you wait for someone to come get you rather than run all around at night with who knows what out&about?
Stick around and get dead is never a good plan.
I would probably call "BLACK" or "GOLD" to the Rally Point or Alternate Patrol base if it looked like a better idea than sticking around.
Apparently it did not to them.
Trying to put a political spin on this event is every bit as stupid as doing the same thing to COP Keating or COP Kahler.
The smoking gun Republicans are looking for isn't there, and if they're looking for a villain, perhaps the obvious one (al Qaeda) should be the target of their rage instead of the recipient of their gifts.
It will not stop them from bathing in the blood of the victims in an attempt to gain political capital though... so sad and disgusting...
Moose-Knuckle
11-11-15, 14:25
Trying to put a political spin on this event is every bit as stupid as doing the same thing to COP Keating or COP Kahler.
Correct me if I'm wrong but was is not SecState Clinton and POTUS who were the ones that spun this attack as a mere protest to some video on YouTube that was already several years old at that time?
Correct me if I'm wrong but was is not SecState Clinton and POTUS who were the ones that spun this attack as a mere protest to some video on YouTube that was already several years old at that time?
Spot on! I'd like to see his reply to that.
Haven't you picked up on the fact yet that Kev is ALWAYS the voice of dissent in any criticism of Dear Leader and Company and always more than willing to point the finger backwards in time to someone else?
He also didn't address why DoD didn't send help. The why's of not abandoning their position aren't known, but "No man left behind" right? I will add that a DSC and Navy Cross were quietly awarded to two of the HSLD guys who disobeyed orders and went to Benghazi anyway.
KalashniKEV
11-11-15, 14:41
Correct me if I'm wrong but was is not SecState Clinton and POTUS who were the ones that spun this attack as a mere protest to some video on YouTube that was already several years old at that time?
You are wrong.
Unplug from the partisan hype machine.
Hillary Clinton tried to sell the Mohammad Video thing but it was a ridiculous play and nobody believed it. There is a difference between lying to protect your organization (Clinton) and lying to advance your party rhetoric (Tre Gawdy).
I'm not saying it wasn't a dumb thing to say, but one is stupid and the other is disgraceful.
Hope I cleared that up...
Moose-Knuckle
11-11-15, 15:04
You are wrong.
Unplug from the partisan hype machine.
So I'm wrong SecState Clinton and POTUS in fact DID not lie and spin a story about the attack on the embassy and the assassination of our Ambassador and were truthful of the events as they unfolded. Hmm. I'm of the opinion that it was the above mentioned partisan hype machine that aided in the Administration's lie.
Hillary Clinton tried to sell the Mohammad Video thing but it was a ridiculous play and nobody believed it. There is a difference between lying to protect your organization (Clinton) and lying to advance your party rhetoric (Tre Gawdy).
I'm not saying it wasn't a dumb thing to say, but one is stupid and the other is disgraceful.
So what SecState Clinton said was merely "stupid" when flat out lying about an event that claimed the lives of American personnel yet when the opposition party countered said lie it's disgraceful and an attempt to advance their respective party.
That's funny because I think many would consider what SecState Hilary did was in fact DISGRACEFUL and treacherous and would assert that the Republicans have not done enough to take Clinton and POTUS to task over all of this.
KalashniKEV
11-11-15, 15:16
I'm of the opinion that it was the above mentioned partisan hype machine that aided in the Administration's lie.
There is no partisan element at play on this level. The incoming administration doesn't purge all the Station Chiefs and terminate careers based on party affiliation.
I say again, there is no partisan element to this- AQ fighter on the battlefield does not care if the invader is a registered Republican or Democrat.
On the macro level, Post #68 shows that there is actually more Republican support for al Qaeda (right up to throwing parties for them) than Democrat.
...and on the reverse side, the enemy loves watching us destroy ourselves in the name of partisan lunacy.
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-11-15, 15:36
So it sounds like the guys that were there were involved with the filmmaking. At least we probably won't see Megan fox running in slow motion towards the camera. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it would be kind of out of place here.
Kev, did you get your interpreter squared away?
KalashniKEV
11-11-15, 15:50
Kev, did you get your interpreter squared away?
Still working it...
As it turns out (or so they say) it would have been easier for him to get a SIV through Baghdad... but he needed to bounce post haste as he was specifically targeted.
Thanks for asking.
Dist. Expert 26
11-11-15, 16:11
I didn't have enough posts to comment when this thread was started, so I'll share my story now.
On September 11th, 2012 I was deployed with the 24th MEU aboard the USS Iwo Jima. I can't say exactly where we were, as I wasn't privy to such information, but we were in the Gulf of Aden region. On our ship alone we had two infantry companies, a Force Recon platoon, two Scout Sniper teams, I believe 6 Harriers and at least 10 Ospreys. Since it was September 11th, we had our gear staged in preparation for an attack on an embassy or some other U.S. interest. By that point in the deployment we were aching for a fight, but instead of getting one we watched coverage of the attack on CNN, along with the bullshit narrative the State Department was pushing about the attack being caused by a youtube video of all things.
We never even went on alert for a mission because it was never considered. Could we have made it there in time? I think so. Had we launched immediately after the attack started, we could have flown straight there provided some tanker support out of Djibouti. Even just one company would have made a significant difference. Two companies plus Recon and snipers, it wouldn't have even been a fight. It's something that bothers me to this day, but I'm glad the men that died there are getting the attention they deserve.
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-11-15, 16:38
Wouldn't that have been like a 15 hour flight time? Isn't Frankfurt closer?
I'm just trying to say that I think you are off the hook for not being there.
Dist. Expert 26
11-11-15, 16:52
Wouldn't that have been like a 15 hour flight time? Isn't Frankfurt closer?
I'm just trying to say that I think you are off the hook for not being there.
My rough calculations put it at about 6 hours from Djibouti at the cruising speed of a V-22.
Like I said, I don't know for sure that we would have made it in time, but it would've been nice to try.
Moose-Knuckle
11-11-15, 17:20
So it sounds like the guys that were there were involved with the filmmaking. At least we probably won't see Megan fox running in slow motion towards the camera. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it would be kind of out of place here.
That is why I posted the video above. Until then I hadn't realized members of the CIA GRS who were there are contributing to the film. Several of them along with the actors portraying them in the film were at TX Motor Speedway kicking things off for the NASCAR race this past weekend.
Moose-Knuckle
11-11-15, 17:21
I didn't have enough posts to comment when this thread was started, so I'll share my story now.
On September 11th, 2012 I was deployed with the 24th MEU aboard the USS Iwo Jima. I can't say exactly where we were, as I wasn't privy to such information, but we were in the Gulf of Aden region. On our ship alone we had two infantry companies, a Force Recon platoon, two Scout Sniper teams, I believe 6 Harriers and at least 10 Ospreys. Since it was September 11th, we had our gear staged in preparation for an attack on an embassy or some other U.S. interest. By that point in the deployment we were aching for a fight, but instead of getting one we watched coverage of the attack on CNN, along with the bullshit narrative the State Department was pushing about the attack being caused by a youtube video of all things.
We never even went on alert for a mission because it was never considered. Could we have made it there in time? I think so. Had we launched immediately after the attack started, we could have flown straight there provided some tanker support out of Djibouti. Even just one company would have made a significant difference. Two companies plus Recon and snipers, it wouldn't have even been a fight. It's something that bothers me to this day, but I'm glad the men that died there are getting the attention they deserve.
Out of my lane but I always thought it was SOP to send in the Marines when an Embassy was under siege. Which begs the question why was the order never given by the current Administration?
Dist. Expert 26
11-11-15, 17:27
Out of my lane but I always thought it was SOP to send in the Marines when an Embassy was under siege. Which begs the question why was the order never given by the current Administration?
You're correct, that job usually falls to FAST teams. To my knowledge none of them were mobilized either. The administration left those men to die without a second thought.
I've personally met General Ham, the 4 star that was relieved of command for trying to intervene. He seemed like a good leader, and his actions spoke to such. It's a shame his career ended that way.
Moose-Knuckle
11-11-15, 17:33
You're correct, that job usually falls to FAST teams. To my knowledge none of them were mobilized either. The administration left those men to die without a second thought.
I've personally met General Ham, the 4 star that was relieved of command for trying to intervene. He seemed like a good leader, and his actions spoke to such. It's a shame his career ended that way.
And yet sum still assert their was no political spin to this attack . . .
Appreciate the response.
WickedWillis
11-11-15, 17:35
You're correct, that job usually falls to FAST teams. To my knowledge none of them were mobilized either. The administration left those men to die without a second thought.
I've personally met General Ham, the 4 star that was relieved of command for trying to intervene. He seemed like a good leader, and his actions spoke to such. It's a shame his career ended that way.
Some amazing insight here. Thank you.
MountainRaven
11-11-15, 23:16
Stick around and get dead is never a good plan.
I would probably call "BLACK" or "GOLD" to the Rally Point or Alternate Patrol base if it looked like a better idea than sticking around.
Apparently it did not to them.
Trying to put a political spin on this event is every bit as stupid as doing the same thing to COP Keating or COP Kahler.
The smoking gun Republicans are looking for isn't there, and if they're looking for a villain, perhaps the obvious one (al Qaeda) should be the target of their rage instead of the recipient of their gifts.
It will not stop them from bathing in the blood of the victims in an attempt to gain political capital though... so sad and disgusting...
What is it that they say about tragedies?
Wouldn't that have been like a 15 hour flight time? Isn't Frankfurt closer?
I'm just trying to say that I think you are off the hook for not being there.
Isn't there usually a carrier group in the Mediterranean? And how long would it take to get permission to fly through Ethiopia, Yemen, Saudi, Sudan, Egypt, Tunisia, &c.? Even if you stuck to mostly open water, you'd probably need at least Egypt (for flying over the Suez) and Yemen (Bab-el-Mandeb).
EDIT: Looks like Judicial Watch is supposed to have a map of North Africa and the Middle East with the general location of much of the fleets of the Central (Fifth Fleet) and European (Sixth Fleet) commands. The Iwo is bracketed by the Enterprise and Ike. Closest ship to the fight would have been the destroyer Laboon. Most other ships in the Med were also destroyers. The only other amphibious assault ship in the general "vicinity" of Africa was the Fort McHenry, in the Atlantic. According to the letter attached from Capt. B.C. Nickerson, USN, the Iwo is described as being in the Gulf of Oman and "the closest large amphibious ship".
Link (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/navymapbenghazi/).
Dist. Expert 26
11-11-15, 23:26
What is it that they say about tragedies?
Isn't there usually a carrier group in the Mediterranean? And how long would it take to get permission to fly through Ethiopia, Yemen, Saudi, Sudan, Egypt, Tunisia, &c.? Even if you stuck to mostly open water, you'd probably need at least Egypt (for flying over the Suez) and Yemen (Bab-el-Mandeb).
A carrier battle group does little good without a JTAC on the ground, and even then the attackers would have been far too close to drop any kind of ordnance carried by naval aircraft. Attack helicopters, A-10's or Specter gunships would have been great, but those weren't available.
If it would be an issue to get permission, we could have had fighters escort us in on the Ospreys. Egypt and Yemen probably wouldn't put up a fight, but even if they did it wouldn't matter much. My point is we should have done whatever it took to get there and stop the attack.
MountainRaven
11-11-15, 23:48
A carrier battle group does little good without a JTAC on the ground, and even then the attackers would have been far too close to drop any kind of ordnance carried by naval aircraft. Attack helicopters, A-10's or Specter gunships would have been great, but those weren't available.
If it would be an issue to get permission, we could have had fighters escort us in on the Ospreys. Egypt and Yemen probably wouldn't put up a fight, but even if they did it wouldn't matter much. My point is we should have done whatever it took to get there and stop the attack.
Given that the two closest carriers were on the far side of the Arabian peninsula, it seems a moot or, at best, an academic point, but don't CVNs carry a detachment of Marines and the transport aircraft necessary to get them to shore?
I also seem to recall hearing that Libyan rebels were able to use their cellphones to call in NATO airstrikes against Gaddafi's forces. Not the same thing as a JTAC, but better than nothing.
(It also appears that carriers do not possess attack helicopters. Nor do they possess much in the way of transport aircraft capable of launching and retrieving a serious ship-to-shore combat mission. So even if they have 03s aboard, they'd pretty much have to swim.)
Again, all academic given that there were no carriers in the Med.
Even then, you'd think think that somebody could call our NATO allies in Germany, Italy, France, Spain, or the UK to launch a rescue mission: No difficulty asking permission to fly through airspace, there. They have capable SOF on call, they have the ability to fly CAS aircraft into North Africa. Hell, it's practically their backyard.
Those Firewall videos with Bill Whittle have a pretty good video on Benghazi.
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-11-15, 23:55
What is it that they say about tragedies?
Isn't there usually a carrier group in the Mediterranean? And how long would it take to get permission to fly through Ethiopia, Yemen, Saudi, Sudan, Egypt, Tunisia, &c.? Even if you stuck to mostly open water, you'd probably need at least Egypt (for flying over the Suez) and Yemen (Bab-el-Mandeb).
EDIT: Looks like Judicial Watch is supposed to have a map of North Africa and the Middle East with the general location of much of the fleets of the Central (Fifth Fleet) and European (Sixth Fleet) commands. The Iwo is bracketed by the Enterprise and Ike. Closest ship to the fight would have been the destroyer Laboon. Most other ships in the Med were also destroyers. The only other amphibious assault ship in the general "vicinity" of Africa was the Fort McHenry, in the Atlantic. According to the letter attached from Capt. B.C. Nickerson, USN, the Iwo is described as being in the Gulf of Oman and "the closest large amphibious ship".
Link (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/navymapbenghazi/).
A little disingenuous to say that the carrier wouldn't be 'there' for seven days....
Dist. Expert 26
11-11-15, 23:59
Given that the two closest carriers were on the far side of the Arabian peninsula, it seems a moot or, at best, an academic point, but don't CVNs carry a detachment of Marines and the transport aircraft necessary to get them to shore?
I also seem to recall hearing that Libyan rebels were able to use their cellphones to call in NATO airstrikes against Gaddafi's forces. Not the same thing as a JTAC, but better than nothing.
(It also appears that carriers do not possess attack helicopters. Nor do they possess much in the way of transport aircraft capable of launching and retrieving a serious ship-to-shore combat mission. So even if they have 03s aboard, they'd pretty much have to swim.)
Again, all academic given that there were no carriers in the Med.
Even then, you'd think think that somebody could call our NATO allies in Germany, Italy, France, Spain, or the UK to launch a rescue mission: No difficulty asking permission to fly through airspace, there. They have capable SOF on call, they have the ability to fly CAS aircraft into North Africa. Hell, it's practically their backyard.
Outside of SOF, I've never heard of Marines being attached to a CVN, only LHDs like the ship I was on.
I believe the job of calling said allies for help would fall to the state department...oops...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKsiDV1LuJA
Good watch.
Outside of SOF, I've never heard of Marines being attached to a CVN, only LHDs like the ship I was on.
I believe the job of calling said allies for help would fall to the state department...oops...
Doesn't matter now.
A couple dipshits claimed it was a Republican politically motivated witch hunt and now that is the "new" truth of the matter. Nothing anyone says otherwise will make any difference.
Dist. Expert 26
11-12-15, 08:44
Doesn't matter now.
A couple dipshits claimed it was a Republican politically motivated witch hunt and now that is the "new" truth of the matter. Nothing anyone says otherwise will make any difference.
You're probably right. I'm still hanging on to a little hope though, as the headline on Fox News this morning was about the FBI expanding the probe into Billhary's emails. One can hope that there is still some reminiscence of justice in this country.
KalashniKEV
11-12-15, 09:08
Could we have made it there in time? I think so. Had we launched immediately after the attack started, we could have flown straight there... Two companies plus Recon and snipers, it wouldn't have even been a fight. It's something that bothers me to this day, but I'm glad the men that died there are getting the attention they deserve.
Only if you start your stopwatch at the initial attack, which was a light skirmish that would not have justified the response. The third attack that overwhelmed the compound happened much faster.
The first attack began at 9:40 PM with "We are under attack" sent to Gregory Hicks.
The first attack ended less than one hour later with "All Clear" sent to Gregory Hicks.
It's only a scandal if you don't know anything about the event. I will say again, the politicization is extremely offensive to those who are not politicians.
Like anything, we can MMQB this event to death, and it's completely valid to ask, "Why didn't they send a whole BCT to reinforce the compound after:"
A grenade was thrown over the wall 06 April.
They blew the gates off the compound 06 June.
The British Ambassador survived his assassination attempt 10 June.
AQ starts operating openly in the city ~10 June.
You just never know if it's justified until the outcome.
IMHO the failure at Benghazi was ineptitude. Is that a crime? No, but certainly reflects poorly on those involved. The outright lies told afterward when it was damn well known it had nothing to do with a video is scandalous. Is that a crime? Meh, debatable. To me the lies rise to a much higher level than the ineptitude, as it can easily appear that the lies were told to cover up for the incompetence displayed by those in positions of responsibility.
Coulda shoulda woulda......Benghazi should have been reinforced or abandoned and consolidated in Tripoli.
Only if you start your stopwatch at the initial attack, which was a light skirmish that would not have justified the response. The third attack that overwhelmed the compound happened much faster.
The first attack began at 9:40 PM with "We are under attack" sent to Gregory Hicks.
The first attack ended less than one hour later with "All Clear" sent to Gregory Hicks.
It's only a scandal if you don't know anything about the event. I will say again, the politicization is extremely offensive to those who are not politicians.
Like anything, we can MMQB this event to death, and it's completely valid to ask, "Why didn't they send a whole BCT to reinforce the compound after:"
A grenade was thrown over the wall 06 April.
They blew the gates off the compound 06 June.
The British Ambassador survived his assassination attempt 10 June.
AQ starts operating openly in the city ~10 June.
You just never know if it's justified until the outcome.
The part that sticks in my craw is the repeated requests for additional security by ambassador Stevens and it was denied. It would seem in hindsight, they either should have increased security or pulled our people out and taken the ambassador's request seriously but (apparently) did not. What are your thoughts/intel on that issue you can share?
I had thought there was a crew ready to respond and close enough to do so in the heat of it it but were told to stand down and were delayed to the point it was a recovery mission vs response. Is that info incorrect/out of context to the time line of events?
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-12-15, 09:55
It's only a scandal if you don't know anything about the event. I will say again, the politicization is extremely offensive to those who are not politicians.
The height of American outrage is to be 'offended'.
I'm sorry 'extremely offended' How did you decide to go with underlining and not bold and/or a bigger font- or all three. That's what I do when I'm extremely offended, or is that my 'utterly' offended level. 'Really offended' just gets bolding. Go past 'utterly offended' and I go nuclear and throw in italics. Thermonuclear gets a color added ending the escalation with red. You really need to up your 'offended' game.
A grenade was thrown over the wall 06 April.
They blew the gates off the compound 06 June.
The British Ambassador survived his assassination attempt 10 June.
AQ starts operating openly in the city ~10 June.
Sooo, it's not like they didn't have any warnings? And what did they do about it?
Your roof stands up to some thunderstorms, so you don't think you have to be worried about a flood?
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-12-15, 10:01
I had thought there was a crew ready to respond and close enough to do so in the heat of it it but were told to stand down and were delayed to the point it was a recovery mission vs response. Is that info incorrect/out of context to the time line of events?
I'm not saying it's a conspiracy, but it is odd that on a 9/11 anniversary, you wouldn't have any capability in the Med. Did we not have any drone capability?
Really looking forward to the movie. Still have a hard time with the kid from 'The Office' as a BAMF.
I'm not saying it's a conspiracy, but it is odd that on a 9/11 anniversary, you wouldn't have any capability in the Med. Did we not have any drone capability?
Really looking forward to the movie. Still have a hard time with the kid from 'The Office' as a BAMF.
If the movie follows the actual chain of events as they happened, I might see it. If not, and movies rarely do, I don't need another "based on actual events" fictional movie and will pass on it.
KalashniKEV
11-12-15, 10:20
The part that sticks in my craw is the repeated requests for additional security by ambassador Stevens and it was denied. It would seem in hindsight, they either should have increased security or pulled our people out and taken the ambassador's request seriously but (apparently) did not. What are your thoughts/intel on that issue you can share?
In this case, "they" is "he."
J. Christopher Stevens was a United States Ambassador.
The whole narrative that Chris Stevens was a helpless pawn cast out onto the battlefield against his will by the evil Hillary Rodham Clinton who delightfully ordered all the civil servants and all the uniformed service members and all the civilian contractors to "Stand Down" is completely ridiculous to anyone who has knowledge of the way things work. Thus, you will only see this spin gain traction with those who have no knowledge... and the more they find out, the more they realize they've been fed a ration of BS.
It is impossible to separate the criticism of the people who were actually involved, focus that criticism into a ball of fire, and then cast it at "Washington."
The super-interesting-thing though is that the non-political types who had direct involvement (and thus carry most of the blame) see their absolution in shifting the blame to the same place as the partisan spin doctors want it to land. They know they're backing BS, but if it saves their skin, then pass the Kool Aid!
In fact, Gregory Hicks (Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, if you don't know) even wrote it in his Op Ed for WSJ, "The blame lies entirely with Washington."
I guess that's how he looks himself in the mirror and goes to sleep at night...
(Also Will, thanks for always being rational in your postings)
In this case, "they" is "he."
J. Christopher Stevens was a United States Ambassador.
The whole narrative that Chris Stevens was a helpless pawn cast out onto the battlefield against his will by the evil Hillary Rodham Clinton who delightfully ordered all the civil servants and all the uniformed service members and all the civilian contractors to "Stand Down" is completely ridiculous to anyone who has knowledge of the way things work.
I do not believe HC herself had any part in up to the minute part of the events, and decisions made, and never did. The decisions made at the time of the attacks and COC seems far shorter and more regional from what I understand. Those who think HC was literally monitoring it in real time and making active decisions are in tin foil hat land. I'm unclear if she was aware of the repeated requests for increased security, but likely was considering the region etc. I think the issue is more with the spin she and her office attempted post event that has made so many so angry. I have no doubt blame for this failure is several layers below HC, but end of the day, it happened on her watch and she's done a piss poor job of being held accountable to that fact it seems.
There are events that are simply unforeseeable and people simply look to find a scapegoat to blame to pretend random chit does not happen in this world you simply can't control or effect. I do not believe this is such a situation however.
My position: when you attack sovereign nations embassy and kill its ambassador, that is an act of war. When your people call for immediate support, and gooks in the wire, it's all hands on deck and I want to know what was on station to respond, and follow the paper/electron trail back to who made the full decision not to be respond and charge them accordingly. I do not believe for a millisecond there was not time and resources on deck to respond, be it ninjas, gun ships, drones, or danger close munitions of some sort. I feel failed to see or feel any true sense of outrage by POTUS, HC, and others who we depend on to protect this nation.
As you say, it was politicized to the point of making it very difficult to get clarity on it all, and it's not the first or last time it will happen.
Thus, you will only see this spin gain traction with those who have no knowledge... and the more they find out, the more they realize they've been fed a ration of BS.
It is impossible to separate the criticism of the people who were actually involved, focus that criticism into a ball of fire, and then cast it at "Washington."
The super-interesting-thing though is that the non-political types who had direct involvement (and thus carry most of the blame) see their absolution in shifting the blame to the same place as the partisan spin doctors want it to land. They know they're backing BS, but if it saves their skin, then pass the Kool Aid!
In fact, Gregory Hicks (Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, if you don't know) even wrote it in his Op Ed for WSJ, "The blame lies entirely with Washington."
I guess that's how he looks himself in the mirror and goes to sleep at night...
It's a given the roaches scatter when a light it shined on them...
(Also Will, thanks for always being rational in your postings)
I have many faults. Being irrational is not one of them. :cool:
I only wish to learn and ask value added Qs where/when possible to be better informed.
In this case, "they" is "he."
J. Christopher Stevens was a United States Ambassador.
The whole narrative that Chris Stevens was a helpless pawn cast out onto the battlefield against his will by the evil Hillary Rodham Clinton who delightfully ordered all the civil servants and all the uniformed service members and all the civilian contractors to "Stand Down" is completely ridiculous to anyone who has knowledge of the way things work. Thus, you will only see this spin gain traction with those who have no knowledge... and the more they find out, the more they realize they've been fed a ration of BS.
It is impossible to separate the criticism of the people who were actually involved, focus that criticism into a ball of fire, and then cast it at "Washington."
The super-interesting-thing though is that the non-political types who had direct involvement (and thus carry most of the blame) see their absolution in shifting the blame to the same place as the partisan spin doctors want it to land. They know they're backing BS, but if it saves their skin, then pass the Kool Aid!
In fact, Gregory Hicks (Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, if you don't know) even wrote it in his Op Ed for WSJ, "The blame lies entirely with Washington."
I guess that's how he looks himself in the mirror and goes to sleep at night...
(Also Will, thanks for always being rational in your postings)
So let me see if I have this straight: you poo-poo any "conspiracy theories" directed against Washington, yet you basically propose a conspiracy theory yourself that those directly involved who are not politicians are full of shit and essentially saying things to cover their screw-ups? Forgive me if I sense a bit of doublespeak here.
What about the "boots on the ground" guys doing the actual fighting that night? I've read and heard some of their accounts and they ALL seem to be indicative of unanswered calls for reinforcement. Even the station chief in Tripoli told the HSLD guys to stand down and eventually they disobeyed and went to Benghazi. Are they all full of shit too?
As WillBrink stated it probably wasn't a real-time decision by Cuntlery Klinton. As he said it was probably a few levels below her. Nonetheless her blatant lies and those of the administration about the "why" of the attack damn sure look like an attempt to cover their sorry, inept asses.
Hear hear men, critical thinking is not aloud.
KalashniKEV
11-12-15, 12:44
My position: when you attack sovereign nations embassy and kill its ambassador, that is an act of war.
...or at the very least, a sign the the folks who you are trying to help win the war (AQ/AQIM/AaS) "reject your ambassador."
Peaceful transition to Saif al-Islam Gaddafi was the most favorable outcome.
So let me see if I have this straight: you poo-poo any "conspiracy theories" directed against Washington, yet you basically propose a conspiracy theory yourself that those directly involved who are not politicians are full of shit and essentially saying things to cover their screw-ups?
???
I don't deal in conspiracy theories.
My assertion that those directly involved were responsible in the outcome is common sense.
I merely shed light on the nexus of lies and the overlapping interests between those who are truly accountable and the partisan witch hunters.
Where does the blame lie?
Surely not with me, good sir!
Why, I agree, poor chap!
My assertion that those directly involved were responsible in the outcome is common sense.
Okay, perhaps we need to define "directly involved". You talking about the guys exchanging gunfire or a little higher up on the food chain?
From USA Today dated May 1st, 2014:
Lovell did not question the Pentagon claim that it could not have scrambled forces in the region quickly enough to have prevented the deaths of the Americans. Lovell said no one at the time of the attack knew how long it would go, so they could not have determined then that there was no use in trying.
"As the attack was ongoing, it was unclear whether it was an attempted kidnapping, rescue, recovery, protracted hostile engagement or any or all of the above," Lovell said.
While people on the ground were fighting for their lives, discussions among U.S. leaders outside Libya "churned on about what we should do," but the military waited for a request for assistance from the State Department, Lovell said.
There were questions about whether the U.S. military could have responded to Benghazi in time, but "we should have tried," Lovell said.
So the determination that there wasn't enough time to mount a rescue effort was in HINDSIGHT. At the time no one knew the outcome. Also, don't know if it's protocol or such but why the DoD has to wait for an official request from State is beyond me. For the record BG Lovell was an Air Force guy at Africa Command's HQ.
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-12-15, 13:38
When it's raining, how long do you wait to use your umbrella.
Even the three little pigs got it right by the third attack.
Kev wants to conflate the two issues of what happened that day and the misdirection afterwards.
By definition there was not adequate security. I don't know of anyone that said that they think this was an evil plan hatched by HRC. At most damning you get a state dept that was not proactive enough in protecting its people. She's the head of it. There is something there.
The second part is the irrational State and WH response to the attacks. They are the ones that politicized it from the get-go. There is no other rational and factual conclusion that you can come to. Don't crap on us for pointing out the king has no clothes.
KalashniKEV
11-12-15, 14:18
Lovell said no one at the time of the attack knew how long it would go, so they could not have determined then that there was no use in trying.
The first attack lasted around ~40 minutes before the all clear was given.
Lovell is using the fallacy of the inverse.
"Since we don't know that every raindrop is the start of another hurricane Katrina, we must fill sand bags when it's cloudy."
You can apply this very same logic to similar events. Try it.
So the determination that there wasn't enough time to mount a rescue effort was in HINDSIGHT. At the time no one knew the outcome.
...but now that we do have the outcome, expect guys like him to come out and say, "Well I would have saved the day, if-only..." and guys like Hicks to say, "Sure it looks like I'm the one directly responsible for this, but let's zoom waaaay out, spin the globe, and go back in time, knowing everything that we now know..."
Also, don't know if it's protocol or such but why the DoD has to wait for an official request from State is beyond me.
This is what happens when three letter agencies try to do the job that the Military is designed to do.
They know this too, because you should hear them bitch and moan when the Analyst side of their own house does something the Ops side is designed to do.
Even the three little pigs got it right by the third attack.
Not sure if you realize the irony, but the third attack was the one that overran the compound.
If the Big Bad Wolf said "huff," and the pigs logically inferred that his intent was to blow their house down, could they have reinforced their house with bricks in time to prevent destruction? What if he huffed to scare them, but never puffed? Should pigs stack bricks every single time in response to huffing?
Probably there wasn't enough time anyway, but could they have stacked a few bricks anyway just to make a good show out of it?
Why are both Republicans and Democrats strongly in support of this house-destroying Wolf... who is also responsible for 9/11?
There is only one clear answer- Hillary Rodham Clinton. :)
Benghazi is in Libya. The supported AQ element there was AQIM, or Al Qaeda in Islamic Mahgreb.
Assad is the President of Syria. The supported AQ element there is JaN, or Jabhat al Nusra.
I understand your enthusiasm to pin this on the O-monster, but the supporters of Al Qaeda are unfortunately on both sides of the aisle.
In fact... if you are following the race... Bush, Carson, Christie, Fiorina, Graham, Kasich, Rubio and Cruz all support a No-Fly Zone in Syria similar to the one in Libya to allow al Qaeda room to strengthen themselves and freedom of movement to take cities.
Here, also, is a pic of John McCain having a backslapping good time with members of al Qaeda (confirmed) and Abu Bakr al Baghdadi (unconfirmed):
That's beyond kooky-ookey, but offensive to anyone who has served (and on Veteran's Day, no less).
Slap yourself.
There were 3 separate attacks on the compound. If they jumped TOC after the first one, they'd all still be alive. For some reason they didn't do it after the second attack either. You can't second guess a leader's actions in combat. Nobody knows what's going to happen next on the battlefield... it's crazy like that.
Perhaps nobody was expecting effective mortar fire?
First off: I know the difference between Libya and Syria.
Secondly: Since I had a uniform on 26 years and (RET) goes after my name, It's not kooky nor do I need to slap myself to think that this administration might do something like that. We've let people hang before (think Bay of Pigs)...
You dared someone to ask a question, I did.
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-12-15, 17:03
Well it seems 13 hours is too long to take to respond. So we have that data point.
According to the Kev standard you wait longer than 13 hours, you never send a rescue or potato. He doesn't have a coherent answer.
Oh, and I forgot. It happens on Sept 11th. That's not a clue or anything.
Kev has some really good insights but he is blinded by his hatred of Bush, his admiration of Putin and an unhealthy addiction to BHO- which pretty much all comes from some Neo-con conspiracy/incompetence.
Argue with him all you want. Until he gets over his fear of the neo-con boogie man, I don't have the time to parse the intelligent stuff from the rant. And that is a shame.
I'm out and waiting for the movie.
New movie poster for 13 Hours - The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi
http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/12/09/427d5711df774d1fd615467db5ffdf18.jpg
I hope it paints Hillary up to be the horrid desertsnatch we all know her to be.
I hope it is unrelenting, unapologetic, and unforgiving.
We shall see
I hope it paints Hillary up to be the horrid desertsnatch we all know her to be.
I hope it is unrelenting, unapologetic, and unforgiving.
We shall seeIt is my understanding that the movie focuses on the tactical aspect versus the political.
That is out-****ing-standing. Really.
I hope it paints Hillary up to be the horrid desertsnatch we all know her to be.
I hope it is unrelenting, unapologetic, and unforgiving.
We shall see
Will probably be briefly alluded to with no names like in Blackhawk Down, where a nameless "Washington" denied support for armored vehicles and gunships. We all know Clinton was far more concerned with his personal image than the safety of troops he sent into harms way, and by sending them out without the proper support, a lot of good men died.
My guess is HRC is frantically trying to acquire a bootleg copy while preparing spin for the upcoming movie release.
WickedWillis
12-09-15, 18:26
My guess is HRC is frantically trying to acquire a bootleg copy while preparing spin for the upcoming movie release.
Truth is though, no one gives an actual shit except for us here, Conservatives, and Fox News. This won't hurt Hillary because it doesn't effect her voters.
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-09-15, 21:29
I saw a longer version of the trailer recently. It had them in positions getting ready to whack the bad guys as they cross a field. Looks like a pretty good movie. Really looking forward to it.
If it ends up just honoring the dead and the brave from that is enough for me. Hopefully it will make people start to wonder and ask more questions.
I hope it paints Hillary up to be the horrid desertsnatch we all know her to be.
I hope it is unrelenting, unapologetic, and unforgiving.
We shall see
I hope it's accurate to the actual events. If "based on a true" story type movie, where they take all manner of liberties with the facts for dramatic effects, I have no interest. The problem is, the public comes away thinking they have seen a legit representation of the events, when other than a few keys aspect, very little reality to actual events. Personally, I consider the "based on actual events" type movies a work of fiction and generally avoid them, until I hear otherwise and they get the thumbs up from those in the know of the events the movie based on.
Two, as we know how it ends (badly) I tend to avoid such movies as I don't need additional reminders of a FUBAR event that is a major failure for us. I'd prefer to read a good detailed article on the events via some good intelligence author etc.
Your mileage may differ.
I think portraying Hillary as a horrid desertsnatch would be apt and accurate.
This is the second movie of dudes getting jammed as a direct result of Clinton BS.
Moose-Knuckle
12-11-15, 02:34
Everything I read/watched about this film indicates that IT IS NOT about the political side of this cluster ****. As for authenticity of the events, the surviving members of the CIA GRS who were there are contributing to the film. That gives me great hope . . .
Everything I read/watched about this film indicates that IT IS NOT about the political side of this cluster ****. As for authenticity of the events, the surviving members of the CIA GRS who were there are contributing to the film. That gives me great hope . . .
Additionally, recent films about military conflicts have gotten much, much better. Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers raised the bar. And Black Hawk Down, Zero Dark Thirty, and Lone Survivor have raised the art of portraying war to amazing levels.
It could be good.
I saw the theater preview the other day when I saw CREED. It looks so badass.
30 cal slut
01-12-16, 06:49
Something stinks here.
How far is Croatia from Benghazi?
http://nbc16.com/news/connect-to-congress/full-measure-rescue-interrupted
Now an email hidden from public view for three years reveals another rescue attempt was apparently interrupted. The military offered to deploy Special Forces to Benghazi during the assault, long before the attackers killed CIA contractors and former Navy Seals Glen Doherty and Ty Woods.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/294937006/2015-12-09-Unredacted-DOD-Email
I think portraying Hillary as a horrid desertsnatch would be apt and accurate.
This is the second movie of dudes getting jammed as a direct result of Clinton BS.
That's a good point!!! Never thought of it like that. Sadly, I wonder how many lives have been lost due to the Clinton's worrying about their "image"
Averageman
01-12-16, 08:38
I just finished the book and I'm actually looking forward to reading it again. Hopefully I will get it done before seeing the movie.
Mauser KAR98K
01-12-16, 16:31
Spoiler alert: Ambassador Chris Steven doesn't make it.
WickedWillis
01-12-16, 16:36
Spoiler alert: Ambassador Chris Steven doesn't make it.
Dark.
Spoiler alert: Ambassador Chris Steven doesn't make it.
A-hole. Why did you have to ruin it for me. :)
Dark.
Ugh. I am embarrassed how much I laughed at that. I guess this is my moment where I realize how much of a D-Bag I am.
Mauser KAR98K
01-12-16, 18:22
A-hole. Why did you have to ruin it for me. :)
Hope Hillary doesn't monitor this thread. Heard she was hoping for a better ending.
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-15-16, 14:57
Just went and saw it with my wife for a 10am date movie.... kids F up you life.
I thought it was a good movie. If at the end of 'Saving Private Ryan' you are saddened, at the end of "Black Hawk Down" you are sad and wondering what we are doing, at the end of 13 hours you'll feel saddened, wondering what we are doing there and why no one helped.
I haven't read the book, so I have no frame of reference. My wife only tangentially knows about the story and was wondering towards if they were all going to die. While about the fighting on the ground, the question of why no one came to help (outside of the Tripoli team) is definately brought up and never really answered. It really is the elephant in the room, since even the movie mentions that it was no protest.
Good action movie, good character development. There are some people that don't come off very well. The total chaos of the situation, where who knows who is a bad guy or a good guy is a total fog comes out clearly.
My wife came out of it wondering alternating from why do anything to why don't we nuke them.
]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/13/state-department-discovers-thousands-previously-undisclosed-clinton-documents.html
The Department of State recently discovered “thousands” of previously unreviewed documents that relate to Hillary Clinton and the Benghazi attack, according to a watchdog group that has been suing the department to release public records from Clinton’s tenure.
The State Department disclosed the existence of the additional records in a court filing on Friday and asked the judge for further time to search and review the documents.
The watchdog group Judicial Watch has been suing the State Department for years to turn over public records related to Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, the Clinton Foundation, the employment arrangements of Clinton’s top aides, and her response to the Benghazi attack.
According to the State Department, the newly found records are likely to include information relevant to Judicial Watch’s requests. Officials said they would need until at least Feb. 1 to review the documents.
“After State filed its motion for summary judgment in this case [on November 11, 2015], State located additional sources of documents that originated within the Office of the Secretary that are reasonably likely to contain records responsive to Plaintiff’s request,” said the State Department’s attorneys in a court filing.
A judge ordered the State Department to turn over public records after Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit against the department in September 2013. The case was reopened last year after it was reported that Clinton’s emails, which were sent over a personal email server, had not been searched.
I thought over all it was a really good movie. From reading advertisement for this, it is supposed to be a true story without embellishment or sideshows for your viewing pleasure. With that, I'd say it is pretty focused.
With that in mind, there is really only 2 or so cut outs to the major politcal involvement with no backstory, just trying to get boots on the ground and the logistics involved. Surprising, not one word of a leftist, small breasted, teflon ....
It doesn't present the DOS in a bright light.
I had no idea two compounds were hit. What do I know, I stopped listening to the news and papers what... 7 years ago.
If the storyline parallels the facts, they came out very well.
I can't wait for the sequel, the Back Story Of Bengazhi; Oh, they are still in the discovery phase. (Link)
black22rifle
01-15-16, 16:23
I watched it today also, it was good.
I just kept wondering if that entire ordeal was the cluster **** the movie portrayed?
I watched it today also, it was good.
I just kept wondering if that entire ordeal was the cluster **** the movie portrayed?
According to the contractors who were there, yes. You can find their interview online.
I think the term 'amateur hour' was the PG term used, repeatedly.
Mauser KAR98K
01-15-16, 17:25
Does Clinton go to prison at the end?
ROFLMAO
I Don't know, I'm not writing the sequal. I can barely string enough words together to make a semi coherent post sans pics and have to re-edit the shit out of it after inserting external links. (Picture red neck complete with neckbeard and framing hammer with a cherios box GED hammering away at a script)
I know my skill set. Better to leave that for folks with skilz. Paging WillBrink...
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-15-16, 18:51
My wife was like "So you have to point a gun at someone and ask if they are a bad guy? Who in the hell is going to say 'Yes'?".
I didn't want to mention the DOS (consulate?) guys. The black haired guy/leader doesn't come off very well.
black22rifle
01-15-16, 19:06
According to the contractors who were there, yes. You can find their interview online.
Lions led by dogs.
Great movie. Worth the few bucks.
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-15-16, 21:51
I don't think there are any real spoilers but I had a few questions, mainly if the movie jived with the book
SPoilers
-Only mortars in the last attack? My wife even questioned why if, as the movie said, the mortars were pre-plotted, why do the other attacks without that support.
-Did they have drone coverage the whole time? Was it unarmed, or did it shoot of its two hellfires and just watch? Wouldn't that have been enough capability to spot targets for the F16s- which I though the movie said would only have 45 minutes on station?
-Fighting positions behind the brick lattice walls on the roofs as they shoot off the top of the wall? They move a metal plate at one point, but I assume the real one as heavier than the one we saw.
I saw it today, and it closely followed the books I've read on it. Even the actors in the movie resembled the actual people involved. It was a lot like Blackhawk down in that it portrayed the events closely to the book, unlike The Lone Survivor. For most of the guys on this website, it's worth watching now versus waiting on the red box!
It was a good book. You should read it if you haven't yet.
Saw it tonight. Bay did the book justice. I have never been in a theater that was absolutely silent during parts.
The whole story is a cluster f*ck. Pray for our fallen!
It was a good book. You should read it if you haven't yet.
Saw it tonight. Bay did the book justice. I have never been in a theater that was absolutely silent during parts.
The whole story is a cluster f*ck. Pray for our fallen!
^This. Especially notable was the absolute silence in the theater, with people of all ages.
I do think the movie does the book proud as well. And it all seemed to match up with the Fox (IIRC) show where the three guys sat and explained the whole incident with the map of the complexes on the table they were sitting around.
Averageman
01-16-16, 17:00
It was a good book. You should read it if you haven't yet.
Saw it tonight. Bay did the book justice. I have never been in a theater that was absolutely silent during parts.
The whole story is a cluster f*ck. Pray for our fallen!
I saw it this morning, I have to agree with the above.
Bay did the right thing with this one.
I just saw this movie.
If even a frog's hair of a sliver of it is true then I, personally, am more outraged than any f-cking muslim could ever be about a YouTube video.
Not a soldier, but seeing those F-16s just sitting there empty and idle really, really made me pissed.
At least we know when a Clinton gets their hands on something that we'll end up with a clusterf-ck that will have a movie made about it and some retard wanting to do a "clone build" of a gun carried by some guy who just wanted to go home.
I saw the movie last night. Great film. I noticed how quiet the theater was at the end too.
Found this yesterday, just ran it today (There is part 1 and part 2). http://fullmeasure.news/news/politics/rescue-interrupted
Sheryl Attkinson is very well respected, did some very good work on F&F, bailed out from CBS after they found her too diligent for their taste. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharyl_Attkisson
Mauser KAR98K
01-17-16, 20:18
Saw it Friday with the Mum. Both of were mad that the ending wasn't Hillary doing a perp-walk.
Bay needed to have a scene with a phone ringing at 3AM on a desk that said "Madam Secretary Clinton."
I can't wait to see this film. What a cluster**** it sounds like.
While I can't blame Hilldog in fact, I will blame her in spirit. It was her watch, she was in charge, the buck stops with her.
The_War_Wagon
01-18-16, 10:32
While I can't blame Hilldog in fact, I will blame her in spirit. It was her watch, she was in charge, the buck stops with her.
GOOD thing she was on watch at 3am - to IGNORE that phonecall!!! :rolleyes:
Averageman
01-18-16, 11:18
What was very telling in that regard was the Female CIA Operative who was begging for air support, anything, even a fly over.
Nothing but Dead Air.
These guys have managed to avoid all responsibility for any of this, not one drop of the guilt has landed on the Obama/Clinton Machine.
brickboy240
01-18-16, 11:36
I really want to see this film.
Still cannot believe that Hollywood "allowed" a film like this so close to the election/coronation of Hill-dog.
Averageman
01-18-16, 11:45
I really want to see this film.
Still cannot believe that Hollywood "allowed" a film like this so close to the election/coronation of Hill-dog.
You know I've read quite a bit about how the Clinton's have "strong armed" a lot of money out of some people. I don't think they might be as loved in some places as they were before and I'm pretty sure Hillary was used as an attack dog on more than a few folks over the years Bill was POTUS.
Perhaps it's time for some Pay Back?
brickboy240
01-18-16, 15:09
It just does not seem like Hollywood's typical way of showing anyone with a "D" after their name.
Even the Dan Rather incident got a total white washing. They even had the nerve to title the movie "Truth." What a joke.
Still....the timing of 13 Hours release just does not seem right for Hollywood. They are usually 100% in the can for whomever has the "D" after their name. Many Hollywood big whigs have already given thousands to Hillary's campaign.
Just saw a blurb on FOX that Michael Bay will be on The O'Reilly Factor tonight.
How do I know it's probably accurate? The left is in full on attack mode trying to discredit it. It's like they forget it's based on info from the guys who were actually there.....
Here is something that most have never seen , was originally a radio interview that Glenn Beck would not touch it.
Read to conclusion it is 180 degrees off of the the narrative we have been spoon fed by government media, anyway
keep open mind and suddenly it all falls into place.
http://www.sott.net/article/298448-NATO-Slaughter-James-and-Joanne-Moriarty-expose-the-truth-about-what-happened-in-Libya
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-19-16, 19:55
Here is something that most have never seen , was originally a radio interview that Glenn Beck would not touch it.
Read to conclusion it is 180 degrees off of the the narrative we have been spoon fed by government media, anyway
keep open mind and suddenly it all falls into place.
http://www.sott.net/article/298448-NATO-Slaughter-James-and-Joanne-Moriarty-expose-the-truth-about-what-happened-in-Libya
Claim 1 is cat-nip for the gold bugs. Claim 3 is about as relevant as reparations for slavery in the US, a dog whistle for the extremes. Claim 2 may have some merit, but while we definately want to keep an eye on Chinese influence and power in Africa, 'military control' of Africa is taking it to far.
REALLY ???
You seem to dismiss out of hand a lot of information.
I suppose this has no relevance either http://fullmeasure.news/news/politics/rescue-interrupted
things are coming out every day, that stink to high heaven, let alone Fast and Furious, and the
Clinton E-Mail scandal that will never go anywhere.
I don't know about you but I would have to wear a gas mask @ 1600 Penn. Ave.
Then there is TurtleBoy McConnel trying to make it legal, kinda, http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-22/mitch-mcconnell-moves-grant-president-unlimited-war-powers-no-expiration-date
It was a good book. You should read it if you haven't yet.
Saw it tonight. Bay did the book justice. I have never been in a theater that was absolutely silent during parts.
The whole story is a cluster f*ck. Pray for our fallen!
Yes they were.
I saw it the night before I flew out to come back to work. Wife was speechless throughout the entire movie. Of course I giggled at some of the parts (Tonto on the diving board saying their all gonna die, Mac from the Unit holding up a stub and saying how cool it looks, etc etc dark military humor). I had to tell the wife the back story and explain why things went down how they did. I thought it was a good movie that hopefully will shed some light on the way they were all left out to dry. I personally was hoping this would be the thing that brought Hillbitch down, but I don't think it will. The movie opened Friday and we went Sunday and the theater was half full at best. Mostly 35ish to 60ish white people not really the crowd that needed to see it to not vote for the skank.
Here's a shirt I saw online that I might just have to add to my wardrobe.
http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160123/eedf3af6d119b4ee66eab2598eb78a68.jpg
SeriousStudent
01-22-16, 19:57
I'll order one. Where did you see it?
Thanks.
http://www.aafnation.com/products/the-h-is-silent-in-benghazi?variant=4562788417
Whiskey_Bravo
01-22-16, 23:00
Finally watched it tonight. I knew what was going to happen but it was still hard to watch unfold knowing that no help was going to come. The lack of help, lack of response, and handling of the entire ordeal is embarrassing and disgusting.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
01-23-16, 23:13
Saw it today. It's an instant war classic. I cant say much about it, but it evoked emotions in me that I haven't felt for a long time. I read the book, I knew how it ended, but it still left me feeling crushed by the weight of a powerful government that would not stand for the right thing.
gunrunner505
01-24-16, 02:33
Just got home from seeing it. Excellent movie that did the book and the men justice.
Makes you want to punch anyone who says they like the hell bitch right in the junk.
Anyone who has one of those stupid ass I'm ready for Hilly stickers needs to go see this.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Just saw it.
Magpul everywhere!
Michael Bay really likes Salient Arms.
HK417 with Nightforce scope is the big sniper in the film for the good guys.
Saw one MK18 Mod 0, yay!
MountainRaven
01-24-16, 13:42
Just saw it.
Magpul everywhere!
Michael Bay really likes Salient Arms.
HK417 with Nightforce scope is the big sniper in the film for the good guys.
Saw one MK18 Mod 0, yay!
Per IMFDB.org, both Salients are carried by the same character. I wonder if the guy the character was based off of also rocked Salients.
Mauser KAR98K
01-24-16, 14:34
Per IMFDB.org, both Salients are carried by the same character. I wonder if the guy the character was based off of also rocked Salients.
I doubt since the GRY rifle is a recent incarnation.
Saw the rifle and thought: "Hey, Roan stole Coloin Noir's rifle."
I'm pretty sure they just said "hey what gun looks cool" and popped it it in the actors hands.
I'm curious if they really used an HK or another Semi Auto.
Still...it was a sad film
Per IMFDB.org, both Salients are carried by the same character. I wonder if the guy the character was based off of also rocked Salients.
No he did not carry it. Michael Bay REALLY likes Salient Arms. They're in the the Transformers movies too. Salient Arms even made an Autobots rifle. I had a customer transfer one in from Reactive Gun Works.
Saw it today. It's an instant war classic. I cant say much about it, but it evoked emotions in me that I haven't felt for a long time. I read the book, I knew how it ended, but it still left me feeling crushed by the weight of a powerful government that would not stand for the right thing.
Well said. I watched it last night with my 13 year old son. He had lots of good questions. I gave him the best answers j could. He wasn't satisfied. I wasn't either. It pisses me off. We talked about the failure and the lack of help sent.
There were some great light moments. The comment about how going into the fight wearing shorts. Having to take a shit for hours. And continuously yelling at the interpertor for his awful muzzle control. The one that made me smile most was the question about the belt fed on the roof. Is that thing loud and the cotton gauze used as ear pro looking like a tampon. Was that a PKM? It looked really long.
The mortaring was the worst scene for me. I also couldn't figure out why they didn't keep dropping mortars.
SilverBullet432
01-24-16, 18:52
Just saw it.
Magpul everywhere!
Michael Bay really likes Salient Arms.
HK417 with Nightforce scope is the big sniper in the film for the good guys.
Saw one MK18 Mod 0, yay!
ALL MB films I've seem feature HEAVY product placement.
Averageman
01-24-16, 18:53
The mortaring was the worst scene for me. I also couldn't figure out why they didn't keep dropping mortars.
More than likely they fired all of the mortars they could afford.
Unlike here where the .gov has a monopoly on crew served weapons, then and there you could own what you could afford.
MountainRaven
01-24-16, 19:36
No he did not carry it. Michael Bay REALLY likes Salient Arms. They're in the the Transformers movies too. Salient Arms even made an Autobots rifle. I had a customer transfer one in from Reactive Gun Works.
They're in a Transformers movie.
This is, as far as I am able to ascertain, the only movie other than Transformers: Age of Extinction that Michael Bay has directed with Salient Arms products in it.
I'm looking forward to seeing the movie.
...don't CVNs carry a detachment of Marines and the transport aircraft necessary to get them to shore?
Outside of SOF, I've never heard of Marines being attached to a CVN, only LHDs like the ship I was on.
Dated info and a sample of one... I was on CVN-72 (Abe Lincoln) 97' - 01'. We had a Marine security detail onboard until 98' when sailors took over the job. They were basically the cops of the boat from what I remember.
More than likely they fired all of the mortars they could afford.
Unlike here where the .gov has a monopoly on crew served weapons, then and there you could own what you could afford.
I'm glad they didn't have more to shoot.
MountainRaven
01-24-16, 21:41
I'm looking forward to seeing the movie.
Dated info and a sample of one... I was on CVN-72 (Abe Lincoln) 97' - 01'. We had a Marine security detail onboard until 98' when sailors took over the job. They were basically the cops of the boat from what I remember.
I remember there being Marines on the USS Enterprise (that's CVN-65, not NCC-1701) in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home and the USS Nimitz in The Final Countdown. I think I also read about there being Marine detachments in grade school (which would have been in the 90s) and in Tom Clancy's Carrier (which was published in 1999).
:ph34r:
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-25-16, 00:52
More than likely they fired all of the mortars they could afford.
Unlike here where the .gov has a monopoly on crew served weapons, then and there you could own what you could afford.
I'm glad they didn't have more to shoot.
My wife asked why they didn't lead with the mortars???
Dist. Expert 26
01-25-16, 08:06
I remember there being Marines on the USS Enterprise (that's CVN-65, not NCC-1701) in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home and the USS Nimitz in The Final Countdown. I think I also read about there being Marine detachments in grade school (which would have been in the 90s) and in Tom Clancy's Carrier (which was published in 1999).
:ph34r:
There were definitely Marines on the USS Iwo Jima...ask me how I know.
My wife asked why they didn't lead with the mortars???
People are likely cheaper than mortars.
My wife asked why they didn't lead with the mortars???
Yeah good point. I would think they had plenty of mortars in the country but didn't see them as important as direct fire weapons. If this part of the movie is accurate, It appears whoever dropped them knew what they were doing. They hit quickly and effectively.
Its like any resource. Just because they had mortars doesn't mean that they had all the components including a competent user that could bring them to bear quickly.
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-25-16, 11:04
More than likely they fired all of the mortars they could afford.
Unlike here where the .gov has a monopoly on crew served weapons, then and there you could own what you could afford.
I'm glad they didn't have more to shoot.
Its like any resource. Just because they had mortars doesn't mean that they had all the components including a competent user that could bring them to bear quickly.
From what I read three rounds fired with the first one 50 yards short and the next two on target? Maybe those guys were holding back in fear of getting whacked by a drone and they realized that there was no air cover and got in the fight late. Maybe they were waiting for the relief column to get there to get more people out in the open and more casualties. Maybe they were dumbasses that got there late and got lucky with three shots.
Averageman
01-26-16, 14:46
From what I read three rounds fired with the first one 50 yards short and the next two on target? Maybe those guys were holding back in fear of getting whacked by a drone and they realized that there was no air cover and got in the fight late. Maybe they were waiting for the relief column to get there to get more people out in the open and more casualties. Maybe they were dumbasses that got there late and got lucky with three shots.
I'm guessing late and got lucky.
I've read a bit about how armories were ransacked in Libya, some control was established at times, at other times it was like a free for all. Likely as not in those times you got away with what you could carry. If you were trained, you might have a shot at getting a bracket going, if not you would have had to find someone who knew what they were doing.
I'm sure it took some time to get a mortar, some rounds and someone who had a clue all converging on the same place at the same time.
Bear in mind it was night and this is going to be a bit more difficult for whoever was manning the mortar and calling the adjustments.
Working with the ROE they had it was not legal or even perhaps morale) to engage passing cars, even if they stopped to get a fix on your position with a GPS.
MountainRaven
06-07-16, 20:50
Out on DVD and Blu-Ray today.
If you don't have the book, Target has a bundle with the Blu-Ray/DVD and the book for the same price as the Blu-Ray/DVD.
Finally watched it tonight. I knew what was going to happen but it was still hard to watch unfold knowing that no help was going to come. The lack of help, lack of response, and handling of the entire ordeal is embarrassing and disgusting.
Just saw it and I think I'm more pissed off than anything else. People should be executed for the failures involved with this one. The fact that a key responsible person is actually running for President is sickening.
When I think back to that bitch Susan Rice trying to say it was sparked by an anti Islamic film I just get angrier.
Just saw it.
Magpul everywhere!
Michael Bay really likes Salient Arms.
HK417 with Nightforce scope is the big sniper in the film for the good guys.
Saw one MK18 Mod 0, yay!
I know you didn't mean it that way, but even if it was wall to wall KAC and HK rifles, I just can't get jazzed up about the guns in this one.
Just saw it and I think I'm more pissed off than anything else. People should be executed for the failures involved with this one. The fact that a key responsible person is actually running for President is sickening.
When I think back to that bitch Susan Rice trying to say it was sparked by an anti Islamic film I just get angrier.
I know you didn't mean it that way, but even if it was wall to wall KAC and HK rifles, I just can't get jazzed up about the guns in this one.
I agree. I did get a few laughs during the movie with their dark humor. Especially the time on the roof when one of the men asked another, is that thing f-ing lud? Then he stuffs gauze in his ears. The comment about having to take a dump since before the firefight. The interactions with the interpreter who kept flagging everyone with the Glock made me laugh too. It was a sad movie but there were definitely some funny parts.
So, what happens to Michael Bay of Hill lands P?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
So, what happens to Michael Bay of Hill lands P?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
He'll commit suicide by shooting himself in the back of the head....twice...
I haven't seen it yet, but certainly plan to. Even my wife wants to see it, which is extraordinary.
I haven't seen it yet, but certainly plan to. Even my wife wants to see it, which is extraordinary.
Tried to get my wife to watch it with me last night. No go. I'll have to see it myself. Oh well, this gets me out of a chick flick.
This is one of the best films I've seen in quite a while. Bay did a really good job of it. Wifey liked it as well. There were some humorous parts, Tonto character had some moments. I was surprised with Jim from the office, he actually fit well. I do agree with Steyr it was a cluster from the top down and the fact that shrillary is running and will likely be the potus it's disgusting. WTF is wrong with half of these Americans?
Tried to get my wife to watch it with me last night. No go. I'll have to see it myself. Oh well, this gets me out of a chick flick.
Yeah...when my wife told me she wanted to see it I immediately thought, "What's her angle? What does SHE want to see that she is going to talk me into?"
Just saw it and I think I'm more pissed off than anything else. People should be executed for the failures involved with this one. The fact that a key responsible person is actually running for President is sickening.
When I think back to that bitch Susan Rice trying to say it was sparked by an anti Islamic film I just get angrier.
Saw it in the theater when it was first released, but going to pick it up on Blu-ray. When we left the theater, my wife commented that there has to be a hotter place in Hell for Hillary.
brickboy240
06-09-16, 11:02
When will this make it to Netflix?
Anyone know?
WickedWillis
06-09-16, 11:03
When will this make it to Netflix?
Anyone know?
For most films (with the right contracts, and studio agreements on Netflix's end) It generally runs 4-8 months after Bluray release
When will this make it to Netflix? Anyone know?
I rec'd the DVD from Netflix on Tuesday. Watching it tonight.
WickedWillis
06-09-16, 12:15
I rec'd the DVD from Netflix on Tuesday. Watching it tonight.
Ah, I assumed he meant streaming. My bad.
Ah, I assumed he meant streaming. My bad.
Maybe he did, in which case I don't have a clue!
Has there ever been a legit in investigation of this event? We constantly hear rumors there was an AC 130 gun ship ready to go and told to stand down, fast response teams of the HSLD type chomping at the bit to be unleashed, etc etc, then when you dig, it's like smoke through your hands and all seems to get "fog o war" slotted. I assume a real investigation has been suppressed? What was the most complete objective investigation to date? This one continues to stick in my craw for which I have found no relief.
The only thing that seems to be directly attributable to State and HC is the continued request for additional security (20+ times?) and denial of it. Everything else has "plausible deniability" written all over it like giant red spray paint.
I got it from redbox.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
Has there ever been a legit in investigation of this event? We constantly hear rumors there was an AC 130 gun ship ready to go and told to stand down, fast response teams of the HSLD type chomping at the bit to be unleashed, etc etc, then when you dig, it's like smoke through your hands and all seems to get "fog o war" slotted. I assume a real investigation has been suppressed? What was the most complete objective investigation to date? This one continues to stick in my craw for which I have found no relief.
The only thing that seems to be directly attributable to State and HC is the continued request for additional security (20+ times?) and denial of it. Everything else has "plausible deniability" written all over it like giant red spray paint.
I think, but could be wrong, at the end of the book there was an epilogue regarding the inquiries and investigations. I may be wrong; it may have been another book.
There is all sorts of info about units in the wings but there's only one to which I can attest.
Someone hopefully knows and will release enough proof to keep killary out of the WH
Its all about timing
Tried to get my wife to watch it with me last night. No go. I'll have to see it myself. Oh well, this gets me out of a chick flick.
I went to see it with my 13 year old. He was pissed off too!
This is one of the best films I've seen in quite a while. Bay did a really good job of it. Wifey liked it as well. There were some humorous parts, Tonto character had some moments. I was surprised with Jim from the office, he actually fit well. I do agree with Steyr it was a cluster from the top down and the fact that shrillary is running and will likely be the potus it's disgusting. WTF is wrong with half of these Americans?
It's a good movie.
glad this popped up again meant to watch it and forgot so watching it today :)
sure it will steam my twinkies but most everything does anymore
This was a good movie.
Probably too good.
I can't watch it again. It was like a modern day Thermopalye the way they stood their ground but I can't watch it again. Like End of Watch. I saw that movie and wanted to knife kill the first thug I saw. It really unnerved me.
Black Hawk Down is, I suppose, seeing the representation of people at their best but as I've aged. It's not pleasant especially two guys with an M14 and a 1911 trying to hold off the entirety of Fulton County.
I believe I mentioned it earlier but seeing those F-16s just sotting their and hearing faintly in my mind "what difference does it make" just angered me.
Those guys just wanted to go home after a certain point. They had lives. Families. Things they wanted to do.
And all because of some BITCH they can't now. I didn't care about the weapons they used. They needed air support and pissed off Marines with beltfeds humping just all the ammo they could carry.
Just my take
Outlander Systems
06-09-16, 17:02
EoW had my blood boiling by the end of it.
Great movie. Just not very heartwarming.
This was a good movie.
Probably too good.
I can't watch it again. It was like a modern day Thermopalye the way they stood their ground but I can't watch it again. Like End of Watch. I saw that movie and wanted to knife kill the first thug I saw. It really unnerved me.
Black Hawk Down is, I suppose, seeing the representation of people at their best but as I've aged. It's not pleasant especially two guys with an M14 and a 1911 trying to hold off the entirety of Fulton County.
I believe I mentioned it earlier but seeing those F-16s just sotting their and hearing faintly in my mind "what difference does it make" just angered me.
Those guys just wanted to go home after a certain point. They had lives. Families. Things they wanted to do.
And all because of some BITCH they can't now. I didn't care about the weapons they used. They needed air support and pissed off Marines with beltfeds humping just all the ammo they could carry.
Just my take
I think the worst part for me was the epilogue where they are just joking over stupid shit despite you knowing their fate.
It was pretty cruel.
Whomever advised knew the little mannerisms like pulling on your vest on a hot day or bullshitting about silly stuff and whatnot. Plus the 80 percent boredom 20 percent terror part.
Some of it was hollywood bullshit, but the vehicle stops, and the little do si do planning before a pop were spot damn on. And the funeral.
It just wasn't something I could watch again, ever.
Outlander Systems
06-09-16, 18:13
I'm not LE, but that movie was one of the few that put my gut in a knot.
The portrayal of the dirtbags was way, way too realistic..
The good guys were good, and the bad guys were bad. And not in a cartoonish manner, at all.
I think the worst part for me was the epilogue where they are just joking over stupid shit despite you knowing their fate.
It was pretty cruel.
Whomever advised knew the little mannerisms like pulling on your vest on a hot day or bullshitting about silly stuff and whatnot. Plus the 80 percent boredom 20 percent terror part.
Some of it was hollywood bullshit, but the vehicle stops, and the little do si do planning before a pop were spot damn on. And the funeral.
It just wasn't something I could watch again, ever.
I also couldn't figure out why they didn't keep dropping mortars.
Saw movie last night and wondered this too.
I assumed they fired all they had or got dron'ed.
I cannot understand how you send 25 CIA operatives to a war zone who do not know how to use firearms.
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-09-16, 18:36
Has there ever been a legit in investigation of this event? We constantly hear rumors there was an AC 130 gun ship ready to go and told to stand down, fast response teams of the HSLD type chomping at the bit to be unleashed, etc etc, then when you dig, it's like smoke through your hands and all seems to get "fog o war" slotted. I assume a real investigation has been suppressed? What was the most complete objective investigation to date? This one continues to stick in my craw for which I have found no relief.
The only thing that seems to be directly attributable to State and HC is the continued request for additional security (20+ times?) and denial of it. Everything else has "plausible deniability" written all over it like giant red spray paint.
State did a piss poor job protecting its people. You really think that any asset that could have gotten there would be the kind of asset people can talk about?
The fact that everyone was NDA'd afterward tells you something.
Hillary's real problem is the cover up afterwards- sending out that NSA twit to say that it was a riot- something that anyone with two brain cells knew wasn't true with in 48 hours. I remember watching the Sunday Morning shows wondering if Susan Rice was either a very good actor, a complete idiot or a skilled liar. That isn't criminal- it's reprehensible and nasty. The cover up of the cover up is the illegality. Bad governance isn't illegal, trying to cover it up and lies under oath and failures to produce information are. Nixon wasn't out for a burglary.
I didn't concentrate on that in the movie. I was more about the complete screwed up situation on the good-bad guy IFF and the skill and bravery of the guys.
Is there terp still alive?
I cannot understand how you send 25 CIA operatives to a war zone who do not know how to use firearms.
Not all CIA personnel are special operators type, a lot of them are analysts and office types. I'm sure they have minimal exposure to firearms familiarization but that's it.
A friend of mine is a scientist for the CDC (Center for Disease Control), no they don't have a SWAT team. But they do go to third world countries to gather information on disease, to places that may not be totally safe. For the people that go into sketchy areas, they were first sent to FLETC in Glynco for some basic defensive/evasive driving as well as basic firearms training. I asked her if they would be issued weapons, she said no, it's in case they were attacked or kidnapped and have a chance at grabbing weapons from their captors.
Not all CIA personnel are special operators type, a lot of them are analysts and office types. I'm sure they have minimal exposure to firearms familiarization but that's it.
Yes I know as I was CIA covert officer. Hence I cannot understand how they can send people to war zone who have not gone through the usual training. Send them to UK, Spain, Italy I get. Libya, Iraq, etc., I do not.
Not all CIA personnel are special operators type, a lot of them are analysts and office types. I'm sure they have minimal exposure to firearms familiarization but that's it.
A friend of mine is a scientist for the CDC (Center for Disease Control), no they don't have a SWAT team. But they do go to third world countries to gather information on disease, to places that may not be totally safe. For the people that go into sketchy areas, they were first sent to FLETC in Glynco for some basic defensive/evasive driving as well as basic firearms training. I asked her if they would be issued weapons, she said no, it's in case they were attacked or kidnapped and have a chance at grabbing weapons from their captors.
I took his post to mean that if you have 1,000 employees and 50 of them are fluent in Spanish you probably draw from that pool first whenever planning a remote project to Mexico. Sending a team with not one Spanish speaking person is probably poor planning should they never need to talk to anyone while there. Now substitute Spanish speaking w/firearms training & killing as it applies to this conversation . lulz
I'm not LE, but that movie was one of the few that put my gut in a knot.
The portrayal of the dirtbags was way, way too realistic..
The good guys were good, and the bad guys were bad. And not in a cartoonish manner, at all.
If I could wish for one thing in reference to EOW, it would be a return to the world or mindset that comes from the scene where the OG and Michael Pena did their thing in private and the respect it earned Pena on the street in some circles. Don't get me wrong, there are some Boogers who still will show a LEO such respect if they know he is fair but will throw down w/o hesitation, but you find that increasingly less with this younger thug generation.
Outlander Systems
06-10-16, 07:48
Roger that.
Especially with hip-hop "rock stars" willfully pushing a political agenda to demonize LE.
If I could wish for one thing in reference to EOW, it would be a return to the world or mindset that comes from the scene where the OG and Michael Pena did their thing in private and the respect it earned Pena on the street in some circles. Don't get me wrong, there are some Boogers who still will show a LEO such respect if they know he is fair but will throw down w/o hesitation, but you find that increasingly less with this younger thug generation.
State did a piss poor job protecting its people. You really think that any asset that could have gotten there would be the kind of asset people can talk about?
In general terms, yes. RE there being a C 130 on station, or within a distance to be on station, and told to stand down, yes. I'd expect that can be talked about assuming (1) it's true and (2) it's not being intentionally suppressed.
The fact that everyone was NDA'd afterward tells you something.
Indeed...
Hillary's real problem is the cover up afterwards- sending out that NSA twit to say that it was a riot- something that anyone with two brain cells knew wasn't true with in 48 hours. I remember watching the Sunday Morning shows wondering if Susan Rice was either a very good actor, a complete idiot or a skilled liar. That isn't criminal- it's reprehensible and nasty. The cover up of the cover up is the illegality. Bad governance isn't illegal, trying to cover it up and lies under oath and failures to produce information are. Nixon wasn't out for a burglary.
So where does that leave my Q on a legit investigation? Cover up full and complete due to current admin circling the wagons?
I didn't concentrate on that in the movie. I was more about the complete screwed up situation on the good-bad guy IFF and the skill and bravery of the guys.
Is there terp still alive?
Averageman
06-10-16, 08:19
I read the book and then saw the movie. I can't recommend that you do both in order to gain a better understanding of the whole event.
I was pretty curious as to what was going on in Libya while the events were taking place. As I understand it, the Administration wanted to remove Khadafy in support of the "Arab Spring" movement. There were some of our people on the ground trying to control the flow of weapons that were being liberated by the rebels. IOW, the point was to let them have X, but not Y weapons. They lost control of that and there are some that say the Ambassador was trying to broker the purchase of some of the weapons that we didn't want on the open and international market like man portable SAM's.
That would explain a lot of what happened, at least it makes sense to me. That would also explain how some local militia might have 6 mortars and lot a complete supply available that night.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.