Pentagon Sends Team to Niger to Find Out What Happened
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/africa/pen ... ng-n812121

Contrast 4 killed in Niger with 4 killed in Benghazi.

Shouldn't there have been a half a dozen investigative committees convened by now?

salttee wrote:

Shouldn't there have been a half a dozen investigative committees convened by now?

No, one is a democrat and the other one is more or less Republican, different circumstances.

No one on the right cared that his staff and appointees use private emails, it does not surprise me that no one on the right cares about four dead soldiers in Africa...

It seems that they were unprotected? For sure this is the state department failing in its responsibility.

But again, the real point with Niger (as it was with Libya) is can the people throwing accusations actually point to the place on a map?

Who is throwing accusations about Niger?

Why investigate the attack when you can just sh!t all over the wife of one of the deceased?

salttee wrote:

Who is throwing accusations about Niger?

The people saying that this is like Benghazi.

MaverickM11 wrote:

Why investigate the attack when you can just sh!t all over the wife of one of the deceased?

Is there any situation that the president touches that doesn't turn to s#it? His incompetence is truly bewildering.

zkojq wrote:

salttee wrote:

Who is throwing accusations about Niger?

The people saying that this is like Benghazi.

That's not throwing accusations about Niger, that's pointing out the differences to the response to four dead in Niger vs four dead in Benghazi.

salttee wrote:

zkojq wrote:

salttee wrote:

Who is throwing accusations about Niger?

The people saying that this is like Benghazi.

That's not throwing accusations about Niger, that's pointing out the differences to the response to four dead in Niger vs four dead in Benghazi.

The difference seems to be that a battle broke out between opposition forces in Benghazi and pinned CIA agents down. They could not have back up like they wanted because Republcians cut funding to the outpost. Even the agents in Benghazi said they were okay with what they had, having been asked by the then-Secretary Of State.

TRump, on the other hand, sent soldiers into Niger knowing they did not have backup.

https://www.truthexam.com/2017/10/origi ... d-support/

What was the mission in Niger, anyway? When did the United States invade Niger?

seb146 wrote:

No one on the right cared that his staff and appointees use private emails, it does not surprise me that no one on the right cares about four dead soldiers in Africa...

If it's not HILLARY'S emails and #Benghazi it's fake news and doesn't even merit a response. Sad!

salttee wrote:

zkojq wrote:

salttee wrote:

Who is throwing accusations about Niger?

The people saying that this is like Benghazi.

That's not throwing accusations about Niger, that's pointing out the differences to the response to four dead in Niger vs four dead in Benghazi.

Well, to be fair, one led to the death of a US Ambassador... which, whether you want to admit it or not, is a big difference. Additionally, one led to the government lying about the cause of the attack and blaming a youtube video... another big difference.

But, "what difference, at this point, does it make?" Right?

NoTime wrote:

salttee wrote:

zkojq wrote:

The people saying that this is like Benghazi.

That's not throwing accusations about Niger, that's pointing out the differences to the response to four dead in Niger vs four dead in Benghazi.

Well, to be fair, one led to the death of a US Ambassador... which, whether you want to admit it or not, is a big difference. Additionally, one led to the government lying about the cause of the attack and blaming a youtube video... another big difference.

But, "what difference, at this point, does it make?" Right?

Tell me NoTime, what difference did it make at that time?

NoTime wrote:

salttee wrote:

zkojq wrote:

The people saying that this is like Benghazi.

That's not throwing accusations about Niger, that's pointing out the differences to the response to four dead in Niger vs four dead in Benghazi.

Well, to be fair, one led to the death of a US Ambassador... which, whether you want to admit it or not, is a big difference. Additionally, one led to the government lying about the cause of the attack and blaming a youtube video... another big difference.

But, "what difference, at this point, does it make?" Right?

Within hours of Benghazi happening, the right wing media was demanding answers. Because an investigation takes time, one person went with what they thought would hold off the right wing media.

Compare that to it being two weeks since these four servicemen died for what reason, we don't know. No questions asked for four servicemen being killed. Silence from the right wing media. So, in that sense, you are correct: what difference does it make? They were just servicemen. Right?

I have a theory on Trump's silence.

Can we entertain the possibility that US authorities were warned (and/or knew) about the high risk of an attack in the region and Trump simply refused to heed just because he could? Let's not forget that he has constantly feuded with the intelligence community as them being flawed. Is his silence his way of not having to admit he made a mistake?

NoTime wrote:

Well, to be fair, one led to the death of a US Ambassador... which, whether you want to admit it or not, is a big difference. Additionally, one led to the government lying about the cause of the attack and blaming a youtube video... another big difference.

But, "what difference, at this point, does it make?" Right?

I didn't realize ambassadors carried more weight than a regular Joe Average. Last I checked there was no difference between positions: a dead American is a dead American whether they served as ambassador or soldier or contractor.

And as far as lying goes: how many committees were formed and still exonerated the government? Talk about burying your head in the sand...

einsteinboricua wrote:

NoTime wrote:

Well, to be fair, one led to the death of a US Ambassador... which, whether you want to admit it or not, is a big difference. Additionally, one led to the government lying about the cause of the attack and blaming a youtube video... another big difference.

But, "what difference, at this point, does it make?" Right?

I didn't realize ambassadors carried more weight than a regular Joe Average. Last I checked there was no difference between positions: a dead American is a dead American whether they served as ambassador or soldier or contractor.

If you didn't realize that ambassadors carry more weight than a "regular joe average", then you are sadly (and, probably, willfully) deluded.

seb146 wrote:

TRump, on the other hand, sent soldiers into Niger knowing they did not have backup. When did the United States invade Niger?

Dig a bit deeper... I think you will find that a Nobel peace prize winner sent them there a few years ago.

NoTime wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

NoTime wrote:

Well, to be fair, one led to the death of a US Ambassador... which, whether you want to admit it or not, is a big difference. Additionally, one led to the government lying about the cause of the attack and blaming a youtube video... another big difference.

But, "what difference, at this point, does it make?" Right?

I didn't realize ambassadors carried more weight than a regular Joe Average. Last I checked there was no difference between positions: a dead American is a dead American whether they served as ambassador or soldier or contractor.

If you didn't realize that ambassadors carry more weight than a "regular joe average", then you are sadly (and, probably, willfully) deluded.

So I guess that's why the death of 4 American soldiers doesn't warrant a single investigation (or even an explanation of any form) but an ambassador's warrants over eight?

What's the exchange ratio then? 100 soldiers for one ambassador?

NoTime wrote:

seb146 wrote:

TRump, on the other hand, sent soldiers into Niger knowing they did not have backup. When did the United States invade Niger?

Dig a bit deeper... I think you will find that a Nobel peace prize winner sent them there a few years ago.

1) You just admitted that some Americans are more valuable than others
2) Obama is not president now. Why did the current president authorize Americans to fight in Niger? Credible sources, please
3) IF (just playing your game) Obama did send troops there, why and how many and what armament did he authorize them there? Credible sources, please

And let's look at the attacks on the widow and family of one of the fallen service member:

You righties just think the president will magically call the family with no notice? You think it just happens? Like the family will answer a blocked call or an unknown number in their hour of grief? Think about it. Wouldn't it be easier for the district representative to schedule a phone call on his or her phone? Just saying that there was a really good reason Frederica Wilson heard the call.

einsteinboricua wrote:

What's the exchange ratio then? 100 soldiers for one ambassador?

Depends on weather the soldiers are white or not, doesn´t it? As far as we know, the only insensitive remarks went to the widow of the only soldier killed in Niger that wasn´t white, right?

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

As far as we know, the only insensitive remarks went to the widow of the only soldier killed in Niger that wasn´t white, right?

Yes because "Your husband, sorry I can't remember his name (and all those black names sound so, you know, weird anyway), knew what he was signing up for."

Trump has pushed incompetency to depths nobody knew were possible.

tommy1808 wrote:

Depends on weather the soldiers are white or not, doesn´t it? As far as we know, the only insensitive remarks went to the widow of the only soldier killed in Niger that wasn´t white, right?

Which lends credibility to the argument that some Gold Star Families are more golden while others are less so.

einsteinboricua wrote:

NoTime wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

I didn't realize ambassadors carried more weight than a regular Joe Average. Last I checked there was no difference between positions: a dead American is a dead American whether they served as ambassador or soldier or contractor.

If you didn't realize that ambassadors carry more weight than a "regular joe average", then you are sadly (and, probably, willfully) deluded.

So I guess that's why the death of 4 American soldiers doesn't warrant a single investigation (or even an explanation of any form) but an ambassador's warrants over eight?

Various parts of the government, including the military, have stated that they are investigating what happened.

What's the exchange ratio then? 100 soldiers for one ambassador?

There is no exchange ratio. I'm not ascribing more or less value to a death, just saying that there is a huge difference between soldiers being killed and a high level politician being killed. By your logic, there's no difference between JFK's death and a grunt on the ground in Vietnam. They are both tragic, and they are both Americans, but one carries much more weight.

seb146 wrote:

1) You just admitted that some Americans are more valuable than others

Show me where I put differing value on the death of Americans... and while you're at it, brush up on your reading comprehension. I didn't say either was more valuable, I said they were different.

seb146 wrote:

2) Obama is not president now. Why did the current president authorize Americans to fight in Niger? Credible sources, please

To my knowledge, he didn't. He inherited a situation which sees military special forces deployed all over the world. A situation ramped up by Bush and exacerbated by Obama. We've had soldiers in Africa at various times for decades, but the current deployment in Niger began in 2013, when Obama sent soldiers there to help coordinate with the authorities in their fight with various terrorist groups.

seb146 wrote:

3) IF (just playing your game) Obama did send troops there, why and how many and what armament did he authorize them there? Credible sources, please

There is no "IF", he did send them there. (http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/18/politics/ ... index.html) I'm not sure you understand how this works, though - do you think the President is determining the load out of each soldier that goes? The President might determine a broad mission statement, but nearly everything else is typically determined by the military commanders.

These soldiers were there primarily in advisory roles to work with the French and Nigerian soldiers in intelligence gathering and teaching. What "armament" they were authorized is likely classified. But the very nature of Green Berets, especially in small groups, means that they usually operate without the normal backup of the Air Force or Army quick reaction teams.

scbriml wrote:

Yes because "Your husband, sorry I can't remember his name (and all those black names sound so, you know, weird anyway), knew what he was signing up for."

I would encourage you to watch the briefing from Gen. Kelly (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ps5ttDzWBaY) especially the parts from 3:50 to about 7:20, to try to understand what the President was saying.

NoTime wrote:

to try to understand what the President was saying.

Nobody can understand what Trump says because he's incapable of stringing together a coherent sentence. He makes GW Bush look like a great orator (and that takes some doing!)

NoTime wrote:

I would encourage you to watch the briefing from Gen. Kelly (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ps5ttDzWBaY) especially the parts from 3:50 to about 7:20, to try to understand what the President was saying.

given that this is a White House briefing, and therefore no credible source whatsoever during this presidency, how would a pile of spin control bring light to anything?

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

NoTime wrote:

I would encourage you to watch the briefing from Gen. Kelly (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ps5ttDzWBaY) especially the parts from 3:50 to about 7:20, to try to understand what the President was saying.

given that this is a White House briefing, and therefore no credible source whatsoever during this presidency, how would a pile of spin control bring light to anything?

best regards
Thomas

Because it's one gold star parent explaining what he told the President he should consider saying to another gold star parent? Specifically, the "he knew what he was signing up for" part...?

NoTime wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

NoTime wrote:

If you didn't realize that ambassadors carry more weight than a "regular joe average", then you are sadly (and, probably, willfully) deluded.

So I guess that's why the death of 4 American soldiers doesn't warrant a single investigation (or even an explanation of any form) but an ambassador's warrants over eight?

Various parts of the government, including the military, have stated that they are investigating what happened.

What's the exchange ratio then? 100 soldiers for one ambassador?

There is no exchange ratio. I'm not ascribing more or less value to a death, just saying that there is a huge difference between soldiers being killed and a high level politician being killed. By your logic, there's no difference between JFK's death and a grunt on the ground in Vietnam. They are both tragic, and they are both Americans, but one carries much more weight.

seb146 wrote:

1) You just admitted that some Americans are more valuable than others

Show me where I put differing value on the death of Americans... and while you're at it, brush up on your reading comprehension. I didn't say either was more valuable, I said they were different.

seb146 wrote:

2) Obama is not president now. Why did the current president authorize Americans to fight in Niger? Credible sources, please

To my knowledge, he didn't. He inherited a situation which sees military special forces deployed all over the world. A situation ramped up by Bush and exacerbated by Obama. We've had soldiers in Africa at various times for decades, but the current deployment in Niger began in 2013, when Obama sent soldiers there to help coordinate with the authorities in their fight with various terrorist groups.

seb146 wrote:

3) IF (just playing your game) Obama did send troops there, why and how many and what armament did he authorize them there? Credible sources, please

There is no "IF", he did send them there. (http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/18/politics/ ... index.html) I'm not sure you understand how this works, though - do you think the President is determining the load out of each soldier that goes? The President might determine a broad mission statement, but nearly everything else is typically determined by the military commanders.

These soldiers were there primarily in advisory roles to work with the French and Nigerian soldiers in intelligence gathering and teaching. What "armament" they were authorized is likely classified. But the very nature of Green Berets, especially in small groups, means that they usually operate without the normal backup of the Air Force or Army quick reaction teams.

scbriml wrote:

Yes because "Your husband, sorry I can't remember his name (and all those black names sound so, you know, weird anyway), knew what he was signing up for."

I would encourage you to watch the briefing from Gen. Kelly (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ps5ttDzWBaY) especially the parts from 3:50 to about 7:20, to try to understand what the President was saying.

In reading your reply, it seems the most important thing to you is to talk down to others and make yourself feel greater than others. This shows who you really are and how you really feel about yourself. You are a lonely little man with very little. What you have lost, you believe was "taken" from you by "liberals" and those you believe want something for nothing.

Sad.

And, in your previous post that I pointed out, your tone and wording (because I do know how to read) says how much you just go with the right wing and do zero research.

Obama had sent as many as 800 troops to Niger, according to your CNN link. Zero killed under Obama, but, yeah let's blame Obama. Why were four able to be ambushed by 50 IS fighters UNDER TRUMP? Why did they have zero back up UNDER TRUMP? From your linked CNN article, Obama send troops there as consultants to help local fighters. Why did YOUR president decide it was okay to send four out with no backup? Why did YOUR president decide that golfing for two weeks was more important than our troops? Why did YOUR president decide these things? Keep in mind (if you can) the Niger attack happened under TRUMP and not under Obama. Maybe you should try to understand that four died while TRUMP is in office.

But, you are going to do the right wing thing and deflect and go off on Benghazi, so I don't know why I bother using my brain and logic. Because of my brain and logic, I already know what is going to happen: More blame for Obama and a pass for Trump.

I know your hatred for Obama runs deep but, please try to keep in mind that YOUR man is in charge now. Not Obama. The blame for these four deaths lies squarely on Trump. You need to keep that in mind and STOP BLAMING OBAMA for what is going on. It is NOT Obama's fault that Trump golfs every weekend. It is NOT Obama's fault that Trump has to send out five or six underlings to explain himself. Maybe if he said it right the first time, he would not have to have assistants hold press conference after press conference to explain who he really is while he is on the golf course. If you understood that, your life would be so much better.

NoTime wrote:

Because it's one gold star parent explaining what he told the President he should consider saying to another gold star parent? Specifically, the "he knew what he was signing up for" part...?

Because a coversation is so hard to make up after the fact?

It is not like his recollection of facts in this matter is flawless ... https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politi ... ng-n812541

Best regards
Thomas