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?
A legitimate plan by who?
Why couldn’t it have been a dual operation? Two goals that are more easily met by dividing your opponents ability to cover both locations at once?
2012 was a presidential election year... Do you really believe that taking Stevens for a trade of a known, tired, convicted and sentenced terrorists was going to be presidential? But it sure made a good 'theory' for the excuse that keeps coming out of Benghazi. What happened is what was planned. AND American lives were expendable. Nobody lifted a finger outside of Libya to stop the weapons and gold heist.
You didn’t answer the question. A legitimate plan by who?
Stevens was known to go running by himself. That would have been when they went to kidnap him if that was their objective.
The Obama Administration did not go after the enemy. They have forbidden the CIA employees at Benghazi from talking to the press or the American public.
American lives were at stake and Obama and Hillary both went home and crawled under the covers.
Let’s try to not look at this from the U.S. administration point of view, but rather the Libyan attackers point of view, okay?
Leaving out anything to do with the U.S. government, why would the attackers attack the diplomatic station?
Once you have answered that, the next question is, why did they take Stevens to the hospital, but not Sean Smith?
Once you have answered that, why did the doctor at the hospital perform CPR on Stevens for 90 minutes?
Occam’s Razor posits that the attackers wanted Stevens alive.
That is the most logical conclusion from the behavior of the Libyans on that night.
They attacked us at Benghazi to draw attention to the US involvement in Libya.
They had Stevens and they had his body.
Why didn’t they offer to trade that and the release of the 30 CIA employees in Benghazi for the blind sheikh?
We still have the blind sheikh and they had their chance.
The release of the blind sheikh was never their goal or they’d have him.
A dead body for a convicted terrorist? No way.
And they didn’t want to “draw attention”, that’s ridiculous. They had the attention of the world with the attack itself on the anniversary of 9/11.
They left Sean Smith’s body at the compound when they raced Stevens body to the hospital. They performed CPR on Stevens for 90 minutes.
They wanted him alive. Dead, he was just another American that they could have left on the floor. Alive, he was a bargaining chip.
They wanted Stevens alive.
Benghazi ping.
Let Republicanprofessor know if you want on or off this ping list.
Very SIMPLE answer: WHY were there a bee-swarm of CIA agents in Benghazi=(specifically).——————— More than 3 dozen!!!
Any further questions???
I take issue with that word 'legitimate'. My preference would be 'diabolical' plan, that had nothing to do with 'saving' American lives. I think Benghazi by the sea was the weapons depot of Colonel Q's weaponry. AND I think Hillry's job was to disperse the weapons, to Obama and lord McCain's rebels... Did not Stephens have a high powered guest come a calling right before he was slaughtered.
I think the weapons dealing got hijacked. By whom? None have yet been identified.. But we might find out from Hillry's secret emails. AND I think the reason why NO help was sent was because it would have lit up the region. All my opinion based upon what I have read/heard to date.
You were the one who used the word 'legitimate':
I am looking at the verifiable facts. At the time of Stevens death, Libya was under Hillry's control. AND so far there is no reason to believe anything other than 4 Americans were slaughtered, and all the weapons, gold and 'intel' was taken by unnamed 'workers'. NOT one outside of Libya responded to aide our peoples, and I considered that calculated prior. Thus far, I consider it chatter that there was a legitimate plan in place to take alive Stevens. Nothing else points in that direction.
You still haven't clarified that statement after I have asked for clarification twice now.
In the above statement you said:
Thus far, I consider it chatter that there was a legitimate plan in place to take alive Stevens.
I will ask for the third time:
A legitimate plan by who?
I feel like I am talking through a foot thick glass wall. The narrative was floated that Stevens was the object of a plotted kidnapping. Right???? I have yet to see/read anything that demonstrated there is any evidence. I call it ‘chatter’ devised to create a false narrative. Meaning there was NO plan to take Stevens... just more distraction. You think otherwise... that is your ‘right’.
Now if you consider the claim of 90 minutes of CPR on a dead man, evidence, then go for it. I think Hillry’s weapons dealing by the sea got hijacked.
The terrorists who had taken over Libya were sure they could use Libya’s store of weapons. When they found out WE were running those guns to Syria, we became a target.
That’s a very simplified explanation.
Since Obama and Hillary do not recognize terrorists as an enemy, they weren’t paying attention.
Why don’t you answer the question?
Seriously, man?
You said “Thus far, I consider it chatter that there was a legitimate plan in place to take alive Stevens.”
I am just trying to clarify who it is you are asserting had “a legitimate plan” in place.
Just answer the #$%#@! question!
Who had a “legitimate plan”?
please take me off your ping list...thank you
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.