Posted on 10/28/2012 11:39:49 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
That is my take as well. A good friend taught me about that technique from the Soviet Union. You can learn a great deal about what is going on by figuring out what the state controlled media are not saying.
The prime example of that is the crime reporting that goes on. When the perp or perps' race is not mentioned, we all know what that means.
I have seen credible reports from experts that insist the Target Aquisition Laser FIRST syncs up with a weapons platform THEN paints the target.
Same with party affiliation.
I strongly suspect that if those drones were NOT armed, they would have already tried to use that excuse.
I still think at least one of those drones were armed, while those below were still fighting for their lives.
bump
Does anyone know if we can tell if the mortar shells used were those used by the American military (by forensics of the fragements)?
me to... there could be local help that was available that DID stand down.... as well...
Yes, but they won’t tell us what was available unless someone digs it up and forces it out
Never happen.. this stuff is almost as Top Secret as Obamas college records or passport.. not quite but almost..
My immediate question is, would the munitions on a drone be ‘smart’ enough to target only the area outside the compound where the terrorists were and leave the buildings- where our people were- unscathed?
VA Ping!
If you want on/off the VA Ping List, please freepmail me.
If you see posts of interest to Virginians, please ping me.
Thanks!
If the drone was armed, that takes away another of Panetta’s excuses. Below:
“We quickly responded in terms of deploying forces to the region. We had fast platoons in the region. We had ships that we had deployed off of Libya. We were prepared to respond to any contingency, and certainly had forces in place to do that,” Panetta said here yesterday.
“But the basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harms’ way without knowing what’s going on, without having some real time information about what’s taking place”, Panetta added.
“Warner living proof that, ‘You can get by on your good looks!’”
In Warner’s case he gets by on his MONEY. In person, he’s fairly homely, has horrible skin that you’d figure he could straighten out with his hundreds of millions.
He very cleverly chose to run for US Senate vs. John Warner at the end of his career to build up his name ID. He lost vs. John, but did get that name ID established
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.