Posted on 05/12/2016 8:53:20 AM PDT by blueunicorn6
Why did they attack us at Benghazi? It's been over 3 1/2 years since the attack at Benghazi. Some of the lies about the attack have recently been cleared up. I think it's time to take the truth and go back and examine some of the basic questions about this event.
Here is the truth that clears up three lies about Benghazi. 1. The attack was never a spontaneous response to a movie. Hillary Clinton herself wrote that the attack was a planned operation. 2. The United States could have had a military response to the attack which could have saved American lies. 3. Ambassador Stevens was not a homosexual. He had at one time been engaged to a very pretty actress.
So, let us go back to the basic question.
Why did they attack us at Benghazi?
Let's flesh it out a little.
Why this place? Why this time? Why this manner of attack?
What was their objective with this attack?
The attacker has some very important strengths when he attacks. He chooses the place of the attack. He chooses the time of the attack. He chooses the means of the attack.
Why did the enemy choose to attack us at Benghazi at that time and in that manner?
Yes, I am asking you to think. The Democrats just want you to listen to them and they have proven themselves to be liars about this matter.
Use what you know of the background of this attack and what you know of human nature and your experiences and examine this event.
Why did they attack us at Benghazi?
How many conspiracy theories are there?
This was a planned operation. Even Hillary Clinton admitted that right away.
When you plan an operation, you plan for the equipment you will need.
For a kidnapping you would need: tools and explosives if you needed to get the victim out of a secure location; Getaway vehicles; only enough people to do the job; a means to secure the victim.
Do we see any of that at Benghazi?
No.
The “attack” on the “consulate” was a diversion, to draw defense away from the “annex” (which was not “annexed” to anything), and the precious goods within the “warehouse”, which were the objective of the enemy forces that night.
It worked, but better than expected. A firefight started, the “consulate” (which was nothing of the kind) caught fire, and Stevens died on site from smoke inhalation.
The attack had nothing to do with Stevens. He was collateral damage, and the bad guys prevailed, taking with them whatever it was they were after.
One of the posters above speaks to the idea it was an abduction gone wrong and I cannot say that that’s impossible.
the men we hired to protect the mission physically opened the gate for their attackers, who shouted, dr. Morsi sent us.
they said it clearly and there are scattered reports that some of the guards actually took place in the attack itself.
another good question is if the men with Chris’s bodY wanted to help him, why did they take him to a hospital controlled by al-qaida?
that sounds exactly like the actions of abductors, not Rescuers.
the dozens of refusals to enhance security when taken together sound like a logical attempt to PERMIT the mission to be attacked.
it suggests there was some collusion, some prearrangement, some kind of bargain we have not seen.
I believe the reason was somehow related to evil motives by Hillary Clinton and/or Barack 0bama.
We were shown all sorts of images and stories of how the very men who stormed the compound rushed the ambassador to the hospital.
Did they do the same for the computer tech they killed in the initial attack?
No.
So why would you rush someone to the hospital when you just stormed a compound using overwhelming lethal force?
Because you wanted him alive.
Because according to islam, we’re the infidel.
At first, I thought this explanation made the most sense.
But they attacked the State Department building and then attacked the CIA building.
They didn’t know where their guys were for sure?
Why would they risk resources if they didn’t know for sure where their people were?
The man was dead... rushing to the hospital was too little too late. I consider that more of the appearance of help that was NOT. I think the objective was all along to have a dust up over a fake video, so that weapons depot could be sent to the peoples intended without a Clinton finger print.
The attack at Benghazi happened because Hillary needed to erase someone who knew too many details about her weapons smuggling program.
It really shouldn’t be that hard to figure out at this point.
I got to wonder about people who haven’t figured that out yet... are they not thinking very hard about the incident? Are they not aware of what kind of person Clinton is?
Stevens was traveling around by automobile. From looking at the number of security people at the State Department facility, I’m thinking he was probably driving around with a driver and one guard.
Way easier to take him in a car than in a compound.
I just don’t see this as a kidnapping gone wrong.
Where were the house breaching tools?
They bring RPGs and heavy machine guns but no tools to take down a reinforced door?
The level of execution they displayed would seem to indicate that their planning would have been thorough enough to prepare for that eventuality.
I’m guessing it was the gun running to their enemies.
I suspect even Romney was fed a perfectly reasonable lie to stop him from using the topic in debates with Obama.
The lie we were fed - the lie for the American people was lame beyond words... It has 'clinton bullshi*t written all over it... I'm sure the rest of the clowns got better lies than the 'movie trailer' thing... We also know Ambassador Stephens knew he was at risk... knew that his life was in danger.
People coming forward today aren't 'in the loop' - all they're saying is the lie about not being able to get there in time is obviously false.
I'm sure the lie about 'selling weapons' to insurgents is equally false. Yes, we might have been doing that, but no one would care if we did the 'same old same old' one more time...
The only lie that would work with the kind of people we're talking about is the one that says, 'yes, people will have to die because the few dying saves the larger number from dying'... Anything short of that type of lie wouldn't work for this long.
Isn’t the ambassador to Egypt and out and out gay and getting a bunch of guff from the muzzies about it?
The locals got involved and ruined the plot. Two Navy SEALs disobeyed orders NOT to leave the Annex and the hostage plot became a full-on war.
I believe you are wrong about that. The entire compound was ringed with armed men in trucks blocking the streets in advance of the attack. Secondly, I recall reading that BEFORE THE ATTACK there were cans of incendiary liquids placed outside the front gate that were used to start fires to smoke out the Ambassador.
Why “fake” it?
What would be the point?
It wouldn’t sell to other Arabs, they would think it was normal to leave an infidel to die. To impress us somehow? They are terrorists. It isn’t “terrifying” to rush someone to the hospital.
And, again, they didn’t take Sean Smith to the hospital. So why Stevens but not Smith?
And there is doubt about whether Stevens was dead or not. Some of the Libyans who took him to the hospital claim he was alive and a doctor at the hospital said he did CPR for 90 minutes on the ambassador.
90 minutes! Think about that. Who does CPR for 90 minutes on a patient who has suffered severe smoke inhalation?
So why the extra effort?
They wanted him alive.
Great points.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.