Friday, October 26, 2012

U.S. Leaders Rejected Repeated Requests for Help During Benghazi Terrorist Attack

Then they tried to cover their cowardice by blaming the attack on a YouTube video. There are no words to describe such treachery. Several military leaders and members of the Obama Administration deserve to be dishonorably discharged and publicly flogged for treason.


FoxNews--Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. Consulate and subsequent attack several hours later was denied by U.S. officials -- who also told the CIA operators twice to "stand down" rather than help the ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.

Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. Consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to "stand down," according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to "stand down."

Woods and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the Consulate which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged. The quick reaction force from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the Consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight.

At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied. There were no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Specter gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights. The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours -- enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News has also learned that two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators. (Continue Reading.)

4 comments:

_ said...

Politicians are a bunch of asses.

William Peaden said...

I'm not sure were to post or how to contact you so I'm going to try here:

The Guardian, (that bastion of truth and tolerance) has post an article on the 'Truth about Muhammed and Aisha' here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/sep/17/muhammad-aisha-truth

Here, Islamist states and Islamophobic bigots are both misunderstanding this marriage. Really, it was medieval Christians who distorted the life of Muhammed and it was in any case fine in Christian Europe for Kings to marriage teenagers. Aisha emerges as a feminist activist who was free, probably not 9 when she married anyway (besides the Qu'ran condemns abuse of women), generally just a great gal.

I'm not convinced but Muslims generally appeal to political expediency when they justify Muhammed's marriages. Of course Christians don't condemn marriage (think wedding feast of Cana, and the Paul on Christ and his Church being mirrored by man and wife in marriage). Still I don't quite know what I would say in return to this. Apart from the idea that Islam is really just a radical feminist religion being the most obvious load of bosh ever written, what do we say to people convinced that political expediency dispense Muhammed from blame? And how do we deal with someone who simply dismisses the historical evidence of Aisha's young age?

Mr. Light-Bright said...

Demons undoubtedly skewing(manipulating) minds.

Obama's reaction was very passive towards the American personnel that refused to up security during the attack. In his eyes, he probably couldn't imagine evil men with good intentions!

They are incompetent, and need to be investigated and then dealt with (not vengeance).

Deleting said...

William Peaden said, "I'm not convinced but Muslims generally appeal to political expediency when they justify Muhammed's marriages. Of course Christians don't condemn marriage (think wedding feast of Cana, and the Paul on Christ and his Church being mirrored by man and wife in marriage). Still I don't quite know what I would say in return to this. Apart from the idea that Islam is really just a radical feminist religion being the most obvious load of bosh ever written, what do we say to people convinced that political expediency dispense Muhammed from blame? And how do we deal with someone who simply dismisses the historical evidence of Aisha's young age?"

The issue of marriage should be a non-issue all together.
First people who make the age argument basing European monarchs who wed younger girls do so thinking this solves the argument. However, it still sinks Islam because regardless of what the norm is in a society, the bible calls for a prophet to be 'HOLY'...as in otherworldly eschewing the norms of the age.
Muhammad didn't. He embraced it faster than he could horde booty (war and the like) at Khabar. (and anti-Semites level crude jokes about 'greedy jews' here and I can't help but think '..uh..wrong religion'.)
If Islam were to have any legitimacy, it should be with their prophet not marrying Aisha. We should have seen him loving Sawda and caring for his children.
We should have also seen him acting like the prophets in the old testament up did.
And carrying out object lessons.
And loving the Jews regardless of how they treated them.

But I digress...

Most of the marriages in Europe were used to seal alliances and countries. There was a betrothal first and in extreme instances, it was a morganic marriage where one or both parties were married 'by proxy' because they lived so far apart from each other. It doesn't mean it was consummated. If it were there would be children. In many instances there wasn't.

King John was an exception to this but Isabelle didn't give birth to his heir until she was 17.

However, it is interesting to note that we don't see a lot of monarchs engaging in pedophile marriages until AFTER Islam is established.

Just sayin'....