GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-12-2013, 13:44   #26
Flintlocker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombie Surgeon View Post
I trust William G. Boykin, former commander of Delta Force.
He declared in an recent interview that at the time of his command ('92-'94) the US military could have had a jet flying overhead within 2-3 hours and boots on the ground within 4-5 hours after the attack started in Benghazi. That would have saved the lives of at least 2 victims killed in the second attack.
He also mentioned that considering our presence in the region is far greater and the military hardware far better now than it was in the 90's, it is very plausible the time could have been considerable shorter today, possibly 3 hours or less for boots on the ground.
One more point he made: spec ops people are training for years and years to be able to deploy and fight in very dangerous battles where hostiles are greatly outnumbering them. This is their main purpose of Spec Ops. Anybody who says "we couldn't send them because it was too dangerous" is either an idiot or a liar. Or both.
Boots on the ground in 3 hours? I guess that's a possibility. But that would necessitate parachute insertions into a tiny compound surrounded by hundreds of armed militants. To say that would have definitively saved the 2 CIA operators that died in the second attack is naive.

5 hours? Maybe they could have arrived in force at the airport and forced their way in HUMVEEs, but how many can fit in a C130, only one of which was available in Tripoli. And how many people can you get to the compound, more than 2 miles away, through an armed group of hundreds.

Keep in mind that there were boots on the ground at the airport less than 12 hours later.

Each one of those scenarios presents its' own, new, fog of war. Claiming that any one of them saves more people or endangers more lives is wild speculation at best. If you're looking for a pie in the sky, ideal situation and solution then I guess Boykin is your man.
Flintlocker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2013, 13:53   #27
Flintlocker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
Typical liberal, get caught in a contradiction (holding two opposing opinions as both being true) and they start calling names. They claim to understand better how two opposite sets of facts can both be true and everyone else is dumb because they don't think like that.
And here comes the peanut gallery. Just to make it clear, for you or any other dunderheads that might be confused. The CIA sent in it's own GRS team to protect it's own CIA assets. Gates is saying that the military doesn't have a fast reaction team in the middle east. They do have one in Italy some 700 miles away. Dong thought he was being clever with his shallow semantic comparison and it looks like you jumped on the bandwagon.

Political Issues
Flintlocker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2013, 13:55   #28
Flintlocker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spymaster View Post
"Uhh" you might try breaking the little anti-depressants in half...I asked you to cite a source, your response is quoted for posterity, and its entertainment value, which is considerable...
And here I was thinking you could read all on your lonesome. I posted the link one post above my reply to you... a whole inch and a half away. Go take a look, it's right there, honest.
Flintlocker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2013, 14:44   #29
IvanVic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flintlocker View Post
http://www.kbzk.com/news/gates-some-...ry-capability/


"Frankly, had I been in the job at the time, I think my decisions would have been just as theirs were," said Gates, now the chancellor of the College of William and Mary.

"We don't have a ready force standing by in the Middle East, and so getting somebody there in a timely way would have been very difficult, if not impossible." he explained.

Suggestions that we could have flown a fighter jet over the attackers to "scare them with the noise or something," Gates said, ignored the "number of surface to air missiles that have disappeared from [former Libyan leader] Qaddafi's arsenals."

"I would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft, over Benghazi under those circumstances," he said.

Another suggestion posed by some critics of the administration, to, as Gates said, "send some small number of special forces or other troops in without knowing what the environment is, without knowing what the threat is, without having any intelligence in terms of what is actually going on on the ground, would have been very dangerous."


"It's sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces," he said. "The one thing that our forces are noted for is planning and preparation before we send people in harm's way, and there just wasn't time to do that."

If all of this were assumed to be 100% true, it doesn't justify the fact that they lied to the American people about the attack when they claimed it was about a youtube video.
IvanVic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2013, 14:51   #30
cphilip
Senior Member
 
cphilip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Clemson SC
Posts: 4,375
All speculation aside as to what was in place at the time and what could then have been done at that time... aside... Gates and others are missing the point completely...

WHY wasn't there a plan in place? Why was the security resources on site so small? Why was the requests PRIOR to the day of the attack taken so lightly? Why did no one take a warning that something might happen on 91 freakin 1 for christ sakes?

Incompetence and Negligence is the only answer.
__________________
www.cphilip.com
cphilip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2013, 15:16   #31
Flintlocker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by IvanVic View Post
If all of this were assumed to be 100% true, it doesn't justify the fact that they lied to the American people about the attack when they claimed it was about a youtube video.
As I'm sure you recall, protests against the US happened around the muslim world on 9/11/2012. You may even recall that Egyptian protesters breached the compound and took down the US flag. The reporting, on that day, tied the video in question to the protests.

Now to the best of my understanding, most of the right wing rage stems from the fact that Susan Rice went on nearly every Sunday morning news program and was still saying that the attack in Benghazi was related to the video. But I think one thing that is overlooked was which day or days her interviews were taped. 9/11/2012 was on a Tuesday. I've seen it reported that she taped on a Thursday but I don't have a link. What I'm sure of is that by Sunday, it was clear that the protests elsewhere were quite different than the attack in Benghazi.

Why did she say that? I don't know. But I think that most rightwingers are conflating blaming the attack on the video as some sort of coverup.

So my question to you is: What do you believe they were conspiring to cover up? Does pinning the reason for the attack change the circumstances or the unpreparedness of the State Department or the CIA to protect its employees? Is it possible that Rice didn't know what happened and just got it wrong?

Last edited by Flintlocker; 05-12-2013 at 15:29..
Flintlocker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2013, 15:20   #32
Glen
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by IvanVic View Post
If all of this were assumed to be 100% true, it doesn't justify the fact that they lied to the American people about the attack when they claimed it was about a youtube video.
^^^^^ This. Can anyone explain the YouTube video story?


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
Glen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2013, 15:31   #33
Flintlocker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glen View Post
^^^^^ This. Can anyone explain the YouTube video story?


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
Nope, it's a complete mystery. No one will ever know why protests around the muslim world to the video "Innocence of Muslims" on 9/11/2012 was initially and mistakenly tied to the attack in Benghazi.
Flintlocker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2013, 15:33   #34
happyguy
Na Ben Don Chat
 
happyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Indiana
Posts: 14,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flintlocker View Post
Boots on the ground in 3 hours? I guess that's a possibility. But that would necessitate parachute insertions into a tiny compound surrounded by hundreds of armed militants. To say that would have definitively saved the 2 CIA operators that died in the second attack is naive.
.
Maybe they could just land at the airport like the team did later that morning.



Regards,
Happyguy
__________________
"Success isn't a result of spontaneous combustion. You have to set yourself on fire." - Arnold H. Glasgow
happyguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2013, 15:34   #35
happyguy
Na Ben Don Chat
 
happyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Indiana
Posts: 14,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flintlocker View Post
As I'm sure you recall, protests against the US happened around the muslim world on 9/11/2012. You may even recall that Egyptian protesters breached the compound and took down the US flag. The reporting, on that day, tied the video in question to the protests.

Now to the best of my understanding, most of the right wing rage stems from the fact that Susan Rice went on nearly every Sunday morning news program and was still saying that the attack in Benghazi was related to the video. But I think one thing that is overlooked was which day or days her interviews were taped. 9/11/2012 was on a Tuesday. I've seen it reported that she taped on a Thursday but I don't have a link. What I'm sure of is that by Sunday, it was clear that the protests elsewhere were quite different than the attack in Benghazi.

Why did she say that? I don't know. But I think that most rightwingers are conflating blaming the attack on the video as some sort of coverup.

So my question to you is: What do you believe they were conspiring to cover up? Does pinning the reason for the attack change the circumstances or the unpreparedness of the State Department or the CIA to protect its employees? Is it possible that Rice didn't know what happened and just got it wrong?
You didn't even watch one minute of last weeks testimony did you?

Regards,
Happyguy
__________________
"Success isn't a result of spontaneous combustion. You have to set yourself on fire." - Arnold H. Glasgow
happyguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2013, 15:36   #36
happyguy
Na Ben Don Chat
 
happyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Indiana
Posts: 14,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flintlocker View Post
Nope, it's a complete mystery. No one will ever know why protests around the muslim world to the video "Innocence of Muslims" on 9/11/2012 was initially and mistakenly tied to the attack in Benghazi.
Yes we will know. It is starting to come out now. Dear Leader is starting to lose the MSM. Did you see Gay Carney on Friday. Drip....drip...drip.

Regards,
Happyguy
__________________
"Success isn't a result of spontaneous combustion. You have to set yourself on fire." - Arnold H. Glasgow
happyguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2013, 15:49   #37
ArtyGuy
Senior Member
 
ArtyGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 803
Well Secretary Gates' comments have been proven by the general comments in this thread.

We have launched QRFs in Afghanistan and folks have still died. All I can say is don't believe everything you see in the movies or on TV.
__________________
The King puts the balls where the Queen wants them.
ArtyGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2013, 15:53   #38
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtyGuy View Post
Well Secretary Gates' comments have been proven by the general comments in this thread.

We have launched QRFs in Afghanistan and folks have still died. All I can say is don't believe everything you see in the movies or on TV.
And we didn't do anything for these Americans and they died.

I assume that is your point.

Last edited by countrygun; 05-12-2013 at 15:53..
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2013, 16:01   #39
happyguy
Na Ben Don Chat
 
happyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Indiana
Posts: 14,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flintlocker View Post
And here comes the peanut gallery. Just to make it clear, for you or any other dunderheads that might be confused. The CIA sent in it's own GRS team to protect it's own CIA assets. Gates is saying that the military doesn't have a fast reaction team in the middle east. They do have one in Italy some 700 miles away. Dong thought he was being clever with his shallow semantic comparison and it looks like you jumped on the bandwagon.

Political Issues
Your typical Air Force Base had the capability to put together a 40 man QRF in 4 hours, and that was before the "war on terror". How far away did you say Aviano is?

It wasn't a lack of assets. The guys I knew would have found a way. It was a lack of will.

Regards,
Happyguy
__________________
"Success isn't a result of spontaneous combustion. You have to set yourself on fire." - Arnold H. Glasgow

Last edited by happyguy; 05-12-2013 at 16:02..
happyguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2013, 16:03   #40
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flintlocker View Post
And here comes the peanut gallery. Just to make it clear, for you or any other dunderheads that might be confused. The CIA sent in it's own GRS team to protect it's own CIA assets. Gates is saying that the military doesn't have a fast reaction team in the middle east. They do have one in Italy some 700 miles away. Dong thought he was being clever with his shallow semantic comparison and it looks like you jumped on the bandwagon.




You are choosing to believe one source when there are many out there, just as "expert" , saying that troops were much closer and that we had air assets that could have been employed. You make this choice because it creates something of an excuse for Dear Leader and Hillary DOING NOTHING while Americans died.

A report that was censored and redacted 12 times to remove as much Administration responsibility, and references to Islamic terrorism, and you want to stand by it.

So, was it all over a youtube video like the Administration told you?

The only thing shallow is your attempt to make excuses.
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2013, 16:21   #41
Ruble Noon
"Cracker"
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 11,018
Political Issues
Ruble Noon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2013, 16:26   #42
ArtyGuy
Senior Member
 
ArtyGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 803
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
Typical liberal, get caught in a contradiction (holding two opposing opinions as both being true) and they start calling names. They claim to understand better how two opposite sets of facts can both be true and everyone else is dumb because they don't think like that.
Just so there's a basis here-- what's your experience with this kind of stuff? How often have you had to either a) decide on whether or not to commit forces (regardless of how much info you had) or b) you've been one of the guys committed?

Launching jets out of Italy would have not accomplished a single thing. Launching a ground QRF would not have changed the outcome. An armed drone would have been useless.

You are suggesting that you would have inserted forces knowing there was a good chance there would have been additional US casualties and you wouldn't have changed what already happened just to say that you tried?
__________________
The King puts the balls where the Queen wants them.
ArtyGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2013, 16:36   #43
Flintlocker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,114
Department of Defense timeline of events:

http://armedservices.house.gov/index...0-496a75a448da

Article explaining how Lt. Col. Gibson had a 4 man team training Libyans in Tripoli and was planning to board a Libyan cargo plane but "Special Operations Command Africa told them not to go, because “there was nothing this team could do to assist,” Little said, opting to tell the team to stay in Tripoli to assist with consular staff’s evacuation from Benghazi." "According to Little and Lapan, the C-130 the team wanted to fly to Benghazi on had space for the men, but it didn’t arrive in the city until after the battle ended. “There’s no evidence they could have arrived in Benghazi before the end of the attack,” said Lapan, a spokesman for Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff."

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013...gazi-pentagon/
Flintlocker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2013, 16:40   #44
ArtyGuy
Senior Member
 
ArtyGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 803
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonGlock26 View Post
I have heard no mention of naval assets at all. I'm waiting for that to come out.

I'd also like to know where did the drone come from? Why wasn't to armed? Were armed drones available and ordered to stand down too? If there were armed drones available and they were not used to save American lives, then Obama resignation is assured.
Armed drones out of where? Best case scenario, our agreement with Libya was such that we are allowed to fly armed drones out of bases there. Worst case-- they don't let our drones into their airspace. Funny thing that concept of sovereign nations and law. They get chces too. in any event, drones fly at half the speed of smell (though in the movies the Predator does fly with after burners on). Unless that thing was directly overhead at the time of the incident, it's pointless to discuss it because it would never arrive on station in time.

Then of course you have the issue of, "What's the target?" Drones are great but the cameras aren't that good and if there is a mass of people on the ground, you're SOL.
__________________
The King puts the balls where the Queen wants them.
ArtyGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2013, 16:42   #45
Flintlocker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,114
Quote:
Maj. Robert Firman, a Pentagon spokesman, said Monday, "There was never any kind of stand-down order to anybody."
On Tuesday, Firman said the military is trying to assess the incident Hicks is referring to, but the aircraft in question wound up evacuating a second wave of Americans from Benghazi to Tripoli, not transporting rescuers to a firefight.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/20...r_is_true.html
Flintlocker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2013, 16:43   #46
Zombie Surgeon
MODELATOR
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flintlocker View Post
Boots on the ground in 3 hours? I guess that's a possibility. But that would necessitate parachute insertions into a tiny compound surrounded by hundreds of armed militants. To say that would have definitively saved the 2 CIA operators that died in the second attack is naive.

5 hours? Maybe they could have arrived in force at the airport and forced their way in HUMVEEs, but how many can fit in a C130, only one of which was available in Tripoli. And how many people can you get to the compound, more than 2 miles away, through an armed group of hundreds.

Keep in mind that there were boots on the ground at the airport less than 12 hours later.

Each one of those scenarios presents its' own, new, fog of war. Claiming that any one of them saves more people or endangers more lives is wild speculation at best. If you're looking for a pie in the sky, ideal situation and solution then I guess Boykin is your man.
Gee, Lintlicker...maybe you should consider applying for Boykin's former job since your expertise in such operations is so vast.
Zombie Surgeon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2013, 16:47   #47
happyguy
Na Ben Don Chat
 
happyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Indiana
Posts: 14,233
Double Tap

Regards,
Happyguy
__________________
"Success isn't a result of spontaneous combustion. You have to set yourself on fire." - Arnold H. Glasgow

Last edited by happyguy; 05-12-2013 at 16:55..
happyguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2013, 16:51   #48
happyguy
Na Ben Don Chat
 
happyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Indiana
Posts: 14,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtyGuy View Post
Armed drones out of where? Best case scenario, our agreement with Libya was such that we are allowed to fly armed drones out of bases there. Worst case-- they don't let our drones into their airspace. Funny thing that concept of sovereign nations and law. They get chces too. in any event, drones fly at half the speed of smell (though in the movies the Predator does fly with after burners on). Unless that thing was directly overhead at the time of the incident, it's pointless to discuss it because it would never arrive on station in time.

Funny how none of that applies to Pakistan...hmmmm.

Then of course you have the issue of, "What's the target?" Drones are great but the cameras aren't that good and if there is a mass of people on the ground, you're SOL.

Actually, the cameras ARE that great. Never mind that we had men on the ground spotting targets for help that never came.
Please explain this "speed of smell". Are talking sea level or at altitude?


Regards,
Happyguy
__________________
"Success isn't a result of spontaneous combustion. You have to set yourself on fire." - Arnold H. Glasgow

Last edited by happyguy; 05-12-2013 at 16:55..
happyguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2013, 16:54   #49
Flintlocker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombie Surgeon View Post
Gee, Lintlicker...maybe you should consider applying for Boykin's former job since your expertise in such operations is so vast.
Maybe you should start making a list of all the people that seem to be orchestrating this huge coverup. I'll get you started: The President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, numerous active duty Generals, Colonels, Lt. Colonels and Majors, Senators, Congressmen, the 'lamestream' media... and I'm sure the list goes on and on. Keep on the story, I'm sure you'll expose the whole thing.
Flintlocker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2013, 16:55   #50
Rockjockey
Recalcitrant
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Chunkarock, Texas
Posts: 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flintlocker View Post
Nope, it's a complete mystery. No one will ever know why protests around the muslim world to the video "Innocence of Muslims" on 9/11/2012 was initially and mistakenly tied to the attack in Benghazi.
We're I a gambler I would wager after dear leader bragged world wide how HE killed Osama and shut down the Taliban and ended terror, it would have reflected negatively on him at that point in his campaigning to admit that there was a successful terror attack on US citizens under his watch. It might have swayed a few legitimate voters in November.
Rockjockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 22:19.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,232
373 Members
859 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42