Forums at Modded Mustangs - Reply to Topic
Thread: 2 Former Seals Take out 60 enemies at Benghazi, Imagine if they'd had support Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Forums at Modded Mustangs forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
November 9th, 2012 08:46 PM
Novanutcase
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1FastFox View Post
You can't really believe this... Not only is the AP ridiculously bias they are nothing more than a regirgitator. The AP has run more retractions than any other news source. The issue is that they are always the first to release an article and in order to do that they release what they think is right. Sometimes they are which nets them the result of being first in the news industry and other times are very wrong.

Google "AP retraction" and fish through the pages of new retractions and tr material or covers. It's absolutely ridiculous... Much like they tried to be judge, jury, and executioner in the whole Zimmerman trial.
AP is not infallible as I've stated previous. I took your advice and found a mix of retractions but what piqued my interest is that they were retractions on articles that had both left and right leanings which brings me back to my original argument which is the AP is a non-partisan, non-profit news agency that reports accurately.....and sometimes inaccurately, for both parties.

Quote:
Originally Posted by p23w View Post
The AP is manned by folks who are more than 80% registered democrats. To suggest that AP reports are unbiased... has perhaps a 20% chance of being factual.
Still waiting......

John
November 6th, 2012 02:38 PM
Taxman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novanutcase View Post
Do you have any factual basis for this claim or are you going by hearsay?

John
I'd like to see the factual basis for it as well, but I suspect that's a pretty true statement.
November 6th, 2012 12:44 AM
Novanutcase
Quote:
Originally Posted by p23w View Post
The AP is manned by folks who are more than 80% registered democrats. To suggest that AP reports are unbiased... has perhaps a 20% chance of being factual.
Do you have any factual basis for this claim or are you going by hearsay?

John
November 5th, 2012 02:42 PM
p23w
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1FastFox View Post
You can't really believe this... Not only is the AP ridiculously bias they are nothing more than a regirgitator. The AP has run more retractions than any other news source. The issue is that they are always the first to release an article and in order to do that they release what they think is right. Sometimes they are which nets them the result of being first in the news industry and other times are very wrong.

Google "AP retraction" and fish through the pages of new retractions and tr material or covers. It's absolutely ridiculous... Much like they tried to be judge, jury, and executioner in the whole Zimmerman trial.
The AP is manned by folks who are more than 80% registered democrats. To suggest that AP reports are unbiased... has perhaps a 20% chance of being factual.
November 4th, 2012 09:49 PM
1RápidoZorro
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novanutcase View Post
The AP is probably one of the most respected news agencies in the nation. Mostly because of the credibility of their sources and the accuracy in their reporting.
You can't really believe this... Not only is the AP ridiculously bias they are nothing more than a regirgitator. The AP has run more retractions than any other news source. The issue is that they are always the first to release an article and in order to do that they release what they think is right. Sometimes they are which nets them the result of being first in the news industry and other times are very wrong.

Google "AP retraction" and fish through the pages of new retractions and tr material or covers. It's absolutely ridiculous... Much like they tried to be judge, jury, and executioner in the whole Zimmerman trial.
November 3rd, 2012 06:39 PM
Novanutcase
Quote:
Originally Posted by Like_A_B4US View Post
The Islamic extremeists and jihadists have no issue with killing innocent Americans for no reason but they are just that extremeists and dont represent the muslim faith at all in my opinion.Overwhelming force man. No one said anything about going in and killing innocents we shouldve sent in troops to secure the embassy and terminate any armed hostiles.I dont know what the ROE is exactly for that situation but we shouldve had boots on the ground and birds in the sky to secure our embassy as soon as their was as much as an inkiling of hostile forces attacking the embassy
I agree. The minority of extremist are not what the muslim world at large represent in their faith. The issue I have with the muslim world is why they are not more vocal about the extremist factions in their faith.

If you read the report a lot of what they say in regards to response makes sense.

"Let's say we were able to get an aircraft there. Do you go in and start strafing a populated area without knowing where friend or foe is?" a senior Defense official asked. "If you did that, you could kill the very people you are trying to help."

A special operations team was sent to Naval Air Station Sigonella in Sicily, but the team arrived after the attack ended, said the senior Defense official, who would not be quoted by name discussing potentially classified information.

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta learned of the attack shortly after it began, about 4:30 p.m Eastern time, Defense officials said, and discussed it in a previously scheduled meeting with the president. Obama ordered him to pursue whatever options were feasible, a Defense official said.

Panetta "ordered all appropriate forces to respond to the unfolding events in Benghazi, but the attack was over before those forces could be employed," Pentagon spokesman George Little said.

Shortly after 11 p.m. a surveillance drone had arrived from elsewhere in Libya — about an hour after it was requested, officials said. But the video feed was not seen by the president, contrary to some news reports. And the feed did not offer analysts a clear understanding of what was happening on the ground, officials said.

After the CIA team arrived at the compound, "over the next 25 minutes, team members approach the compound, attempt to secure heavy weapons [from Libyans], and make their way onto the compound itself in the face of enemy fire," the senior U.S. intelligence official said.

The senior intelligence official disclosed that the CIA also sent a second six-member team from Tripoli on a chartered plane to help repel the attack. The team included Glen Doherty, another former SEAL, who was later killed when attackers fired mortar rounds at the CIA Annex.

The team arrived around midnight but got bogged down at the airport. Ultimately, it learned that "the ambassador was almost certainly dead" and headed to the agency facility "to assist with the evacuation," the official said.

It arrived with Libyan support at the Annex at 5:15 a.m., just before mortar rounds began to strike. Woods and Doherty were killed as they fired on militants from the roof. The mortar attack lasted 11 minutes, the official said.

The drone overhead was not armed. Even if it had been, there were no viable targets, officials said.

"The officers on the ground in Benghazi responded to the situation on the night of 11 and 12 September as quickly and as effectively as possible," the intelligence official said. "The security officers in particular were genuine heroes. They quickly tried to rally additional local support and heavier weapons, and when that could not be accomplished within minutes, they still moved in and put their own lives on the line to save their comrades."


According to the report, even if they had gotten boots on the ground the attack was already over.

I think the biggest issue is that there wasn't a rapid response team in the area to be able to respond to an attack like this. It unfolded so quickly that to get assets into the area and take out those responsible was near impossible given what was available.

I'd like to give special props to the Libyan security forces that were defending the compound. Contrary to what FOX reported, they tried to get heavier weaponry from the local militia but when that didn't happen they went in, much like the CIA teams from the Annex and Tripoli, and did what they could with what little they had for firepower putting their lives in serious peril.

Unfortunately FOX news has decided to "stick their finger in the wound" and have been spinning this story, what seems to me, for political purposes veiled as a concern for what happened that fateful night. Their reporting that the CIA teams were told to "stand down" was not only erroneous but, in my opinion, a slap in the face to those that gave their lives and those that risked their lives to try and save the consulate members.

John
November 3rd, 2012 04:48 PM
Like_A_B4US
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novanutcase View Post
The CIA quote came directly from a CIA spokesperson that was named, not an anonymous source.

Although I understand your trepidation in believing wholeheartedly any news report or administration release I think it also clouds your decision making if you only go by your gut and the biases that form that opinion and don't let any other outside information help in forming a cohesive opinion that could help you distill the truth. I try and keep an open mind and I regularly listen to FOX along with MSNBC, probably two of the most polarly divided networks in regards to biased, partisan reporting. I think they both cherry pick items to move their agenda forward. FOX, for me, just has a little bit higher of a "ridiculous" quotient than MSNBC but MSNBC is certainly not without it's own silliness. CNN seems to at least try to stay neutral in it's reporting but even they get it wrong some times.

In my experience AP has had some of the most accurate reporting in the country.



And do what? Start slaughtering any Libyan that walks the earth since we are convicting them through guilt by association? Yes, let's continue affirming the stereotype of the US as warmongers to the arab world. The prudent and intelligent thing to do is to find out who was behind it and quietly and cleanly take them out. The report states that forces were sent in to try and get our people out of their but the Libyan Militias were less than helpful in that. We were outgunned and outmanned, end of story. To try and get assets in there that could have countered the assault would have taken more time to get together and deploy than the attack itself took other than what was allocated and available at the time. The Libyan public as a whole seems to support us. Why would we want to upset that by killing innocent civilians? This will just inflame the country and give whatever terrorist factions that are still in the country fodder for more and accelerated attacks. Unfortunately democracy played against us with the election of Magarief of the Muslim Brotherhood. Hopefully his having to contend with world issues rather than just localized issues will show him and his party that compromise and tolerance rather than violence is the best way to improve his country.

John
The Islamic extremeists and jihadists have no issue with killing innocent Americans for no reason but they are just that extremeists and dont represent the muslim faith at all in my opinion.Overwhelming force man. No one said anything about going in and killing innocents we shouldve sent in troops to secure the embassy and terminate any armed hostiles.I dont know what the ROE is exactly for that situation but we shouldve had boots on the ground and birds in the sky to secure our embassy as soon as their was as much as an inkiling of hostile forces attacking the embassy
November 3rd, 2012 02:54 AM
Novanutcase
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taxman View Post
My question then becomes, where did the contradictory information come from, and why did it take so long to refute?
Since I don't have verifiable information on this I'm going to guess that the contradictory information came from biased news agencies cherry picking statements made and twisting them to their ideology along with low information officials speculating on what they "think" happened and the bias news outlets running with it along with what, at the time, seemed like a pretty obvious scenario. I would also think that the length of time had to do mostly with national security issues although I wouldn't rule out political motivations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taxman View Post
The whole thing is a bad situation that could've been prevented had our Ambassador had the proper security detail.
The reports I'm reading and hearing are that the consulate was really a CIA office that was veiled as an embassy. The CIA Annex was close by and, as far as I understand it, there was some sort of impromptu agreement that if things ever got out of hand CIA agents would be there to back up the local forces. Apparently that was why the local forces were lighter than they should have been.

Again, I can't corroborate that but that is the story that I have heard. I guess we'll see now that things are starting to unfold bit by bit.

John
November 3rd, 2012 12:27 AM
Taxman I don't know that I don't believe it. I said that I'm skeptical of anything that comes from a named official source as anyone that has a connection would toe the line.

My question then becomes, where did the contradictory information come from, and why did it take so long to refute?

The whole thing is a bad situation that could've been prevented had our Ambassador had the proper security detail.
November 2nd, 2012 09:45 PM
Novanutcase
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taxman View Post
I may just take what I believe on faith. Much like you that determines that no report other than a single AP report to have validity.

You're right though, I'll have a difficult time believing any biased source from within our government.
As reported by the L.A. Times this morning.....

"U.S. says CIA responded within 25 minutes to Benghazi attack

Intelligence officials dispute a report by Fox News that officers in Libya were ordered to 'stand down' after the diplomatic compound came under attack.

By Ken Dilanian, Los Angeles Times

November 2, 2012

WASHINGTON — CIA security officers in a Benghazi post responded within 25 minutes to a call for help from a nearby State Department compound after it came under attack Sept. 11, officials said Thursday, seeking to refute a Fox News report asserting that CIA managers ordered them to stay put.

In releasing a detailed timeline of CIA actions that night, senior intelligence officials have put aside long-standing concerns about revealing the extent of the agency's presence in Benghazi in order to push back against what officials say are baseless allegations that aid was withheld.

"At every level in the chain of command, from the senior officers in Libya to the most senior officials in Washington, everyone was fully engaged in trying to provide whatever help they could," a senior intelligence official said in a statement. "There were no orders to anybody to stand down in providing support."

Fox News asserted in a story last week that CIA managers had ordered agency security officers to "stand down" and remain in their own facility, known as the Annex, when the attack on the diplomatic compound began about 9:40 p.m. and that there was an hour delay before officers disobeyed orders and went to help repel the attack that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and State Department officer Sean Smith.

Among those who rushed to help was Tyrone Woods, a former Navy SEAL who was part of the CIA security team and who later died in the attacks.

The Fox story also asserted that the CIA "chain of command" refused to pass along requests from its officers for military aid and that special operations forces in nearby Sicily could have been sent to help but were not. Intelligence and Pentagon officials strenuously denied that Thursday.

They insisted there was no viable military option to disrupt what amounted to a series of sporadic attacks in a crowded city full of people sympathetic to the U.S. There were no armed drones in the region and airstrikes were not called for, officials said.

"Let's say we were able to get an aircraft there. Do you go in and start strafing a populated area without knowing where friend or foe is?" a senior Defense official asked. "If you did that, you could kill the very people you are trying to help."

A special operations team was sent to Naval Air Station Sigonella in Sicily, but the team arrived after the attack ended, said the senior Defense official, who would not be quoted by name discussing potentially classified information.

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta learned of the attack shortly after it began, about 4:30 p.m Eastern time, Defense officials said, and discussed it in a previously scheduled meeting with the president. Obama ordered him to pursue whatever options were feasible, a Defense official said.

Panetta "ordered all appropriate forces to respond to the unfolding events in Benghazi, but the attack was over before those forces could be employed," Pentagon spokesman George Little said.

Shortly after 11 p.m. a surveillance drone had arrived from elsewhere in Libya — about an hour after it was requested, officials said. But the video feed was not seen by the president, contrary to some news reports. And the feed did not offer analysts a clear understanding of what was happening on the ground, officials said.

After the CIA team arrived at the compound, "over the next 25 minutes, team members approach the compound, attempt to secure heavy weapons [from Libyans], and make their way onto the compound itself in the face of enemy fire," the senior U.S. intelligence official said.

The senior intelligence official disclosed that the CIA also sent a second six-member team from Tripoli on a chartered plane to help repel the attack. The team included Glen Doherty, another former SEAL, who was later killed when attackers fired mortar rounds at the CIA Annex.

The team arrived around midnight but got bogged down at the airport. Ultimately, it learned that "the ambassador was almost certainly dead" and headed to the agency facility "to assist with the evacuation," the official said.

It arrived with Libyan support at the Annex at 5:15 a.m., just before mortar rounds began to strike. Woods and Doherty were killed as they fired on militants from the roof. The mortar attack lasted 11 minutes, the official said.

The drone overhead was not armed. Even if it had been, there were no viable targets, officials said.

"The officers on the ground in Benghazi responded to the situation on the night of 11 and 12 September as quickly and as effectively as possible," the intelligence official said. "The security officers in particular were genuine heroes. They quickly tried to rally additional local support and heavier weapons, and when that could not be accomplished within minutes, they still moved in and put their own lives on the line to save their comrades."


Another major news outlet reporting more or less the same thing the AP has reported. I'm sure there are many more.

So who would need to make a report for you to believe that the sources are credible?

John
November 2nd, 2012 04:43 PM
Taxman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novanutcase View Post
So your belief at this time is that even if it comes from a department spokesperson you cannot accept it as factual information? If this is the case then how are you going to move forward in satisfying your crusade for the truth in this particular incident? If you won't take anyones statement as true then I think it is you that is the Epistemological nihilist.

John
I may just take what I believe on faith. Much like you that determines that no report other than a single AP report to have validity.

You're right though, I'll have a difficult time believing any biased source from within our government.
November 2nd, 2012 04:16 PM
Novanutcase
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taxman View Post
I would consider a named CIA official to be a source from the current administration. I agree that it may cloud my judgement, but I think that it also is justifiably clouded.
So your belief at this time is that even if it comes from a department spokesperson you cannot accept it as factual information? If this is the case then how are you going to move forward in satisfying your crusade for the truth in this particular incident? If you won't take anyones statement as true then I think it is you that is the Epistemological nihilist.

John
November 2nd, 2012 03:35 PM
Taxman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novanutcase View Post
The CIA quote came directly from a CIA spokesperson that was named not an anonymous source.

Although I understand your trepidation in believing wholeheartedly any news report or administration release I think it also clouds your decision making if you only go by your gut and the biases that form that opinion. I try and keep an open mind and I regularly listen to FOX along with MSNBC, probably two of the most polarly divided networks in regards to biased, partisan reporting. I think they both cherry pick items to move their agenda forward. FOX, for me, just has a little bit higher of a "ridiculous" quotient than MSNBC but MSNBC is certainly not without it's own silliness. CNN seems to at least try to stay neutral in it's reporting but even they get it wrong some times.

In my experience AP has had some of the most accurate reporting in the country.

John
I would consider a named CIA official to be a source from the current administration. I agree that it may cloud my judgement, but I think that it also is justifiably clouded.
November 2nd, 2012 03:27 PM
Novanutcase The CIA quote came directly from a CIA spokesperson that was named, not an anonymous source.

Although I understand your trepidation in believing wholeheartedly any news report or administration release I think it also clouds your decision making if you only go by your gut and the biases that form that opinion and don't let any other outside information help in forming a cohesive opinion that could help you distill the truth. I try and keep an open mind and I regularly listen to FOX along with MSNBC, probably two of the most polarly divided networks in regards to biased, partisan reporting. I think they both cherry pick items to move their agenda forward. FOX, for me, just has a little bit higher of a "ridiculous" quotient than MSNBC but MSNBC is certainly not without it's own silliness. CNN seems to at least try to stay neutral in it's reporting but even they get it wrong some times.

In my experience AP has had some of the most accurate reporting in the country.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taxman View Post
But none of this contradicts my opinion that we have really done NOTHING about this in response. We sent a drone to observe... who the fuck cares? Send in the fucking calvary man.
And do what? Start slaughtering any Libyan that walks the earth since we are convicting them through guilt by association? Yes, let's continue affirming the stereotype of the US as warmongers to the arab world. The prudent and intelligent thing to do is to find out who was behind it and quietly and cleanly take them out. The report states that forces were sent in to try and get our people out of their but the Libyan Militias were less than helpful in that. We were outgunned and outmanned, end of story. To try and get assets in there that could have countered the assault would have taken more time to get together and deploy than the attack itself took other than what was allocated and available at the time. The Libyan public as a whole seems to support us. Why would we want to upset that by killing innocent civilians? This will just inflame the country and give whatever terrorist factions that are still in the country fodder for more and accelerated attacks. Unfortunately democracy played against us with the election of Magarief of the Muslim Brotherhood. Hopefully his having to contend with world issues rather than just localized issues will show him and his party that compromise and tolerance rather than violence is the best way to improve his country.

John
November 2nd, 2012 02:09 PM
Taxman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novanutcase View Post
I've already stated that the AP is not infallible. No one is perfect. What I'm saying is that pretty much all the reporting I've gotten from them has checked out to be factually correct. Certainly there have been times when some facts may be inaccurate but as a whole they've been pretty spot on......or are you just not willing to accept any kind of news that goes against your worldview?

John
I'm not willing to accept just any news. I actually am not a FOX guy or a CNN guy that just wants to hear what I believe repeated to me. I like NPR news just as much as Fox news. And in all honesty, typical news programs with a slight liberal bias are now just as disturbing to me as Rush Limbaugh has ever been. Unfortunately, I'm getting to a place where I just don't believe the current administration on even the most basic news items. Unfortunately, when a story comes out now that was provided by an administration source, I'm much more skeptical than I should be, and more than I've ever been before. Keep in mind, I voted for Obama, but now I do believe that this administration will directly lie to me about the most basic of issues.

So I'm willing to accept the AP news story, but still wonder if there's more to it.

But none of this contradicts my opinion that we have really done NOTHING about this in response. We sent a drone to observe... who the fuck cares? Send in the fucking calvary man.
November 2nd, 2012 01:48 PM
Novanutcase
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taxman View Post
My mistake, I didn't know the AP had never reported an incorrect story before.
I've already stated that the AP is not infallible. No one is perfect. What I'm saying is that pretty much all the reporting I've gotten from them has checked out to be factually correct. Certainly there have been times when some facts may be inaccurate but as a whole they've been pretty spot on......or are you just not willing to accept any kind of news that goes against your worldview?

John
November 2nd, 2012 01:40 PM
Taxman My mistake, I didn't know the AP had never reported an incorrect story before.
November 2nd, 2012 01:12 PM
Novanutcase
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taxman View Post
The "facts" as you say are from anonymous sources or administration officials. You're willing to trust them because they speak to your worldview. There are contradictory anonymous sources, and you won't accept them because it isn't "official" correct?

Never has the truth about a scandal come from "official" sources John.


Sent from my iPhone using Autoguide.com App
No, I'm willing to trust the report because all the reports I've gotten from the AP have been credible and have been substantiated at a later date.

John
November 2nd, 2012 11:47 AM
Taxman The "facts" as you say are from anonymous sources or administration officials. You're willing to trust them because they speak to your worldview. There are contradictory anonymous sources, and you won't accept them because it isn't "official" correct?

Never has the truth about a scandal come from "official" sources John.


Sent from my iPhone using Autoguide.com App
November 2nd, 2012 01:52 AM
Novanutcase
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taxman View Post
I've never quoted the "denied help" articles.


Sent from my iPhone using Autoguide.com App
That wasn't pointed at you. It was to illustrate that the facts are now coming to light about what actually happened and this is one that Fox and the Romney campaign have been hammering on. Their claim is that the CIA requested backup and it was denied. The CIA spokesperson quote refutes that claim.

John
This thread has more than 20 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may 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

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome