Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

djones520 wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

djones520 wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Relapse wrote:
too bad Obama couldn't have given the ones killed at the consulate any back up.

You realize teleportation beacons are only fictions, right?

7 hour attack, fighters 2 hours away. Math.

An F-16 flying overhead and deploying flairs most likely would have been enough to stop the attack, or break it up long enough to get significant ground assets there.

I used to live beside a military base where fighters do their training. No one, not even a child would mistake a flare for a threat.

Well I'm glad you pointed that out. I'll contact the Pentagon and tell them to stop using show of force tactics in Afghanistan because you said that not even a child would mistake them as a threat.

Let me one up your living beside a military base. 11 years AD Air Force, with 4.5 of those working in an F-16 unit.

Over a one year period there was more then 18,000 strike sorties in Afghanistan. Of those, only 1/6th of them munitions were actually used. The rest were show of force missions, ie low level passes over insurgents, deploying flairs, to scare the gak out of them and make them bugger off.

Ooooh got so lawyered I'm feeling chills already. You realize the afghan insurgents would probably bugger off just by seeing fighters over them already, since, you know, your at war with them and they know it? Fly a bunch of planes over a crowd in a country where you have no presence whatsoever, and all you'll see will be people pointing at the planes and going ''oooooh, pwetty''.

Yup... here's a nice twin timeline:



This is becoming a classic fubar event...

Right, so in the middle of the night while you are attacking an AMERICAN Embassy, you suddenly hear the deafening roar of an F-16 flying overhead and the night sky is light up by 50 flairs. What's going through your head? We just got outgunned.

Show of force is a viable SAFE tactic that we extensively use to intimidate our opponents on a tactical scale while minimizing the threat of collateral damage to non-combatants.

Now, if you want to continue to armchair general this one with me, please go ahead. I actually laughed when you used your "I lived by a military base" line.

Happy it made you chuckle, but it's true that lights that essentially seems to hover in place do not constitute a very serious threat. It certainly wouldn't stop me from shooting my RPGs at a wall.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Happy it made you chuckle, but it's true that lights that essentially seems to hover in place do not constitute a very serious threat. It certainly wouldn't stop me from shooting my RPGs at a wall.

But how do you know? Can you honestly put yourself in their shoes?

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Happy it made you chuckle, but it's true that lights that essentially seems to hover in place do not constitute a very serious threat. It certainly wouldn't stop me from shooting my RPGs at a wall.

Look man, just because you say it's not true doesn't mean squat. We have dozens of OPREPS a day out of Afghanistan, and we had them in Iraq as well, about how shows of force stopped attacks occuring on our ground based assets.

When you can come up with any emperical evidance that tens of thousands of combat missions showing results are wrong, I'll listen. In the mean time, you've got nothing but the word of a civilian who "lived by a military base".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mattman154 wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Happy it made you chuckle, but it's true that lights that essentially seems to hover in place do not constitute a very serious threat. It certainly wouldn't stop me from shooting my RPGs at a wall.

But how do you know? Can you honestly put yourself in their shoes?

He doesn't. He just shoved his foot in his mouth and now he's doing the two step shuffle instead of just admitting he didn't know what he was talking about.

 whembly wrote:
Yup... here's a nice twin timeline:



This is becoming a classic fubar event...

Obama is quick to take credit for Bin Laden, claiming he can affect events half a world away, but denies responsibility in our people getting killed over there when they could have easily been saved? Right.

Mattman154 wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Happy it made you chuckle, but it's true that lights that essentially seems to hover in place do not constitute a very serious threat. It certainly wouldn't stop me from shooting my RPGs at a wall.

But how do you know? Can you honestly put yourself in their shoes?

Of course not. I'm no religious zealot bent on killing the representative from the Devil States of America. But the little I know about religious zealots indicates me that they wouldn't exactly be afraid of lights in the air. Or at least, that they would realize inside the minute that said lights weren't an actual threat. On top of things, the few pictures that I've seen of the event showed a few compounds around the ambassy, so heavier actions would probably have caused unnecessary casualties.

So you fly your planes, and drop a few flares. You buy, what, 5-6 minutes until the insurgents realize there's no actual strike incoming. They return. at best, you've bought a reprieve long enough for them to reload.

Right... Teh FRED has responded too:

“This is probably the biggest cover-up in American history – and you’re talking to an expert in cover-ups,” Thompson said. [heh...]

“There are three scandals here – before, during and after,” Thompson told about 40 people gathered for the AFP event at the Mariner's Inn in the Cincinnati suburb of West Chester. Citing the numerous incidents and warnings leading up to the assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi on the 11th anniversary of the 2001 terrorist attacks, Thompson mockingly asked, “What was your first hint that there might be trouble in Libya?”

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Mattman154 wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Happy it made you chuckle, but it's true that lights that essentially seems to hover in place do not constitute a very serious threat. It certainly wouldn't stop me from shooting my RPGs at a wall.

But how do you know? Can you honestly put yourself in their shoes?

Of course not. I'm no religious zealot bent on killing the representative from the Devil States of America. But the little I know about religious zealots indicates me that they wouldn't exactly be afraid of lights in the air. Or at least, that they would realize inside the minute that said lights weren't an actual threat. On top of things, the few pictures that I've seen of the event showed a few compounds around the ambassy, so heavier actions would probably have caused unnecessary casualties.

So you fly your planes, and drop a few flares. You buy, what, 5-6 minutes until the insurgents realize there's no actual strike incoming. They return. at best, you've bought a reprieve long enough for them to reload.

No, IF they return, thats when your munitions go hot. A 500lb GBU is a precision weapon with a small enough yield to minimize damage to the local area. Even if you didn't catch anyone in the blast (highly unlikely given the sophistication of our targetting systems), at that point the attackers know we mean business and will bugger off.

I thought Monica was the biggest cover-up in the history of the US...

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
I thought Monica was the biggest cover-up in the history of the US...

People didn't die in that. Especially through a lack of action from our senior leadership.

^^^ WHAT HE SAID ^^^

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
I thought Monica was the biggest cover-up in the history of the US...

It was...

Now we have bengahzi-gate...

djones520 wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Mattman154 wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Happy it made you chuckle, but it's true that lights that essentially seems to hover in place do not constitute a very serious threat. It certainly wouldn't stop me from shooting my RPGs at a wall.

But how do you know? Can you honestly put yourself in their shoes?

Of course not. I'm no religious zealot bent on killing the representative from the Devil States of America. But the little I know about religious zealots indicates me that they wouldn't exactly be afraid of lights in the air. Or at least, that they would realize inside the minute that said lights weren't an actual threat. On top of things, the few pictures that I've seen of the event showed a few compounds around the ambassy, so heavier actions would probably have caused unnecessary casualties.

So you fly your planes, and drop a few flares. You buy, what, 5-6 minutes until the insurgents realize there's no actual strike incoming. They return. at best, you've bought a reprieve long enough for them to reload.

No, IF they return, thats when your munitions go hot. A 500lb GBU is a precision weapon with a small enough yield to minimize damage to the local area. Even if you didn't catch anyone in the blast (highly unlikely given the sophistication of our targetting systems), at that point the attackers know we mean business and will bugger off.

I'll agree to that. But I doubt this is the first time in the history of the US that military men (and ambassy) died because the higher ups were unwilling to display lethal force...

So, Djones posted the awesome tactic of dropping "flairs" on rioters from an F-16 (at least 17 pieces is the bare minimum but they could do more). When called on this fascinating tactic, he then calls someone else an armchair general. Well done.

There are a lot of rumors flying around that commaders in the AOR attempted to, and were countermanded.

I'm not lending much credence to them yet, but the commander of AFRICOM is all of a sudden getting replaced, and the commander of the USS Stennis (stationed in the Persian Gulf) was forcibly relieved of command not long after this event occured.

There is way to many unanswered questions, and if it is the worse case scenario, our President basically signed a death warrant for those men, when he had the worlds best military at his disposale to save them.

Please, for the love of god, someone start a thread titled "UN behind Benghazi attacks so they can steal US elections & Internet" so all we can funnel all the derp in there and lock all these other ones.

 Ouze wrote:
So, Djones posted the awesome tactic of dropping "flairs" on rioters from an F-16 (at least 17 pieces is the bare minimum but they could do more). When called on this fascinating tactic, he then calls someone else an armchair general. Well done.

Ouze, maybe you missed the credentials I posted, but I have real world experience with this stuff. I am in Operations in the Air Force, I've worked with F-16's. I've read the daily OPREPS in the year I've spent in the Afghani theatre. My job (Weather Forecaster) requires me to be familiar with weapon systems, mission types, and tactics that our fighters use because the weather jacks with them all. So yes, when a civilian who has no clue what he is talking about goes shooting off on things I'm very familiar with, I will call them an armchair general.

According to the timeframe posted earlier, Obama was notified less than 2 hours before the body of ambassador Stevens was found. Even if you expected him to send fighters the second he was told about troubles at the embassy (which would probably earn him the title of Most Trigger Happy President of all times), he wouldn't have saved those lives.(well, maybe Doherty and the other)

Saying he signed their death warrants is a ridiculous hyperbole. I'll agree to the fact that the State Dept is responsible for sending these men in a obviously volatile situation without proper protection, but can you really blame the President for that? (honest question, I don,t know if he'd be made aware of such a request)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
Please, for the love of god, someone start a thread titled "UN behind Benghazi attacks so they can steal US elections & Internet" so all we can funnel all the derp in there and lock all these other ones.

Exalted

 Ouze wrote:
Please, for the love of god, someone start a thread titled "UN behind Benghazi attacks so they can steal US elections & Internet" so all we can funnel all the derp in there and lock all these other ones.

I've TRIED...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
According to the timeframe posted earlier, Obama was notified less than 2 hours before the body of ambassador Stevens was found. Even if you expected him to send fighters the second he was told about troubles at the embassy (which would probably earn him the title of Most Trigger Happy President of all times), he wouldn't have saved those lives.

Saying he signed their death warrants is a ridiculous hyperbole. I'll agree to the fact that the State Dept is responsible for sending these men in a obviously volatile situation without proper protection, but can you really blame the President for that? (honest question, I don,t know if he'd be made aware of such a request)

Yes... 'cuz it's his job.

Take the blame? I thought that was the victim's jobs?

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
According to the timeframe posted earlier, Obama was notified less than 2 hours before the body of ambassador Stevens was found. Even if you expected him to send fighters the second he was told about troubles at the embassy (which would probably earn him the title of Most Trigger Happy President of all times), he wouldn't have saved those lives.(well, maybe Doherty and the other)

Saying he signed their death warrants is a ridiculous hyperbole. I'll agree to the fact that the State Dept is responsible for sending these men in a obviously volatile situation without proper protection, but can you really blame the President for that? (honest question, I don,t know if he'd be made aware of such a request)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
Please, for the love of god, someone start a thread titled "UN behind Benghazi attacks so they can steal US elections & Internet" so all we can funnel all the derp in there and lock all these other ones.

Exalted

I said it was a worse case scenario, I also said I didn't really believe them that much either. I was just pointing out what has been said about it all.

The fact is, something more could have been done, questions are being asked about why it wasn't, and the administration is stonewalling on giving any answers at all to them. Since this is coming from the most open administration ever...

djones520 wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
According to the timeframe posted earlier, Obama was notified less than 2 hours before the body of ambassador Stevens was found. Even if you expected him to send fighters the second he was told about troubles at the embassy (which would probably earn him the title of Most Trigger Happy President of all times), he wouldn't have saved those lives.(well, maybe Doherty and the other)

Saying he signed their death warrants is a ridiculous hyperbole. I'll agree to the fact that the State Dept is responsible for sending these men in a obviously volatile situation without proper protection, but can you really blame the President for that? (honest question, I don,t know if he'd be made aware of such a request)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
Please, for the love of god, someone start a thread titled "UN behind Benghazi attacks so they can steal US elections & Internet" so all we can funnel all the derp in there and lock all these other ones.

Exalted

I said it was a worse case scenario, I also said I didn't really believe them that much either. I was just pointing out what has been said about it all.

The fact is, something more could have been done, questions are being asked about why it wasn't, and the administration is stonewalling on giving any answers at all to them. Since this is coming from the most open administration ever...

I remember all the talk from him before the last election about how transparent his administration would be.

djones520 wrote:
No, IF they return, thats when your munitions go hot. A 500lb GBU is a precision weapon with a small enough yield to minimize damage to the local area. Even if you didn't catch anyone in the blast (highly unlikely given the sophistication of our targetting systems), at that point the attackers know we mean business and will bugger off.

Yeah, let's just start dropping 500lb bombs next to our own embassy. At least we won't have to worry about having the terrorists kill our ambassador, we'll do it ourselves!


PS: I don't know about you, but I don't think it's a very good idea to start dropping 500lb bombs on every anti-US riot we encounter. Perhaps you should review that pesky little problem where actions like that ensure that the next generation of terrorists will be determined to kill us?

I also seem to remember a few afghan hospitals and Red Cross centers which disagrees with the level of precision you claim your targeting systems have...

 Peregrine wrote:
PS: I don't know about you, but I don't think it's a very good idea to start dropping 500lb bombs on every anti-US riot we encounter. Perhaps you should review that pesky little problem where actions like that ensure that the next generation of terrorists will be determined to kill us?

There was no riot at the Benghazi embassy.

 Seaward wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
PS: I don't know about you, but I don't think it's a very good idea to start dropping 500lb bombs on every anti-US riot we encounter. Perhaps you should review that pesky little problem where actions like that ensure that the next generation of terrorists will be determined to kill us?

There was no riot at the Benghazi embassy.

Which we now know in hindsight. The kind of aggressive "just drop some 500lb bombs on them" response djones520 advocates doesn't leave room for waiting to see whether it's a riot or an attack, and would cause massacre after massacre after massacre.

 Peregrine wrote:
Which we now know in hindsight. The kind of aggressive "just drop some 500lb bombs on them" response djones520 advocates doesn't leave room for waiting to see whether it's a riot or an attack, and would cause massacre after massacre after massacre.

Sure it does.

 Seaward wrote:
Sure it does.

So at what point do you start dropping the 500lb bombs?

When the first sign of aggression appears, and there's no clear sign that it's a planned attack and not an angry mob that's just going to wave signs and maybe throw some rocks at your windows?

When the walls are breached, and it's uncertain whether it's a dedicated attack to kill the ambassador or an angry mob that wants to smash some property?

When the attack has entered the buildings and your own people are inside the lethal radius?

When your ambassador is kidnapped and somewhere in the crowd that you want to bomb?


The simple fact is that by the time you can be confident that you're facing an attack and not just a riot it's too late to start bombing everything. Therefore you need to start bombing well before that point, and you're inevitably going to guess wrong and drop some of those 500lb bombs on an angry protest and kill a lot of innocent people.

 Peregrine wrote:

The simple fact is that by the time you can be confident that you're facing an attack and not just a riot it's too late to start bombing everything.

You think there was no point during the seven-hour attack that it became apparent it was an attack and not a riot that got a little overexcited?

Did you also live near a military base, General?

Edit: You edited your post, I'll edit mine. Why do you keep referencing an angry protest? There was no angry protest. That was just extremely bad information we continued to hear for a week afterwards.