If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Intelligence community reminds GOP that Benghazi still isn't a scandal   (security.blogs.cnn.com) divider line 127
    More: Cool, CIA Director David Petraeus, Dana Bash, house intelligence committee, intelligence community, Susan Rice  
•       •       •

3636 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Nov 2012 at 1:10 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



127 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-20 02:17:39 PM
farm9.staticflickr.com
 
2012-11-20 02:19:59 PM
Glad Obama won. Otherwise there'd be a separate office of special intelligence consisting of hand picked Israeli dual-citizens set up in order to tell the GOP what it wants to hear in order to try Obama for something nonsensical.

/oh and to funnel classified documents to Israel.
 
2012-11-20 02:22:10 PM

bulldg4life: propasaurus: Do they really think they can get Scott Brown re-elected?

The GOP's chances of picking up an extra seat in the senate are infinitely higher if Kerry is SoS instead of Rice...

Considering they would probably have a better turnout during a special election and there wouldn't be a straight ticket democrat Obama-backed ticket to vote for, their chances aren't that bad.

I have no idea of electoral chances for a specific person, but getting a democrat out of the senate is just another lost vote for a period of time, whether they win a special election or not. See Franken.


Yeah, but it's likely Kerry is leaving one way or another, whether he goes to State or DOD. Makes me think they're already firing up the SwiftBoat engines to derail his possible confirmation as SecDef.
But as far as losing a Senate seat, I think if Kerry moves up, Deval Patrick will run for the empty seat. I don't see Brown beating Patrick in MA.
 
2012-11-20 02:23:33 PM

lordjupiter: Noam Chimpsky: Dr Dreidel:

Also, it took 9.5 years to get OBL. The US is good at playing a longer game, and it's far easier for us with a huge military/intelligence apparatus to hunt them than it is for our unnamed terrorists to keep on the move for the rest of their lives. Rest assured, though - we will soon hear about a drone strike killing a "top/senior al-Qaeda leader", and it'll be someone involved in the attack which killed Amb Stevens.
.

I guess we'll take care of them all by the year 3256 at that rate. Playing "long game" with heavily armed al qaeda has its drawbacks. Actually, it's all drawbacks.

If we are closing in on one of the murderous al qaeda terrorists from the Benghazi raid and that terrorist kills a few more Americans right before we swoop in, should we go long game on him again or just take him out while we got him in our crosshairs? It would piss them off to keep them on the run for the rest of their lives so maybe that'll show 'em.



You are not seriously trying to call the Obama administration soft on terror, are you? Step back and think...


You mean the one person in the US who would sleep on it before giving the order to take out bin Laden once we had him in the crosshairs? I'm not saying he's "soft" on terror, I'm saying he's allied with these specific terrorists. As is McCain so the Kabuki with Graham is on instructions by Obama. Make McCain the head of the investigation and he can decide when it should be dropped.
 
2012-11-20 02:24:21 PM
At this point its all the Butthurt Brigade has left...

Once again they got nothin'
 
2012-11-20 02:27:57 PM

jigger: Wait. The whole controversy is about whether talking points were changed? And it's not about why the embassy wasn't secure enough to keep an ambassador from being killed or whether there is a CIA torture detention facility there? Well, that means there's no controversy then.


Isn't it crazy how what they are outraged about has changed as more information started coming out? At first they were screaming that the consulate wasn't secure and how could Obama let this happen, then it came out the the Republicans in the House voted to reduce the budget for consulate security, so they backed off of that. Then for a while they were outraged because of a secret CIA base at the consulate, then it turned out that wasn't true and Fox News retracted their report of that, so the Right backed off of that. Now they turn their outrage to when did Obama call it a terror attack.

Benghazi is the new chicken and they are going to fark it for the next four years.
 
2012-11-20 02:28:51 PM
Ben Gazi is a pretty cool guy Eh kills ambassadors and doesn't afraid of anything
 
2012-11-20 02:29:38 PM

Noam Chimpsky: Dr Dreidel:

Also, it took 9.5 years to get OBL. The US is good at playing a longer game, and it's far easier for us with a huge military/intelligence apparatus to hunt them than it is for our unnamed terrorists to keep on the move for the rest of their lives. Rest assured, though - we will soon hear about a drone strike killing a "top/senior al-Qaeda leader", and it'll be someone involved in the attack which killed Amb Stevens.
.

I guess we'll take care of them all by the year 3256 at that rate. Playing "long game" with heavily armed al qaeda has its drawbacks. Actually, it's all drawbacks.

If we are closing in on one of the murderous al qaeda terrorists from the Benghazi raid and that terrorist kills a few more Americans right before we swoop in, should we go long game on him again or just take him out while we got him in our crosshairs? It would piss them off to keep them on the run for the rest of their lives so maybe that'll show 'em.


You missed that the Libyan government forced Ansar al-Sharia to disband, and well over a dozen members of Ansar al-Sharia have been arrested or killed by the forces of the US, Tunisia, Yemen, Libya, and Egypt.

Just because it's not being paraded around doesn't mean that nothing is being done. Do a news search for Ansar al-Sharia; every few days since about a week after the attack more members stories pour in of them being killed or captured. To be fair this isn't exactly the most centralized group so many of these figures might not have participated in the attack, but make no mistake that there are currently operations to take these asshats out.
 
2012-11-20 02:32:10 PM

Generic Fark Name: Noam Chimpsky: Dr Dreidel:

Also, it took 9.5 years to get OBL. The US is good at playing a longer game, and it's far easier for us with a huge military/intelligence apparatus to hunt them than it is for our unnamed terrorists to keep on the move for the rest of their lives. Rest assured, though - we will soon hear about a drone strike killing a "top/senior al-Qaeda leader", and it'll be someone involved in the attack which killed Amb Stevens.
.

I guess we'll take care of them all by the year 3256 at that rate. Playing "long game" with heavily armed al qaeda has its drawbacks. Actually, it's all drawbacks.

If we are closing in on one of the murderous al qaeda terrorists from the Benghazi raid and that terrorist kills a few more Americans right before we swoop in, should we go long game on him again or just take him out while we got him in our crosshairs? It would piss them off to keep them on the run for the rest of their lives so maybe that'll show 'em.

If they've identified one of the terrorists already they're probably able to take action at almost any time, and if an imminent threat to American lives comes up, they'll likely do so. But in the meantime, they get to sit back, map out known associates and other elements of the network, and gain a lot more intelligence in the process. The long game has a lot of advantages.


I think you are saying that heavily armed al qaeda terrorists who have already killed Americans aren't an imminent threat. Oh, that's right, they were just a little sore about some youtube video.

If by unexpected coincidence the heavily armed al qaeda murder rapists kill more people, there is no way Obama could have foreseen such a thing happening and he would have absolutely took them out the day of the Benghazi attack if he had a crystal ball to foresee such a thing, hindsight being 20/20 and all.
 
2012-11-20 02:33:01 PM
I'm just irritated that the editing of the talking points resulted in me watching that stupid anti-Muhammad video. No production value, poorly developed plot, actors sleepwalking though their roles and a silly ending. No wonder people were so pissed.
 
2012-11-20 02:34:19 PM
"The original talking points were much more specific about al Qaeda involvement and yet final ones just said indications of extremists," King said.

The worst part is that the assholes on the Right are lying and claiming that even the participation of extremists link doesn't exist. They claim that the blame was laid 100% on the whole "protest got out of hand" statement, which also happens to be 100% false. Terrorists took advantage of the chaos of the demonstration to launch an attack, and that's what they said in the comments that people like McCain are attacking. It doesn't really mattris they say WHICH terrorists did it, at least not for this discussion, the fact remains that Rice made the statement, and she included a reference to terrorists, despite what Alzheimer's patient McCain says.
 
2012-11-20 02:34:59 PM
*itsrealtome* pic
 
2012-11-20 02:35:11 PM

Noam Chimpsky: How come Obama is refusing to bring the terrorists to justice? How many weeks has it been? Is he building a legal case against 200 terrorists and will serve papers on them one at a time?


Because the Benghazi citizens, thankful for the United States' assistance in toppling Qaddafi, went around and forced the militias out of the city. They're not quite where they were before. Have some patience, kimosabe. I mean, you waited how many years for bin Laden to get taken out, right?
 
2012-11-20 02:38:27 PM

jigger: Wait. The whole controversy is about whether talking points were changed? And it's not about why the embassy wasn't secure enough to keep an ambassador from being killed or whether there is a CIA torture detention facility there? Well, that means there's no controversy then.


Consulate, not embassy. There is a very significant difference.
 
2012-11-20 02:40:50 PM

Grungehamster: Noam Chimpsky: Dr Dreidel:

Also, it took 9.5 years to get OBL. The US is good at playing a longer game, and it's far easier for us with a huge military/intelligence apparatus to hunt them than it is for our unnamed terrorists to keep on the move for the rest of their lives. Rest assured, though - we will soon hear about a drone strike killing a "top/senior al-Qaeda leader", and it'll be someone involved in the attack which killed Amb Stevens.
.

I guess we'll take care of them all by the year 3256 at that rate. Playing "long game" with heavily armed al qaeda has its drawbacks. Actually, it's all drawbacks.

If we are closing in on one of the murderous al qaeda terrorists from the Benghazi raid and that terrorist kills a few more Americans right before we swoop in, should we go long game on him again or just take him out while we got him in our crosshairs? It would piss them off to keep them on the run for the rest of their lives so maybe that'll show 'em.

You missed that the Libyan government forced Ansar al-Sharia to disband, and well over a dozen members of Ansar al-Sharia have been arrested or killed by the forces of the US, Tunisia, Yemen, Libya, and Egypt.

Just because it's not being paraded around doesn't mean that nothing is being done. Do a news search for Ansar al-Sharia; every few days since about a week after the attack more members stories pour in of them being killed or captured. To be fair this isn't exactly the most centralized group so many of these figures might not have participated in the attack, but make no mistake that there are currently operations to take these asshats out.


There are no arrests and there are no operations to take out asshats.

http://world.time.com/2012/11/15/benghazis-real-scandal-why-is-the-li b yan-investigation-such-a-mess/
 
2012-11-20 02:49:09 PM

Dr Dreidel: Noam Chimpsky: Dr Dreidel: Noam Chimpsky: How come Obama is refusing to bring the terrorists to justice? How many weeks has it been? Is he building a legal case against 200 terrorists and will serve papers missiles on them one at a time?

Probably that.

Don't they scatter and become harder to find as time elapses? Wouldn't he have got them when they were all intact and dancing with the corpses if he intended to bring them to justice at all?

Well, the day of/after the attack (as you may have heard) there were some demonstrations happening. Drone strikes there would have killed some terrorists and some not-terrorists. As the Libyans (and Benghazi specifically) are fans of the US, blowing their people up did/does not seem like a smart plan. "Winning hearts and minds" is a metaphor for our strategy of social change, not a list of the body parts we want to take as souvenirs.

Also, it took 9.5 years to get OBL. The US is good at playing a longer game, and it's far easier for us with a huge military/intelligence apparatus to hunt them than it is for our unnamed terrorists to keep on the move for the rest of their lives. Rest assured, though - we will soon hear about a drone strike killing a "top/senior al-Qaeda leader", and it'll be someone involved in the attack which killed Amb Stevens.

And I bet most people will snark about how we've killed more al-Qaeda #2s than Spinal Tap has had drummers.


They could have had troops in the ground within the 7 hours over which the attack occurred and captured/killed many of the terrorists.
 
2012-11-20 02:49:41 PM

Noam Chimpsky: http://world.time.com/2012/11/15/benghazis-real-scandal-why-is-the-li b yan-investigation-such-a-mess/


'Page Not Found', much like any logical thread in your posts.
 
2012-11-20 02:50:20 PM
So you're citing an article on political disfunction in the Libyan government to support your claims that the Obama administration is not looking for these people because he supports their attack on America?

Look up Ansar al-Sharia. See how many members are getting arrested all over the world currently. The fact that this isn't being covered as much as the investigation Congressional Republicans keep pushing doesn't mean it isn't happening.
 
2012-11-20 02:52:01 PM

peter21: Noam Chimpsky: How come Obama is refusing to bring the terrorists to justice? How many weeks has it been? Is he building a legal case against 200 terrorists and will serve papers on them one at a time?

Because the Benghazi citizens, thankful for the United States' assistance in toppling Qaddafi, went around and forced the militias out of the city.


The funniest thing is that you didn't mean that as humor. Al Qaeda didn't feel like killing them that day when they came a knockin and told them to hit the road? I'm sure they are celebrated the way the Lockerbie terrorist was celebrated, and why wouldn't they be? Lockerbie terrorist good, Benghazi terrorist bad?
 
2012-11-20 02:52:19 PM
OK can you Republcans NOW farking declare defeat??

They said the person you have been calling "incompetent" and a "liar" said exactly what they intelligence group told her to say!!

This is over. You guys were wrong AGAIN!!!
 
2012-11-20 02:53:32 PM

MithrandirBooga: Just to get these out of the way...

[i.imgur.com image 720x321]
[i18.photobucket.com image 480x480]


That's not really an accurate portrayal as there was no perceived misleading of the nature of the attackers in those attacks. A better analogy would be the intelligence that got us into Iraq.
 
2012-11-20 02:55:51 PM

MithrandirBooga: I posted this on facebook,


There's your mistake.
 
2012-11-20 02:58:05 PM

Apocalyptic Inferno: Dr Dreidel: Noam Chimpsky: Dr Dreidel: Noam Chimpsky: How come Obama is refusing to bring the terrorists to justice? How many weeks has it been? Is he building a legal case against 200 terrorists and will serve papers missiles on them one at a time?

Probably that.

Don't they scatter and become harder to find as time elapses? Wouldn't he have got them when they were all intact and dancing with the corpses if he intended to bring them to justice at all?

Well, the day of/after the attack (as you may have heard) there were some demonstrations happening. Drone strikes there would have killed some terrorists and some not-terrorists. As the Libyans (and Benghazi specifically) are fans of the US, blowing their people up did/does not seem like a smart plan. "Winning hearts and minds" is a metaphor for our strategy of social change, not a list of the body parts we want to take as souvenirs.

Also, it took 9.5 years to get OBL. The US is good at playing a longer game, and it's far easier for us with a huge military/intelligence apparatus to hunt them than it is for our unnamed terrorists to keep on the move for the rest of their lives. Rest assured, though - we will soon hear about a drone strike killing a "top/senior al-Qaeda leader", and it'll be someone involved in the attack which killed Amb Stevens.

And I bet most people will snark about how we've killed more al-Qaeda #2s than Spinal Tap has had drummers.

They could have had troops in the ground within the 7 hours over which the attack occurred and captured/killed many of the terrorists.


American troops were on the ground within that time period. The attack on the consulate was responded to by forces from the CIA annex within half an hour, and the attack on the annex later that night was responded to from forces sent in from Tripoli within 2 hours. This "no troops for the 7 hours of the attack" argument ignores that several hours seperated the two different attacks in Benghazi (you're calling in troops to handle a situation that had already been stopped and we were only in the process of locating Ambassador Stevens at that point?) means that no US forces were dispatched from other countries and sent to Libya during the attack. US forces withing Libya were dispatched quickly to both events. Besides the vast majority of the fighting was already being done by the Libyan military: how many people are you suggesting should have been sent in?
 
2012-11-20 03:01:45 PM

Corvus: OK can you Republcans NOW farking declare defeat??

They said the person you have been calling "incompetent" and a "liar" said exactly what they intelligence group told her to say!!

This is over. You guys were wrong AGAIN!!!


"Forever Wrong" is a working title for the anti-GOP book I imagine I will someday write.
 
2012-11-20 03:02:01 PM

Noam Chimpsky: peter21: Noam Chimpsky: How come Obama is refusing to bring the terrorists to justice? How many weeks has it been? Is he building a legal case against 200 terrorists and will serve papers on them one at a time?

Because the Benghazi citizens, thankful for the United States' assistance in toppling Qaddafi, went around and forced the militias out of the city.

The funniest thing is that you didn't mean that as humor. Al Qaeda didn't feel like killing them that day when they came a knockin and told them to hit the road? I'm sure they are celebrated the way the Lockerbie terrorist was celebrated, and why wouldn't they be? Lockerbie terrorist good, Benghazi terrorist bad?


What's really funny is how you try real hard to believe something to be true because you want it to be. That said, I have no farking clue what you just wrote.

Try reading this instead
 
2012-11-20 03:02:07 PM

Apocalyptic Inferno: They could have had troops in the ground within the 7 hours over which the attack occurred and captured/killed many of the terrorists.


How many troops would be needed - 100? 1,000? 10,000? And how many troops lost in such an operation would be acceptable? What is the purpose of the mission - who are we aiming to capture/kill, or are we just there to "look for stuff"?

I recall Obama addressing these questions by saying that it would have been premature to send troops to the region. It'd also be remarkably short-sighted to put troops and assets in harm's way and run a revenge mission with no other clear goal. As much fun as killin' terrists is, it's no substitute for thinking clearly and not getting mired in another costly misadventure.

Sending 400,000 troops (GEN Shinseki's original estimate of what Iraq would take*) to Benghazi would not bring Amb Stevens back to life, or any of the 3 men who died. Gathering intelligence on the broader effort - to root out terrorist bases in Libya and elsewhere - seems like it'll kill both of those birds at the same time.

// and a big-ol' [citation needed] on the "captured/killed many terrorists" line - were they scheduled to hang out in public with Die Hard 3 sandwich boards identifying them until evening prayers?
*and I know a potential Benghazi operation would require a fraction of that. Think of it as an "overkill" number of troops.
 
2012-11-20 03:03:55 PM

Grungehamster: American troops were on the ground within that time period. The attack on the consulate was responded to by forces from the CIA annex within half an hour, and the attack on the annex later that night was responded to from forces sent in from Tripoli within 2 hours. This "no troops for the 7 hours of the attack" argument ignores that several hours seperated the two different attacks in Benghazi (you're calling in troops to handle a situation that had already been stopped and we were only in the process of locating Ambassador Stevens at that point?) means that no US forces were dispatched from other countries and sent to Libya during the attack. US forces withing Libya were dispatched quickly to both events. Besides the vast majority of the fighting was already being done by the Libyan military: how many people are you suggesting should have been sent in?


Listen. I've spent weeks analyzing after-action reports, and have finally come up with the plan they should have followed. Why didn't they originally do what I came up with?

Also, derp.
 
2012-11-20 03:06:31 PM

Noam Chimpsky: The funniest thing is that you didn't mean that as humor. Al Qaeda didn't feel like killing them that day when they came a knockin and told them to hit the road? I'm sure they are celebrated the way the Lockerbie terrorist was celebrated, and why wouldn't they be? Lockerbie terrorist good, Benghazi terrorist bad?


Is English your second language or are you actually fluent in no languages?
 
2012-11-20 03:09:09 PM

Noam Chimpsky: peter21: Noam Chimpsky: How come Obama is refusing to bring the terrorists to justice? How many weeks has it been? Is he building a legal case against 200 terrorists and will serve papers on them one at a time?

Because the Benghazi citizens, thankful for the United States' assistance in toppling Qaddafi, went around and forced the militias out of the city.

The funniest thing is that you didn't mean that as humor. Al Qaeda didn't feel like killing them that day when they came a knockin and told them to hit the road? I'm sure they are celebrated the way the Lockerbie terrorist was celebrated, and why wouldn't they be? Lockerbie terrorist good, Benghazi terrorist bad?


Here is what he's talking about.
 
2012-11-20 03:15:32 PM

Noam Chimpsky: How come Obama is refusing to bring the terrorists to justice? How many weeks has it been? Is he building a legal case against 200 terrorists and will serve papers on them one at a time?


Over 50 people have so far been arrested, and the responsible group has been effectively disbanded.

The fact that Benghazi is still an issue is smoking-gun proof that the right do no know what an effective response to terrorism looks like. They think it's 10+ years of ground war and the patriot act.
 
2012-11-20 03:16:42 PM

thurstonxhowell: Noam Chimpsky: The funniest thing is that you didn't mean that as humor. Al Qaeda didn't feel like killing them that day when they came a knockin and told them to hit the road? I'm sure they are celebrated the way the Lockerbie terrorist was celebrated, and why wouldn't they be? Lockerbie terrorist good, Benghazi terrorist bad?

Is English your second language or are you actually fluent in no languages?




asldkfja;lsdf favorited
 
2012-11-20 03:20:47 PM

HotWingConspiracy: I knew when Obama punked the shiat out of McCain and Graham in front of the nation that they weren't just going to let it go. Obama knew too. McCain needs a scalp to save face on this.


Well, he could blame the Republicans who cut funding for embassy and consulate security.
 
2012-11-20 03:22:16 PM

jigger: Wait. The whole controversy is about whether talking points were changed? And it's not about why the embassy wasn't secure enough to keep an ambassador from being killed or whether there is a CIA torture detention facility there? Well, that means there's no controversy then.


Diplomatic facilities are not meant to be able to withstand organized attacks from groups as large as this one was. If they were, they wouldn't be diplomatic facilities, they would be military facilities.

It is the host countries duty to prevent attacks such as this. The argument can be made that Benghazi wasn't stable enough, and this facility should not have been in operation, but given the fact that no republican said anything like this prior to the attack, that's not an argument you're going to win.
 
2012-11-20 03:24:11 PM

scavenger: I don't listen to the radio or watch FOX. Please tell me this is not what they are saying.


I don't either but I work with those who do. Apparently this is the line a lot of the far right people are sticking with as the TRUTH they BELIEVE.
 
2012-11-20 03:32:18 PM

udhq: Over 50 people have so far been arrested, and the responsible group has been effectively disbanded.

The fact that Benghazi is still an issue is smoking-gun proof that the right do no know what an effective response to terrorism looks like. They think it's 10+ years of ground war and the patriot act.


This.
 
2012-11-20 03:44:17 PM
Hmmm... it is such a mystery why the intelligence community would want the terrorist to think we had no idea they were involved for a few days/weeks, a real mystery.

Another mystery is how many knots Republicans can tie themselves into explaining how delaying the information about terrorism to the public for about 2 weeks helped the Obama Administration.

Imagine if the Obama Administration told everything they knew right away...1) They would make an enemy of the intelligence community 2) Terrorist would get away 3) Republicans would have a field day with that 'scandal'
 
2012-11-20 03:47:47 PM

Grungehamster: Noam Chimpsky: peter21: Noam Chimpsky: How come Obama is refusing to bring the terrorists to justice? How many weeks has it been? Is he building a legal case against 200 terrorists and will serve papers on them one at a time?

Because the Benghazi citizens, thankful for the United States' assistance in toppling Qaddafi, went around and forced the militias out of the city.

The funniest thing is that you didn't mean that as humor. Al Qaeda didn't feel like killing them that day when they came a knockin and told them to hit the road? I'm sure they are celebrated the way the Lockerbie terrorist was celebrated, and why wouldn't they be? Lockerbie terrorist good, Benghazi terrorist bad?

Here is what he's talking about.


We know now that story was fake. It sounded plausible when it broke and we were all still under the impression that the killers were just some regular joes who had hurt feelings due to some guy on youtube mocking their favorite religious figure. After the townsfolk paid them a visit the next day and shook their fingers at them, they hung their heads in shame and left town.

Then we learned it was al qaeda. They made up the fake story because they thought it could bring closure along with the massive raid and arrest of the prophet mocker.
 
2012-11-20 03:50:44 PM
Where's the guy with the thread numbers proclaiming how correct he was. Feel free to add this one to your FAIL bucket numnuts
 
2012-11-20 03:52:51 PM

Noam Chimpsky: We know now that story was fake.


Any citation for that? Other than this shiat blog, I mean?.
 
2012-11-20 04:29:21 PM

SlothB77: Mentat: The first act of the new Compassionately Conservative GOP is to demonize a young African-American woman. Who would have thought?

or perhaps it is because she lied.


You shouldn't be proud of your ignorance.
 
2012-11-20 04:29:53 PM

Noam Chimpsky: Grungehamster: Noam Chimpsky: peter21: Noam Chimpsky: How come Obama is refusing to bring the terrorists to justice? How many weeks has it been? Is he building a legal case against 200 terrorists and will serve papers on them one at a time?

Because the Benghazi citizens, thankful for the United States' assistance in toppling Qaddafi, went around and forced the militias out of the city.

The funniest thing is that you didn't mean that as humor. Al Qaeda didn't feel like killing them that day when they came a knockin and told them to hit the road? I'm sure they are celebrated the way the Lockerbie terrorist was celebrated, and why wouldn't they be? Lockerbie terrorist good, Benghazi terrorist bad?

Here is what he's talking about.

We know now that story was fake. It sounded plausible when it broke and we were all still under the impression that the killers were just some regular joes who had hurt feelings due to some guy on youtube mocking their favorite religious figure. After the townsfolk paid them a visit the next day and shook their fingers at them, they hung their heads in shame and left town.

Then we learned it was al qaeda. They made up the fake story because they thought it could bring closure along with the massive raid and arrest of the prophet mocker.


Who is this 'we' Sybil?
 
2012-11-20 04:30:41 PM

Satanic_Hamster: impaler: This just proves the intelligence community is in on the conspiracy!

What's the conspiracy again?

A lot of the AM radio and Fox idiots seem to be promoting: Obama hates Christians so he wanted to blame a Christians TRUTH video about Muslims NO MATTER WHAT so he didn't want to admit it was terrorism because he wanted to blame Christians.


So back to the original "scandal" Romney was smirking like a douche about during the press conference. Obama apologizing for America. That was farking brilliant and it must have warmed Romney's hard that those 4 Americans died so he could have a zinger against Obama. Or a potential zinger anyways.
 
2012-11-20 04:44:49 PM

fringedmyotis: Noam Chimpsky: We know now that story was fake.

Any citation for that? Other than this shiat blog, I mean?.


Citation that a group of American loving citizens went to al qaeda's house and kicked ass on 200 terrorists? No sir. It must have happened that way and so therefore we have closure and we can move on.

And then there is reality world where the attackers are openly wandering around Benghazi scoffing at the notion that Americans are going to do anything to them. Why isn't your supposed posse of American loving Libyan citizens doing anything about it?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/world/africa/suspect-in-benghazi-at t ack-scoffs-at-us.html

http://www.independentsentinel.com/2012/10/jihadists-controlled-bengh a zi-we-were-the-last-flag-standing/
 
2012-11-20 04:50:17 PM

peter21: Noam Chimpsky: Grungehamster: Noam Chimpsky: peter21: Noam Chimpsky: How come Obama is refusing to bring the terrorists to justice? How many weeks has it been? Is he building a legal case against 200 terrorists and will serve papers on them one at a time?

Because the Benghazi citizens, thankful for the United States' assistance in toppling Qaddafi, went around and forced the militias out of the city.

The funniest thing is that you didn't mean that as humor. Al Qaeda didn't feel like killing them that day when they came a knockin and told them to hit the road? I'm sure they are celebrated the way the Lockerbie terrorist was celebrated, and why wouldn't they be? Lockerbie terrorist good, Benghazi terrorist bad?

Here is what he's talking about.

We know now that story was fake. It sounded plausible when it broke and we were all still under the impression that the killers were just some regular joes who had hurt feelings due to some guy on youtube mocking their favorite religious figure. After the townsfolk paid them a visit the next day and shook their fingers at them, they hung their heads in shame and left town.

Then we learned it was al qaeda. They made up the fake story because they thought it could bring closure along with the massive raid and arrest of the prophet mocker.

Who is this 'we' Sybil?


Cogent folk.
 
2012-11-20 05:02:51 PM
img832.imageshack.us
 
2012-11-20 05:26:24 PM

Noam Chimpsky: fringedmyotis: Noam Chimpsky: We know now that story was fake.

Any citation for that? Other than this shiat blog, I mean?.

Citation that a group of American loving citizens went to al qaeda's house and kicked ass on 200 terrorists? No sir. It must have happened that way and so therefore we have closure and we can move on.

And then there is reality world where the attackers are openly wandering around Benghazi scoffing at the notion that Americans are going to do anything to them. Why isn't your supposed posse of American loving Libyan citizens doing anything about it?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/world/africa/suspect-in-benghazi-at t ack-scoffs-at-us.html

http://www.independentsentinel.com/2012/10/jihadists-controlled-bengh a zi-we-were-the-last-flag-standing/


This is just plainly, demonstrably untrue.

Over 50 people have been arrested thus far in connection with the attack in Benghazi.

Like I said earlier, I think you're just confused because you think the proper way to respond to a terrorist attack is with 10+ years of ground war and a massive roll-back of civil liberties.
 
2012-11-20 05:38:15 PM
according to a senior U.S. official familiar with the drafting of the talking points

Okay, Mr Unnamed Official, you should know!
 
2012-11-20 05:53:40 PM

thurstonxhowell: BronyMedic: You know, it's things like this that prove to me how full of shiat someone like Bradley Manning is

BronyMedic: You HONESTLY think there was no one in the United States he could have gone to

You think the problem with Bradley Manning, who is currently imprisoned for revealing all of the information he had to everyone in the country, is that he chose to be evasive instead of revealing his information? That's... interesting...


No. I'm heading off a common apoligist's talking point about Manning.
 
2012-11-20 06:09:41 PM

Noam Chimpsky:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/world/africa/suspect-in-benghazi-at t ack-scoffs-at-us.html

http://www.independentsentinel.com/2012/10/jihadists-controlled-bengh a zi-we-were-the-last-flag-standing/


Sorry, but the NY Time link doesn't work, and for the second one, you have got to be kidding. The home page is 100%, weapons grade derp.

But, really, none of that matters. I asked if you had a link that proved that the pro-U.S. demonstrations in Libya were fake. Can't help but notice you didn't provide one...
 
2012-11-20 06:10:41 PM

fringedmyotis: Noam Chimpsky:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/world/africa/suspect-in-benghazi-at t ack-scoffs-at-us.html

http://www.independentsentinel.com/2012/10/jihadists-controlled-bengh a zi-we-were-the-last-flag-standing/

Sorry, but the NY Time link doesn't work, and for the second one, you have got to be kidding. The home page is 100%, weapons grade derp.

But, really, none of that matters. I asked if you had a link that proved that the pro-U.S. demonstrations in Libya were fake. Can't help but notice you didn't provide one...


Obviously, all Muslims hate America, duh. Therefore, anything showing a Muslim NOT hating America is false. QED, libtard.
 
Displayed 50 of 127 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report