Went to see 13 hours
- Thread starter Sir Galahad
- Start date
Sitting through yet another overdramatic Michael Bay movie should have everyone feeling pissed.
Did you see the movie? Far from over dramatic, very true very well done but hey, I doubt you want to know what it was really all about but rather pass judgement without knowledge instead.
I'm not opining on the content of the movie or the subject matter. I can tell you unequivocally that I know how the movie is without ever having to see it because Michael Bay.
Typical, and you would be wrong. There were no major explosions, no over dramatic dialog, just what happened during the 13 hours by some people who where actually there. One of the last lines in the movie hits the hardest, no American help, not even to remove the dead. No leadership but why should we expect any?
Not at all, didn't know much of the story but after watching the film and realizing that the American government did nothing to help them out, it does piss me off. I shouldn't be surprised because I know those in charge have no leadership ability.
Last edited:
I just spent 10 hours on Making a Murderer, there's no way I'm spending 13 hours on another propaganda film.
It was another severely over cooked Michael Bay movie: the big guys with the beards and the guns once again have to save the bed wetting Harvard educated pussies via a series of gun fights and explosions.
The US Government severely f*cked everyone over there, but the movie didn't do anything to advance that story. For reasons above. Bay spared no expense in making sure that the audience understood that the CIA station chiefs were impotent tea drinkers who will assuredly end up needing help from the security team that they were looking down upon.
The US Government severely f*cked everyone over there, but the movie didn't do anything to advance that story. For reasons above. Bay spared no expense in making sure that the audience understood that the CIA station chiefs were impotent tea drinkers who will assuredly end up needing help from the security team that they were looking down upon.
The Obama Admin/State Department spent a lot of time and money to dispose of Ghadaffi, and in a desperate effort to make that seem like a good decision, decided to establish a makeshift Consulate barely after the last bomb had been dropped, in a region that any intelligence expert could predict would be over run with rival governments and Jihadists.
As a result of rushing to install this consulate, but not properly secure it with military forces, it resulted in the violent and grotesque death of Americans, including the Ambassador. THe State Department then went on a PR campaign to lie about the background of the attack.
Why exactly should the above information not warrant intensive scrutiny from the US Congress? I realize that you guys think Executive Power is awesome these days, but the Constitution still does require the Congress have equal power.
One of the "controversies" is the denial of air support in the movie. The Clinton surrogates all claim that air support was in fact unavailable.
The problem for them is that the 2nd point is just as disturbing as the 1st. They stood up this consulate in a bombed out shithole with militias everywhere, yet there was absolutely no pre-positioned air support available anywhere to assist with the inevitable security issue?
We have a Commands in Africa and Europe yet we had absolutely no way of rapidly responding to an armed security situation in Libya?
Air support flew in many forms and an F-15 low flyover could have helped tremendously and they were 20 minutes away and were asked to help. I have lottle doubt this impotent leadership we have didn't want to have any military appearance in this situation.
I don't buy this. If you're a mob of Jihadists intent on killing Americans at the Embassy, what fear do you have of an F16 streaking overhead? Especially knowing that that F16 won't drop ordnance on them when they're in close proximity to the Embassy.
The air support that would have mattered is 1.) Apache helicopters capable of hovering in a space and engaging ground targets 2.) Blackhawks with 50Cal mounted weapons plus quick extraction SF teams. I was going to say an AC-130 gunship but even that would be risky, launching 105mm shells in close proximity to a Consulate.
Well that is not what the guys on the roof of the buildings that were there thought.
AFRICOM is actually headquartered in Stuttgart, Germany and has very little in the way of resources, especially for anything not HOA related. They're as likely to learn of something from Reuters as from their own assets unless something has significantly changed in the last few years since I was there. I doubt they keep a force on alert in that theater that would've been able to respond quickly.
AFRICOM had an entire SEAL team on the ground in Burkina Faso just 30 minutes after that hotel came under attack.
How they could possibly 1.) Not know of the Benghazi attack and 2.) Having no assets to assist with is unfathomable.
The only explanation is that we either stripped every asset from the region (highly unlikely), or there was a directive issued to not involve heavy military assets because some asshat with State Department wanted the narrative that these were people pissed off about a movie.
There is a training agreement with Burkina Faso. Likely the team was already in the area and could be diverted. I don't know what happened for sure there or in the Benghazi incident. Hopefully we'll see with the investigation.
^^^ This is actually the bigger tragedy. Anyone who has looked at the US NATO budget, and what we spend in Germany, while having virtually no real assets, has been an on-going issue since the '00s, which the current administration has only made even worse (more money, less capability).
That said ... what has always bothered me most have been 2 things ...
- How the State Department basically "re-wrote" the "talking points" that they worked on with the CIA, and purposely sent a "sacrificial lamb" (honestly felt sorry for her) who didn't write it and didn't know jack so she couldn't be held accountable for lying during an election year. Yes, tat's exactly how they played it people! It's not just the Republicans recognizing that! And ...
- The Secretary of State has repeatedly stated that Embassy defense, logistics and security are not her job and not her perview at all, so no one has the right to point the finger at her, despite any advisement anyone proved she received. So that pretty much sums up how she leads her Department, but then again, she couldn't admit fault, as it would keep her from the Presidency.
I'm not voting Trump, but 100% of his statements come from actual, existing policies and related agency chatter that you never hear in the media. So when the media gives him a response like it's from an 8 year-old, Trump counters with a 2 year-old like response, which gives the media its "wet dream." All the meanwhile, anyone who knows the actual policies and related agency chatter that does occur -- which is a surprising number of Americans -- just laugh at the media.
Explains where a lot of Trump's supporters are coming from, and why they despise Hillary and most of the media (including Fox too).
Last edited:
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
JUST STOP !!! ENOUGH is ENOUGH. UCF ALUMS PLS READ since there are no moderators- Latest: Willie Knightime
-
-
