The Truth About Benghazi

[Guest Derek L]

Like I said, there are two, completely distinct, meanings of the word.

As the pejorative, it is generally compared to "gook."

This is the usual meaning when used by Westerners.

But is it? I suppose it’s context, in that those that wish to wage a “holy war” against the West, and see their own deaths in such a struggle as a ticket to Paradise, as such, using a term that conjures up images of pilgrims travelling to a Holy place of their religion as rather apt.

[Guest Derek L]

Seems like another one of Shady's stuipd questions has been answered. I have seen a pattern in this thread Shady makes a crazy statement that he knows he can get away with because all the information about the attack isn't out yet then as the information trickles out Shady is wrong. Seems like Shady and Mitt have been wrong about everything so far about the attack so why would anything they say be worth anything?

http://news.yahoo.co...--election.html

Then why weren’t such requests heeded? Clearly their were aircraft in theatre, aircraft with their sole purpose being counter insurgency operations, coupled with the million dollar question, were the Predators flying above during the attack armed?

[bleeding heart]

But is it?

Of course. Whenever you hear the word "haji" used, you can be almost certain it's being used as "gook," essentially.

I suppose it’s context, in that those that wish to wage a “holy war” against the West, and see their own deaths in such a struggle as a ticket to Paradise, as such, using a term that conjures up images of pilgrims travelling to a Holy place of their religion as rather apt.

It has nothing to do with any "holy war," against the West or anyone else. It's basically used in two ways: as an apolitical honorific, a casual sign of respect; or as an insult by Westerners roughly equivalent to "gook."

Certainly, if you have any citation suggesting otherwise, that's cool.

[Guest Derek L]

Shady keeps forgetting that this was a secret CIA operation. The President, that is any President, doesn't usually go around blowing the CIA's cover on national television, unlike the House GOP. He's not going to answer questions about an ongoing mission of this nature.

Are you suggesting that this is Obama's "Bay of Pigs"?

To quote JFK: "....victory has a hundred fathers and defeat is an orphan... What matters is only one fact, I am the responsible officer of the government."

As such, President Obama has some child support payments to make...........

[Guest Derek L]

Of course. Whenever you hear the word "haji" used, you can be almost certain it's being used as "gook," essentially.

It has nothing to do with any "holy war," against the West or anyone else. It's basically used in two ways: as an apolitical honorific, a casual sign of respect; or as an insult by Westerners roughly equivalent to "gook."

Certainly, if you have any citation suggesting otherwise, that's cool.

And what garners you that level of certainty?

I too would ask for a citation

The entire “War on Terror” borrows religious terms from Islam, in many cases, used by the practitioners of said faith.....

[punked]

Are you suggesting that this is Obama's "Bay of Pigs"?

To quote JFK: "....victory has a hundred fathers and defeat is an orphan... What matters is only one fact, I am the responsible officer of the government."

As such, President Obama has some child support payments to make...........

Obama took responsibility maybe you missed it here it is.

It is like conservative just ignore everything they don't like. You people need to stop rewriting the FACTS! THEY MATTER!

[Guest Derek L]

Obama took responsibility maybe you missed it here it is.

It is like conservative just ignore everything they don't like. You people need to stop rewriting the FACTS! THEY MATTER!

I didn’t see the President taking fault for the lack of military response during the attack…………..

To clarify, and hopefully put this issue behind us, you’re suggesting that President Obama is in fact negligent in the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi?

[punked]

I didn’t see the President taking fault for the lack of military response during the attack…………..

To clarify, and hopefully put this issue behind us, you’re suggesting that President Obama is in fact negligent in the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi?

The "basic principle is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on; without having some real-time information about what's taking place," he said during a joint question-and-answer session with Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff General Martin Dempsey.

"As a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, General Ham, General Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation," Panetta said. General Carter Ham commands the U.S. Africa Command.

I know you hate the military but this is these peoples jobs. They don't want to see American Blood spilled but when it is sending in more Americans with out knowing the situation is the type of cowboying that gets men, boys, and women aboard killed. Deal with it. Your ideas are bad and everyone from Condi to the Generals who were on the ground are making that point. There is a reason they are trained to assess these situations and you aren't.

Maybe instead of not knowing anything you could read the reports. You could wait for information and investigations to be done. Instead of just "Nuke the whole damn place" policy you want is wrong.

Edited October 28, 2012 by punked

[Guest Derek L]

I know you hate the military but this is these peoples jobs. They don't want to see American Blood spilled but when it is sending in more Americans with out knowing the situation is the type of cowboying that gets men, boys, and women aboard killed. Deal with it. Your ideas are bad and everyone from Condi to the Generals who were on the ground are making that point. There is a reason they are trained to assess these situations and you aren't.

Further American blood spilled? Not a lot of blood to be spilled from UCAVs orbiting over the city…………

So, I’ll ask you again:

To clarify, and hopefully put this issue behind us, you’re suggesting that President Obama is in fact negligent in the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi?

[punked]

Further American blood spilled? Not a lot of blood to be spilled from UCAVs orbiting over the city…………

So, I’ll ask you again:

And Again I will respond with what the Generals on the ground at the time said.

The "basic principle is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on; without having some real-time information about what's taking place," he said during a joint question-and-answer session with Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff General Martin Dempsey.

"As a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, General Ham, General Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation," Panetta said. General Carter Ham commands the U.S. Africa Command.

Those were the people who were there. I know it doesn't fit your alternate reality so you don't like it but these men were on the ground they were making the best calls with the information they had. Sorry if you don't like the decision the experts made but they made the calls. If Obama sent men into harms way and there were more deaths you would be saying something very different right now. Those were the calls that were made following protocol end of story until we have more information. Just wait and see you have been wrong on everything so far as the information comes out I expect that pattern to continue.

[Guest Derek L]

And Again I will respond with what the Generals on the ground at the time said.

Those were the people who were there. I know it doesn't fit your alternate reality so you don't like it but these men were on the ground they were making the best calls with the information they had. Sorry if you don't like the decision the experts made but they made the calls. If Obama sent men into harms way and there were more deaths you would be saying something very different right now. Those were the calls that were made following protocol end of story until we have more information. Just wait and see you have been wrong on everything so far as the information comes out I expect that pattern to continue.

So the lack of US military action was for fear of losing more American lives?

How would an American lose his or her life while crewing a UCAV, from thousands of miles away, orbiting above Benghazi?

As to the General’s remarks, they certainly did have “real-time information”, as they’ve had UCAVs above the battle and the communications from the CIA on the ground………….

But I’ll ask again:

To clarify, and hopefully put this issue behind us, you’re suggesting that President Obama is in fact negligent in the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi?

Edited October 28, 2012 by Derek L

[punked]

So the lack of US military action was for fear of losing more American lives?

How would an American lose his or her life while crewing a UCAV, from thousands of miles away, orbiting above Benghazi?

As to the General’s remarks, they certainly did have “real-time information”, as they’ve had UCAVs above the battle and the communications from the CIA on the ground………….

But I’ll ask again:

I am suggesting when deaths take place in a compound you don't just start dropping bombs on Americans yes. I know what you do kill them all and let god sort them out but when this was going on they didn't know who was where. 4 deaths is better then 50 American deaths at the hands of their own governments. Again this is complex which is the experts handle it and not you. If you are saying Obama wanted these Americans to die well then you disgust me.

[Guest Derek L]

I am suggesting when deaths take place in a compound you don't just start dropping bombs on Americans yes. I know what you do kill them all and let god sort them out but when this was going on they didn't know who was where. 4 deaths is better then 50 American deaths at the hands of their own governments. Again this is complex which is the experts handle it and not you. If you are saying Obama wanted these Americans to die well then you disgust me.

Dropping bombs on Americans? 50 Americans dead at the hands of their own Government?

What the hell are you talking about? You understand that the “U” in UCAV means unmanned right?

With that said again, and based on your posting of the segment of the second Presidential debate, I’ll ask again:

To clarify, and hopefully put this issue behind us, you’re suggesting that President Obama is in fact negligent in the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi?

And as mentioned in an article posted earlier, AC-130 gunship’s were in theatre…………There is not a better aircraft associated with sustained precision fire support for people on the ground, on the planet.

Edited October 28, 2012 by Derek L

[punked]

Dropping bombs on Americans? 50 Americans dead at the hands of their own Government?

What the hell are you talking about? You understand that the “U” in UCAV means unmanned right?

With that said again, and based on your posting of the segment of the second Presidential debate, I’ll ask again:

And as mentioned in an article posted earlier, AC-130 gunship’s were in theatre…………There is not a better aircraft associated with sustained precision fire support for people on the ground, on the planet.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.c...ed/_OkoWEMCnLQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

We have already been over this. You can't send in a gun ship to the middle of a city with out knowing where the Americans are or who the terrorists are just to shoot everyone. Only a crazy person would propose this.

If you think the General and the President didn't consider all the options and follow protocol best they could with the information they had what you are saying is they wanted these Americans to die. They did not but at the same time making a situation worse doesn't help anyone. Wait for the details to come out. Again you have been wrong the whole thread as the details you want slowly trickle out so wait until you know the whole story and most if not all your questions will be answered.

Edited October 28, 2012 by punked

[Guest Derek L]

We have already been over this. You can't send in a gun ship to the middle of a city with out knowing where the Americans are or who the terrorists are just to shoot everyone. Only a crazy person would propose this.

The Americans have been doing that for decades………And there’s been no suggestion that the Americans on the ground had problems with their communications, as such, an orbiting gunship, can identify attackers operating heavy weapons such as rocket launchers & mortars with ease………..

[punked]

The Americans have been doing that for decades………And there’s been no suggestion that the Americans on the ground had problems with their communications, as such, an orbiting gunship, can identify attackers operating heavy weapons such as rocket launchers & mortars with ease………..

The "basic principle is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on; without having some real-time information about what's taking place," he said during a joint question-and-answer session with Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff General Martin Dempsey.

"As a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, General Ham, General Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation," Panetta said. General Carter Ham commands the U.S. Africa Command.

Again everytime you say something you are wrong so your opinion doesn't matter.

[Guest Derek L]

Again everytime you say something you are wrong so your opinion doesn't matter.

Getting a little personal now eh?

you hate the military

Your ideas are bad

Maybe instead of not knowing anything

Instead of just "Nuke the whole damn place" policy you want is wrong.

I know what you do kill them all and let god sort them out

If you are saying Obama wanted these Americans to die well then you disgust me.

You can't send in a gun ship to the middle of a city with out knowing where the Americans are or who the terrorists are just to shoot everyone. Only a crazy person would propose this.

everytime you say something you are wrong so your opinion doesn't matter.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forum-weblog-rules

Please respect others by refraining from personal attacks. There is a huge difference between disagreeing with a thought or idea and attacking an individual. We encourage lively debate and intelligent critiques of others viewpoints, not tirades against another poster.

Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person’s character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as “loser”, “idiot”, etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).

I'll ask once more:

To clarify, and hopefully put this issue behind us, you’re suggesting that President Obama is in fact negligent in the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi?

[punked]

I have already quoted what the Generals on the ground saw and said. You ignore it because you would rather create your own reality. There is nothing I can do about someone not living in reality and living in their own fantasy land where they know more then the people that were there and who have all the information. Sorry bud.

[Guest Derek L]

I have already quoted what the Generals on the ground saw and said. You ignore it because you would rather create your own reality. There is nothing I can do about someone not living in reality and living in their own fantasy land where they know more then the people that were there and who have all the information. Sorry bud.

So you agree that:

President Obama is in fact negligent in the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi?

based on your passage:

Obama took responsibility

Now I don’t wish to put words in your mouth, but for clarification of your remarks in that President Obama is ultimately negligent in the whole affair?

And if yes, this would be a valid debate on the abilities of President Obama’s competence in leadership………..As Hillary suggested about that 3:00am phone call..

[punked]

So you agree that:

based on your passage:

Now I don’t wish to put words in your mouth, but for clarification of your remarks in that President Obama is ultimately negligent in the whole affair?

And if yes, this would be a valid debate on the abilities of President Obama’s competence in leadership………..As Hillary suggested about that 3:00am phone call..

The ultimate responsibility lays on the President that much is true. Just like the Republicans get 3000 deaths in 9/11. I'll take the President's track record any day over going back to that mess. I'll tell you that much.

[Guest Derek L]

The ultimate responsibility lays on the President that much is true. Just like the Republicans get 3000 deaths in 9/11. I'll take the President's track record any day over going back to that mess. I'll tell you that much.

So you accept that President Obama is ultimately negligent in the whole mater? As such, it’s a valid topic to discuss during an election campaign, in regards to his lack of competence as leader. I agree. Thanks.

[bleeding heart]

And what garners you that level of certainty?

Are you trying to tell me that you were using "hajji" ina respectful manner, and not an insulting one?

Seriously?

For a brief moment, I thought we were having a serious discussion.

I too would ask for a citation

In Arab countries, Haji and Haja (pronunciation varying based on the form of Arabic spoken) is a common respectful manner of addressing any older person, regardless of whether or not the person in question has actually performed the pilgrimage [to Mecca].

Hajji, Haji or Hodgie is more recently used as a derogatory term by American military personnel as a comprehensive term for Iraqis, Arabs, Afghans, or Middle Eastern and South Asian people in general. It is comparable to the term "gook," used by U.S military personnel during the Korean and Vietnam Wars

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hajji

The entire “War on Terror” borrows religious terms from Islam, in many cases, used by the practitioners of said faith.....

Yes, but when we're talking about killing "hajis," the connotations seem clear enough.

For example, when someone jokes about the killing of Zionists...it's hard to imagine that they're using the word in the same benign spirit in which Zionists would use it...even though it's exactly the same word.

Edited October 28, 2012 by bleeding heart

[cybercoma]

Nobody has proven the president was negligent. That's a leap in logic from the presidenet taking responsibility.

[Guest Derek L]

Are you trying to tell me that you were using "hajji" ina respectful manner, and not an insulting one?

Seriously?

For a brief moment, I thought we were having a serious discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hajji

Yes, but when we're talking about killing "hajis," the connotations seem clear enough.

For example, when someone jokes about the killing of Zionists...it's hard to imagine that they're using the word in the same benign spirit in which Zionists would use it...even though it's exactly the same word, it's being used in an intentionally disrespectful manner.

To the extent one can desire to “respectfully” kill someone I suppose…………If their involvement in such a struggle is afflicted with religious connotations, surely we should oblige them, well keeping in sprit with their perspectives no? If they want “Jihad”, we should wilfully return the favour.

Is it any different then “waging a Crusade” on poverty, climate change or abortion?

And for the record, I don’t feel a war against religious extremists is a joke……….As to the term Zionists, from an opposing perspective, that description would also be apt………Clearly if one is opposed to Jewish Nationalism, said term is rather fitting in context.

[punked]

So you accept that President Obama is ultimately negligent in the whole mater? As such, it’s a valid topic to discuss during an election campaign, in regards to his lack of competence as leader. I agree. Thanks.

Nope. Well unless you are willing to admit Bush was Negligent on 9/11 or Reagan was negligent on Beirut barracks bombing and so on. Yes the man in charge is responsible but if you think the USA can protect every American aboard every second of the day you haven't been around for the last 50 years.

It is like you forget while this was going on there were uprising and protests at 19 other American embassies and consulates.

Edited October 28, 2012 by punked