Why Benghazi Matters

[BluePhantom]

I hesitate to bring it up because it's such an idiotic argument that we'd strafe the crowd outside of our consulate with a gunship in the middle of the night. Needless to say, employing the AC-130 would have done much more damage than what was done, resulting in more deaths, much more angst directed at the US, and a much more perilous situation for the entire region.

Uh-huh...because in the liberal mind the lives of terrorists are more important than the lives of Americans.

 

[Pheonixops]

This isn't call of duty. Firing with a 105mm howitzer from an AC130 into a crowd (armed and unarmed) around the consulate would create worse ramifications than Stevens' death.

 

[Pheonixops]

AC-130U Gunship was on-scene in Benghazi, Obama Admin refused to let it fire​

Written By: Bob
AC-130U Gunship was on-scene in Benghazi, Obama Admin refused to let it fire « Bob Owens
Oct• 26•12


This is treason.

A much more detailed confirmation from a Delta operator:

Having spent a good bit of time nursing a GLD (ground Laser Designator) in several garden spots around the world, something from the report jumped out at me.

One of the former SEALs was actively painting the target. That means that Specter WAS ON STATION! Probably an AC130U. A ground laser designator is not a briefing pointer laser. You do not “paint” a target until the weapons system/designator is synched; which means that the AC130 was on station.

Only two places could have called off the attack at that point; the WH situation command (based on POTUS direction) or AFRICOM commander based on information directly from the target area.

The designator will not work without the plane overhead.

[excerpt]

This may be the reason General Carter Ham was relieved of duty. He disobeyed presidential orders and sent assistance to those Americans in trouble.

Assuming this is true, you have to find out how was giving the orders.
If Obama knew about it, it's bad news for him.
If it was some right wing spook, Obama is in the clear.

So, who was giving the orders?

Only two men had the authority:

The President, and the AFRICOM commander, General Ham.

And Ham was relieved of duty during the attack. Why? No one's saying. But no support was sent. It's entirely believable Ham was ordering support to aid the State personnel under attack, then was relieved for doing so. It's impossible to claim he was relieved for withholding support, because no support was deployed after Ham was relieved.

Maybe Ham is trying to cover his own faults, maybe he was relieved of duty (if he was) because he failed to act. I DO think that an investigation of the incident should definitely be in order.

 

[Pasco08]

Meh.... what's four Americans hung out to dry and left to die at the hands of terrorists? Load up AF1, let's go to Vegas!

Where is all this horror when bush let 9/11 happen or took us into Iraq under a lie and our boys started to get killed?

 

[Pheonixops]

When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail

Obama's favored tool is appeasement.

How has that worked historically?

How is getting this OBL and other top tier, middle, and lower tier AQ operatives, using drones in a liberal manner, and actively fighting the famed 'war on terror' by this Administration called "apeasement"?

The guy has a neo-con foreign policy you all should love him!

 

[Pheonixops]

No, I'm not, prove the OP wrong? Good luck

So I proved they had planes an hour away? Easily could have flown in and rescued the ambassador, so why didnt they?

Some people watch too many fantasy action films.

Too bad we couldn't just send Chuck Norris in. He took down thousands of terrorists all by himself.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Too bad we couldn't just send Chuck Norris in. He took down thousands of terrorists all by himself.

Sounds like Tyrone Woods was doing just fine. He just needed the fucking mortars suppressed, but Obama was too busy going to Vegas for a campaign rally to be bothered with such things.

 

[candycorn]

I hesitate to bring it up because it's such an idiotic argument that we'd strafe the crowd outside of our consulate with a gunship in the middle of the night. Needless to say, employing the AC-130 would have done much more damage than what was done, resulting in more deaths, much more angst directed at the US, and a much more perilous situation for the entire region.

Uh-huh...because in the liberal mind the lives of terrorists are more important than the lives of Americans.

It is very possible that the AC 130 Gunship would have taken several lives of persons of many nationalities not to mention all hell breaking loose in every capitol of the Islamic world. And I suppose you'd be fine with a country with embassies and consulates here here sending in close air combat support anytime there is a protest outside of their consulate/facilities here?

Let me guess, you think we play by different rules than they do, right?

 

[bodecea]

I doubt Ambassador Stevens would have appreciated a bunch of innocent civilians being slaughtered to kill a few terrorists. I'll wait for the final investigative report.

To many, there were NO innocent civilians.

 

[Pasco08]

I doubt Ambassador Stevens would have appreciated a bunch of innocent civilians being slaughtered to kill a few terrorists. I'll wait for the final investigative report.

To many, there were NO innocent civilians.

And how can you make that call were you on the ground? Were you a witness? OK then please shut the hell up.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail

Obama's favored tool is appeasement.

How has that worked historically?

How is getting this OBL and other top tier, middle, and lower tier AQ operatives, using drones in a liberal manner, and actively fighting the famed 'war on terror' by this Administration called "apeasement"?

The guy has a neo-con foreign policy you all should love him!

It's obvious that the Ambassador and the three men assassinated on September 11, 2012 mean very little to you and especially the fact that they were abandoned and refused aid three times by your dear leader. Then there's the fact that General Carter Ham was relieved of duty immediately after refusing to abandon the people in Ben Ghazi

 

[Politico]

This isn't call of duty. Firing with a 105mm howitzer from an AC130 into a crowd (armed and unarmed) around the consulate would create worse ramifications than Stevens' death.

Good thing they have a 30-mm Gatling gun on board, huh?

Which, I'd think by virtue of being a Gatling Gun...is even less accurate then the Howitzer.

The only thing the GAU has in common with a Gatling gun is that it spins.

 

[Liberal]

I think the real question, if this is true is more over what a GUNSHIP would do..

Vaporize the entire embassy, with our people in it?

 

[Politico]

Seeing as it's sole purpose is close combat support no it wouldn't.

 

[Pheonixops]

Obama's favored tool is appeasement.

How has that worked historically?

How is getting this OBL and other top tier, middle, and lower tier AQ operatives, using drones in a liberal manner, and actively fighting the famed 'war on terror' by this Administration called "apeasement"?

The guy has a neo-con foreign policy you all should love him!

It's obvious that the Ambassador and the three men assassinated on September 11, 2012 mean very little to you and especially the fact that they were abandoned and refused aid three times by your dear leader. Then there's the fact that General Carter Ham was relieved of duty immediately after refusing to abandon the people in Ben Ghazi

No, it's obvious that you like to misrepresent the words and thoughts of the people who disagree with your assertions. Looking at your usage of the "dear leader" meme shows that you are a political hack who only cares about making political points against President Obama. You don't give 1 fuck about Our fellow Americans who were killed. If you had any sense of decency, you would be ashamed of yourself you fucking moron.

 

[Serioususername]

Good thing they have a 30-mm Gatling gun on board, huh?

Which, I'd think by virtue of being a Gatling Gun...is even less accurate then the Howitzer.

The only thing the GAU has in common with a Gatling gun is that it spins.

Kind of getting into semantics here, but if it pleases you. I'll call it a Rotary Cannon from now on...so long as I remember. Either way, It's a Gatling Gun, since the only thing you need to be called as such is...rotating barrels, firing in sequence and all that shit. Kind of like how all Light Machine Guns are Machine Guns, but not all Machine Guns are Light Machine Guns. Well; All Rotary Cannons are Gatling Guns- but not all Gatling Guns are rotary cannons.

 

[IHBF]

What was the proximity of these innocent civilians to the mortars locations?

 

[candycorn]

I think the real question, if this is true is more over what a GUNSHIP would do..

Vaporize the entire embassy, with our people in it?

It's crazy to bring this up because, again, using this aircraft to disperse a crowd is a bit like dropping the A-bomb.

In the first place, the plane doesn't do dives and precision bombing; it circles the "target" making a counter-clockwise circle so the crew can focus it's fire on the target to the left of the aircraft. The circle it makes is large since the plane's stall speed is 100 knots--it always has to be going 100 knots or higher. Imagine trying to do donuts in the K-mart parking lot at 100mph; pretty big circle.

Anyway, the target is terrorists so it's not as if there is a big target to hit and since terrorists usually don't wear signs saying "terrorists" our crew at night would be firing at anything standing up.

The armaments include a 105mm cannon which would ruin the day of anything it touches but more than likely the weapon of choice would be the 20 and 40 mm guns.

Sort of like using a shotgun to get rid of a fly.

It's an asinine topic.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

I think the real question, if this is true is more over what a GUNSHIP would do..

Vaporize the entire embassy, with our people in it?

It's crazy to bring this up because, again, using this aircraft to disperse a crowd is a bit like dropping the A-bomb.

In the first place, the plane doesn't do dives and precision bombing; it circles the "target" making a counter-clockwise circle so the crew can focus it's fire on the target to the left of the aircraft. The circle it makes is large since the plane's stall speed is 100 knots--it always has to be going 100 knots or higher. Imagine trying to do donuts in the K-mart parking lot at 100mph; pretty big circle.

Anyway, the target is terrorists so it's not as if there is a big target to hit and since terrorists usually don't wear signs saying "terrorists" our crew at night would be firing at anything standing up.

The armaments include a 105mm cannon which would ruin the day of anything it touches but more than likely the weapon of choice would be the 20 and 40 mm guns.

Sort of like using a shotgun to get rid of a fly.

It's an asinine topic.

It's not like there were 5 or 10 terrorists. From what I understand there were 100 to 150 attacking and there wasn't anyone else around because bullets were flying. So if it's considered asinine in your opinion, obviously you've never been in a firefight. BTW terrorist have a bad habit of bunching up, that's why it was estimated that the ex-Seals cut down 50 to 60 of them. Now if Spooky had been around they would taken out the mortar that did so much damage and more.

 

[Cheddarmelon]

It's not a precision firing plane in ground support.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGH-zBHbPKc&feature=related]AC-130H Spectre Gunship engages probable SA-3 missiles - YouTube[/ame]

I counted 13 to 14 off target impacts on the ground before they hit the target.


And here's the smaller guns. the 25 mm.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-FQY7rS9E8]AC-130 Shooting the 25mm Over Najaf, Iraq - YouTube[/ame]

Great for carpeting an area with shells... not so good if you don't know where the friendlies are. The spread pattern is larger than the buildings.