Rogue U.S. General Arrested for Activating Special Forces Team

**Dade** · 10-30-2012, 01:49 PM

I would like my fellow board members to participate in a little social exercise. Please read the article linked below and give your thoughts. After a few replies I'll reveil more about this little "exercise". Thanks!

http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/20...r-2466104.html

**NCRAVEN** · 10-30-2012, 02:30 PM

At first I'm not sure what to make of it.

It would seem to me with a drone over head watching the whole thing we'd have more than enough info to send troops scramble a jet or two, fire a missile from a sub, something.

After the guys on the ground requested back up, reinforcements 3 times and being able to see via a drone overhead, if I were the General in Africom I would have authorized troops myself.

I'm not sure if that's what you're looking for but that's my take. IF you're looking for something specific about the "article" let me know.

**Dade** · 10-30-2012, 02:39 PM

Just wanted to make a point. There is alot of misinformation about the incident floating around. This article (which is also on Tea Party Tribune) is 100% completely false. I'm stationed in Stuttgart Germany and work at the AFRICOM Command Center. I know for a fact that my boss (Gen Ham) was not relieved of command during this incident.

Now he is retiring and the next Commander has been picked, just awaiting confirmation from Congress. But he decided to retire in June.

Notice there are no sources cited in this article. It's all made up. This is just one example, but there is a ton of half truths and downright lies being put out there about the Libya incident.

**NCRAVEN** · 10-30-2012, 02:46 PM

I could tell the article was made up. It was from "beforeitsnews.com"

I thought you were trying to see if we would have agreed with the general making the move or not.

**NCRAVEN** · 10-30-2012, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by Dade

Notice there are no sources cited in this article. It's all made up. This is just one example, but there is a ton of half truths and downright lies being put out there about the Libya incident.

Are you able to elaborate?

**Sirdowski** · 10-30-2012, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

At first I'm not sure what to make of it.

It would seem to me with a drone over head watching the whole thing we'd have more than enough info to send troops scramble a jet or two, fire a missile from a sub, something.

After the guys on the ground requested back up, reinforcements 3 times and being able to see via a drone overhead, if I were the General in Africom I would have authorized troops myself.

Seconded.

It just doesn't make sense.

The only reason to maintain the stand down when all available information warrants action would be for political reasons, right? Is it seriously just as simple as the President didn't want to start a fight with Libya with the election right around the corner?

I'll tell you one thing, if this story checks out Romney needs to make it known every opportunity he gets that Gen. Ham is a true Patriot and that if elected he will be honorably reinstated.

**Sirdowski** · 10-30-2012, 02:57 PM

Ahh. You dog, it seemed fishy.

**NCRAVEN** · 10-30-2012, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by Sirdowski

Ahh. You dog, it seemed fishy.

TO be fair, other than the general being arrested and relived of command, I've seen reports and emails etc. (as I am sure you have to) that talk about some of the other things in there. Whether they are half-truths or not I don't know... we can only go off of what we're told.

**Dade** · 10-30-2012, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

TO be fair, other than the general being arrested and relived of command, I've seen reports and emails etc. (as I am sure you have to) that talk about some of the other things in there. Whether they are half-truths or not I don't know... we can only go off of what we're told.

True you can only go with the information available. But I've seen alot of reaction from people, where if they just stop and think they may realize they don't know everything thats going on.

The nature of my job I'm been performing for 12 years now allows me to know alot about things behind the scenes.

But for example the whole special forces on standby isn't accurate. AFRICOM has no assigned forces. Any operation we want to carry out, we have to go to components and request their involvement. Why? Because AFRICOM is only 6 years old. We're still trying to figure out how this COCOM (combatant command) is going to work and our overall mission. If you want a real scandal in AFRICOM look up our last commander, Gen Ward.

I fault the White House handling of this in the aftermath. It was clear to anyone that this wasn't a riot that got out of hand but a terrorist attack.

Anyone who knows anything about Command and Control or military chain of command in emergency situations can probably call BS on whats been reported what the White House knew during the attack. Where their drones in the area? Yes and no. Where special forces aware of the situation, yes, placed on standby, no. Was there a request for more security months prior, yes. But for a consultant office in Libya to request additional funding would 9 times out of 10 be denied no matter who's in the White House. This wasn't the Embassy for France, a more high vis position. Hell its hard for AFRICOM to get money, because we're seen as the new kids on the block. EUCOM gets all the funding, bastards.

I just want people to keep an open mind about things. Don't assume somethings true, just because its reported on cable news, radio, or on the internet. Try finding experts in the field or current/previous people with military experince. I know must on here already do that. This Libya thing just really bothered me and I felt like saying something.

**NCRAVEN** · 10-30-2012, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by Dade

True you can only go with the information available. But I've seen alot of reaction from people, where if they just stop and think they may realize they don't know everything thats going on.

The nature of my job I'm been performing for 12 years now allows me to know alot about things behind the scenes.

But for example the whole special forces on standby isn't accurate. AFRICOM has no assigned forces. Any operation we want to carry out, we have to go to components and request their involvement. Why? Because AFRICOM is only 6 years old. We're still trying to figure out how this COCOM (combatant command) is going to work and our overall mission. If you want a real scandal in AFRICOM look up our last commander, Gen Ward.

I fault the White House handling of this in the aftermath. It was clear to anyone that this wasn't a riot that got out of hand but a terrorist attack.

Anyone who knows anything about Command and Control or military chain of command in emergency situations can probably call BS on whats been reported what the White House knew during the attack. Where their drones in the area? Yes and no. Where special forces aware of the situation, yes, placed on standby, no. Was there a request for more security months prior, yes. But for a consultant office in Libya to request additional funding would 9 times out of 10 be denied no matter who's in the White House. This wasn't the Embassy for France, a more high vis position. Hell its hard for AFRICOM to get money, because we're seen as the new kids on the block. EUCOM gets all the funding, bastards.

I just want people to keep an open mind about things. Don't assume somethings true, just because its reported on cable news, radio, or on the internet. Try finding experts in the field or current/previous people with military experince. I know must on here already do that. This Libya thing just really bothered me and I felt like saying something.

Thanks for the info. I hadn't heard a rumor there where troops on standby. I had heard about a drone and backup being denied.

I also heard from two sources exactly what you said. They White House's story is total BS. An Ambassador is a 4 star general equivalent, and once word gets out he is in danger the chain of command basically says that info gets to the POTUS ASA motha-f'ing P.

My main thing is why we did nothing when we knew they were under attack. There are other things but that's the main thing.

EDIT: Oh and one other I heard, part of the reason the two seals where finally hit by mortars was because they were "painting" the mortars with a laser believing a missile would be fired at it, any truth to that?

**HoustonRaven** · 10-30-2012, 04:52 PM

Forgive me Dade, but I am still trying to figure out why you're outraged.

It's a fly-by-night web site, linking to a story from another fly-by-night web site. I doubt anyone is taking this story seriously and if they are, that's on them. Having a web site means the check cleared. That's all.

dont-believe-everything-you-see-on-the-internet.jpg

**Sirdowski** · 10-30-2012, 04:58 PM

Thanks for the info, Dade.

As NC said, the bottom line is

1. we did nothing when it was in our power to do so.

2. They aren't telling us why, or what exactly happened.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

**Sirdowski** · 10-30-2012, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

Forgive me Dade, but I am still trying to figure out why you're outraged.

It's a fly-by-night web site, linking to a story from another fly-by-night web site. I doubt anyone is taking this story seriously and if they are, that's on them. Having a web site means the check cleared. That's all.

dont-believe-everything-you-see-on-the-internet.jpg

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

**HoustonRaven** · 10-30-2012, 05:36 PM

Originally Posted by Sirdowski

Thanks for the info, Dade.

As NC said, the bottom line is

1. we did nothing when it was in our power to do so.

2. They aren't telling us why, or what exactly happened.

3. And the press will not hold this President accountable for any of it.

**Dade** · 10-30-2012, 05:48 PM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

Forgive me Dade, but I am still trying to figure out why you're outraged.

I guess this one the straw that broke the camels back if you will. After years of seeing misinformation in media, this just got to me. IDK. I did forward it to our Public Affairs office. So maybe they can correct it somehow.

**Dade** · 10-30-2012, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by Sirdowski

Thanks for the info, Dade.

As NC said, the bottom line is

1. we did nothing when it was in our power to do so.

2. They aren't telling us why, or what exactly happened.
Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

There's alot this goverment/military does or doesn't do and the public isn't informed.

**Dade** · 10-30-2012, 05:51 PM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

3. And the press will not hold this President accountable for any of it.

The first place I saw it reported that this wasn't just a riot gone wrong was on MSNBC, Rachel Maddow. It was 3 days after the incident and she killed the White House for it.

**Sirdowski** · 10-30-2012, 06:11 PM

Originally Posted by Dade

There's alot this goverment/military does or doesn't do and the public isn't informed.

That I understand, but in this instance the public definitely has the right to information, all of it. You can simplify it and say lives were lost as a result of the intended inaction of the government.

How's it go again, something along the lines of "establish justice, provide for the common defence."

When the basic foundation for the role of government as outlined by the Constitution is molested, we the people have the right to know why.

Now, I'm not so naive as to think that we will.

**Sirdowski** · 10-30-2012, 06:15 PM

This situation reminds me of the movie The Patriot Games. Great flick.

Correction : The movie Clear and Present Danger

All those Harrison Ford movies sort of run together.

**HoustonRaven** · 10-31-2012, 06:32 AM

Originally Posted by Dade

The first place I saw it reported that this wasn't just a riot gone wrong was on MSNBC, Rachel Maddow. It was 3 days after the incident and she killed the White House for it.

Oh really?

First off, I'm talking about the media, not talking head shows. Those are two different animals and if any gets their news from Rush, Maddow, et all they should be stoned to death.

In any event, here is the transcript from that show ....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49061994...-september-th/

... And from the start of the show, she blames Bush for Middle East anger ...

But we start with tonight`s top story and with a decision made in
March 2003, which is when then-President George W. Bush ordered the U.S.- led invasion of Iraq, March 2003 ... That change in policy under George W. Bush was a source of anger and
controversy.

Then, she pleads to her audience to listen to Sec of State Clinton frustration about how folks wont believe that it's a video that sparked this attack.

Then Maddow follows this up by attacking Paul Ryan.

Please show me where in any if this she even hints at Obama doing something wrong, let alone "killing" him for it?