Acewiza, it has come to my attention that the entirety of this post was lifted from an article on another website. That would be a grevious offense against the rules of the SDMB alone.
However, you did not bother to give attribution in the post and therefore presented someone else’s work as your own. This compounds the offense and makes me wonder about the rest of your posting here. Such things are not trivial and can lead to an examination of your posting privileges.
Do not - under any circumstance - do anything similar ever again.
I thought it was interesting how the entire response to that post basically consisted of ad Hominem attacks against me, personally. Calling my credibility into question with no basis for those accusations was made perfectly clear. If you examine my wording in some responses to those attacks you will find that I never in any way claimed authorship, and in fact carefully avoided it.
The post said “consider the following scenario.” It is a very plausible scenario written by an EXPERT in the field, now dismissed as “an angry old man.” I hope all the opinionated pseudo self-proclaimed experts now exposed for what they really are feel real good about themselves.
Did you just accuse others of being “pseudo self-proclaimed experts” after plagiarizing someone else and pretending to be an expert yourself? Shit, we should have sent you into Benghazi for you have the biggest balls I’ve ever seen.
You lifted someone else’s work and posted it without attribution, essentially claiming as your own. You should be criticized for that, regardless of the content.
And the content is pretty damn weak. F-16s, even were they close by, would not have been helpful during the Benghazi attacks.
Not only that but he complained about us dismissing an “EXPERT in the field” (read: one guy who was in the military a few decades ago) as just an “angry old man” after calling vast numbers of senior military personnel with close personal knowledge of the incident
ProTip: “Expert” is not defined as “person who agrees with me”.
I am very skeptical that an Air Force officer – distinguished as he may be – should be considered an expert in current operational practices and posture since he has been retired for thirty years (even setting aside the plagiarism issue).
On the other hand, Maj Gen Darryl Roberson is currently serving as the Vice Director for Operations for the Joint Staff, has commanded a squadron, wing, and a group, and has 5,000 flight hours with 865 combat flight hours in F-15s, F-22s, F-4s, and F-16s. He seems like a credible expert to me, but acewiza rejects him because he doesn’t support what an aged retiree says.
What response should it have gotten? It’s a completely unsubstantiated opinion piece, that’s contradicted by all the available testimony.
Well, that’s just not true. Ravenman wrote:
He’s attributing the piece to you, as the assumption when you write a post without a link or attribution is that the work is your own. Did you correct his use of “you”? Nope:
You had another opportunity:
…and didn’t take it. Meanwhile, you unleashed a string of posts implying that you, personally, possessed relevant knowledge on this topic:
The closest you came to an honest disclosure was this:
…but that’s you saying that the authenticity is doubted because we don’t know the author, and that we don’t know you, which hardly indicates that you weren’t the author.
The way you avoid claiming authorship for someone else’s work is by stating that it’s someone else’s work, and giving them credit, NOT by hoping your audience will assume it’s someone else’s work.
Well, he’s an expert that doesn’t know the name of the relevant command or the base, who retired in 1984, and who makes no effort whatsoever to substantiate the plausibility of his scenario. It’s been given its due consideration.
Rubbish. We did respond to the attacks, in all the ways iterated repeatedly upthread. What we didn’t do was send 4 more guys to Benghazi but instead held them in Tripoli, for the protection of the embassy. And to receive and help with the evacuees.
Please stop characterizing all of this as “we don’t respond”. It just sounds foolish.
The thing is, I’m not clear what Hillary is regretting. She had no power to order a Special Operations raid; but you’re implying that she regrets that there wasn’t a military response.
It sounds to me like Hillary is talking about the general state of security leading all the way up to 9/11/12, not how the US responded beginning at 9:40 pm that particular night. It isn’t clear to me what, specifically, she is regretting – simply that people died? Or that there was something that could have been done to stop the attacks? Was it that some intelligence was misread? Is she regretting that Congress cut embassy security funds for years?
The only truthful answer is that it isn’t clear. Magiver, if you want to knock her for a half-hearted, vague statement on the issue, I would have a very hard time finding a strong basis on which to argue with your conclusion. But you’re instead arguing that Hillary’s statement is evidence that your A-Team to the rescue scenario is plausible. That’s just not right – you’re clearly grasping at straws and inferring things that nobody else does. Hillary didn’t say anything about a rescue mission, so stop beating this dead horse about her quote supporting your position.
No, they were were responded to. Remember? Six operatives and an interpreter? Flew to Benghazi on a chartered plane, coordinated with a force of militia, relieved the annex, took mortar fire?
Ever heard of the Battle off Samar, by any chance, where Admiral Halsey took the entire 3rd Fleet on a wild-goose chase after a decoy force of the Japanese Imperial Navy? He left only a tiny force of escort carriers to protect troop and supply ships offloading at Leyte Gulf. But for the miraculous performance of outmatched, outgunner destroyers, destroyer escorts, and escort carriers, disaster would have struck, in the form of the landing force being destroyed and ships sunk.
Decoy attacks are a real thing. Coordinated attacks are a real thing.
What delays? The 20-25 minutes to get militia support and armored vehicles before the team from the CIA annex relieved the consulate?[/quest] yes
[quote=“Human_Action, post:980, topic:673466”]
The two hours and fifteen minutes before the Secretary of Defense ordered three teams to make ready to depart for Libya?
you just listed them.
yes. That puts a weapons platform in the area with a drone that will have a laser designator.
It’s amazing that a politician openly states a regret for decisions made and you still go on about it.
Ok, how long should it take to prepare two armored vehicles, contact the local militia for help, and link up with them?
Ok, how long should it take to go up the chain of command to the Secretary of Defense, for him to be apprised of the situation and the assets available, and for him to order those assets to be deployed? Unless the answer is “negative eleven hours”, it doesn’t put the FAST platoon, or the team from Croatia, or the team from Fort Bragg, into Benghazi before the evacuation is complete.
“In the area”, eh?
Aviano to Benghazi: 1043 miles.
F-16 combat radius: 340 miles.
Are you endorsing the “Send 'em in with drop tanks and the 20mm cannon!” plan here? (Note: you can’t laser-designate targets for a 20mm cannon).
And you assume she regrets decisions made the night of the attack, and not the months and weeks before because…?
Wow! Can I play Risk with you? Chess? Checkers? Really essentially any game, sport or competition? It sounds like you’ll fall, full force, for any feint whatsoever.
“Gee, coach, of course I dove to the right to tackle him. That’s the way he moved his head. What else would you suggest I do?!?!”
It’s a pretty human response to say that you have regrets about a death that occurred to someone who works under you, even if you acted appropriately at the time.