Benghazi Attack: The Cover Up Of Our Generation

On September 11th, 2012, A United States consulate in Benghazi, Libya was overrun by protesters and terrorists alike on the anniversary of the 2001 terror attacks in New York City. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, alongside of two ex-Navy SEALs including Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, lost their lives.
​

_____________________________________________________________
But before we get into the specifics of a coverup, we need to understand the mechanics and timeline of events leading to this tragedy.

15 February 2011, A uprising to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi in the city of Benghazi, eventually leading to the city falling to Gaddafi opponents 6 days later. These opposing party militia members started the National Transitional Council days later to establish government during the Libyan civil war. With the rebellion being aided by French Air Force it continued to progress.

Ansar al-Sharia is a militant group that grew in the midst of the Libyan Civil War and became the backbone of the attack on the consulate, with their leaders coordinating a large portion of the attacks.

As the Red Cross and the consulates of other countries pulled out of Benghazi, the US Consulate also became the last theoretical eastern target, and because of this, requests were made to bump up security.
______________________________________________________________

"The Obama doctrine doesn't match the reality of the jihad threat," said Walid Phares, an adviser to the Anti-Terrorism Caucus of the US House of Representatives.
______________________________________________________________

After the attack began, CIA operatives on the ground requested permission to assist at the consulate and were given direct orders to stand down. (Many citations reflect this). Navy SEAL's have a mandatory No Man Left Behind mentality and training skillset, and for that reason there has never been a SEAL left behind on a mission, dead or alive, and even though currently working for the CIA, Woods and Doherty disobeyed orders and proceeded a mile to the consulate where they saved many american lives, including the ambassadors. Over the course of the firefight, the two men killed over 60 militants before 6 hours later they were hit with a rocket propelled grenade as they attempted to exit the building realizing there was no rescue party.

These men radioed for help, not once, but three times. I've heard the tapes, they are begging for support, and they were completely left expendable. A Delta Force unit specializing in counter-terrorism was only 2 hours away, and under General Ham's command when he was also denied to send their aid. The two SEALs even had visible lasers they could use to "paint" a target for a air support strike that was less than an hour away. Instead these men are all dead after a 7 hour fire fight, all of which was watched from the White House via live feed.

____________________________________________________________
And so it begins.

General Ham, commander of African operations----RELIEVED OF DUTY
Rear Admiral Gaouette---- RELIEVED OF DUTY

Timelines from the White House, and timelines from the CIA do not match up correctly. And BOTH are disputed by those on the ground as fraudulent.

Facebook Manager Andrew Noyes bans a popular Navy SEAL page for posting about Obama leaving SEAL's behind and threatens further censorship.

Obama changes standpoint and clarify's that he did not feel Benghazi was a terror attack, even though he claimed he did during the second debate (Source: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2012/11/05/benghazi-attack/1684503/ )



This will explode in the weeks following the election, and could result in an impeachment if Obama wins.

 

Risk more lives saving two men who had already disobeyed orders with no regard of the consequences, especially putting those at risk who would have to rescue them. I think it the right choice to leave them behind, initiating a firefight against them will lead to more terrorism.

And I'm pretty sure the ambassador died.

 

We are both correct. The Ambassador was originally rescued, and was later killed 8 hours later after no air support had been deployed. In fact, support had been AUTHORIZED, and special forces were waiting on the tarmac to deploy, but the go ahead was declined directly from the White House themselves. And if this act of bravery was so terrible, to defend their own countrymen, why are they regarded as heroes? Why is the obama administration firing generals for the failure of support even though it was denied?

 

I'd actually have to agree. Hopefully now we can get some direct answers related to Libya.

Edit: Where did he go... I swear there was a post there...

 

I got a spamming infraction for relating it to fast and furious. I was going to add in more how I assume that executive privilege will probably be used but sythe was down.


Pres bush pardoned marines who disobeyed orders to save lives during hurricane Katrina. Obama on the other hand lets them die then fires the generals.


makes sense if you don't think about it.

 

The attack was an act of terror. That doesn't mean it was terrorism or even carried out by a terrorist group. I fail to comprehend why this is so hard to understand. Its extremely simple.

 

When a terrorist group claims responsibility (Ansar al-Sharia) and we gain the understanding that it was an organized event, does that not make a terrorist group responsible? Since they in fact targeted other embassies and even the Red Cross? I mean, its pretty clear in all actuality.

 

They did not claim responsibility. That was reported incorrectly.

 

Sir, you are largely incorrect and I question your sources. Because after-action reports show otherwise. Commander Khattala was even present for the events. That is why Ansar al-Sharian flags were torn down and burned all over Libya, because of their pride in what they had done, and the backlash it caused Libyan citizens.

I will always trust 1st source intelligence, Human Intelligence, from people who were there, over what politcally agenda driven nonsense is fed through news reports. That is the entire reason this has turned into such a large issue. Because facts are being withheld, and lies are being told to cover them.

 

Which means this thread should be locked now because it is going to be impossible to argue any point we can come up with. You are always going to know better in your eyes because all of our information points come from " politcally agenda driven nonsense" (Should be stated politicized nonsense). It's like arguing against those people who think the Illuminati are out to conquer the globe. They know better because we are all just sheep who believe the mass media.

 

Where are your facts from?

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/w...mander-in-benghazi-consulate-attack.html?_r=0

This is an interesting video about one of the dead soldier's mothers by CNN.



They haven't even told her, of all people, what honestly happened to their son.

I don't think it should be locked, as there's definitely points to debate. You may not be able to persuade Sacro into believing something else, but he's not the only one here.

 

It was more of a hyperbole, because it is useless to debate with someone who is going to deny everything you say based on the reasons provided in the previous post. If you can legitimately discredit evidence that is a different story otherwise, you'll get nowhere.

Concerning the group's role:

Source: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...role-in-benghazi-attacks-still-a-mystery.html

 

Move it to General Discussion, at the very least. It's something a lot of people aren't too happy about.

Interesting source, thanks. I'll read it.

 

Sir, you are incorrect and I question your sources. Secondly, even if they had claimed responsibility it would have been asinine to come out and say they did it without proving it. People claim responsibility for stuff they didn't have anything to do with all the time. It would have been stupid and irresponsible for the President to tell the American people something that hasn't been independently confirmed because, like many things, the information turned out to be wrong.

 

Can you please share your source? Twice now you've said it's been proven wrong but haven't told us where this is said.

 

I provided a source that confirmed his claims. Right after the attack the leader of that group separated himself from the attacks.

So either he has decided to go back and retract his statement meaning he is probably just lying, or someone is wrong here.

 

I don't believe it necessarily confirms it, but more or less that they flip flopped on whether or not they wanted to go balls in. The fact remains that they, whether or not they decide to claim responsibility, were involved.

The same article went on to quote Aaron Zelin, the guy tracking theepublic statements of Ansar al-Sharia, saying:

Well, Susan Rice stated that it began as, "a protest against an anti-Islam film", which, correct me if I'm wrong, appears to be a local concern.

Of course this is merely speculation.

In my opinion, I believe in an attempt to gain local popularity they originally most likely claimed responsibility. I'm guessing once they realized what exactly the United States would do to them, they retracted it.

I'd be interested to hear more about your sources, Sacro.

 

I heard about this some where, but i gree a confirmation is needed

 

I don't keep a list of everything I hear or read. Here's an article that states multiple things Fox news said were wrong: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/w...ut-us-abilities-in-region.html?pagewanted=all

 

I am not on one side or another about this issue. I was just reading it out of curiosity.

But...Fox news is extremely far from a liable source. The amount of facts they say that end up being ridiculous and untrue is crazy. They will say anything to make a democratic president look bad. They literally just say what they want to for views and for their own gain. This has been pointed out by ALOT of people.

Remember these are the same people that called obama a terrorist.