Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(The Raw Story)   Rachel Maddow explains Benghazi flap by way of Monty Python: 'Burn the witch! Burn her!'   (rawstory.com) divider line 375
    More: Amusing, Rachel Maddow, Monty Python, Benghazi, Benghazi flap, Mr. Speaker  
•       •       •

3040 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 May 2014 at 5:15 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-11 12:40:14 AM  

theknuckler_33: How was I non-committal? As I said, no one disputes the timeline.


You are ill informed.  The timeline of lies (was) in question.
 
2014-05-11 12:41:24 AM  

theknuckler_33: Noam Chimpsky: theknuckler_33: Noam Chimpsky: theknuckler_33: Noam Chimpsky: LordJiro: Noam Chimpsky:

Would he have been arrested if the Benghazi attack hadn't occurred. That's a damn good question. Who should be asked that question at the hearings?

Whoever was responsible for him being arrested. If they testify that, yes, he would have been arrested without Benghazi, how will you feel then?

Throwing a guy in jail for exercising the most basic 1st Amendment right is the worst thing in this whole ordeal in my opinion.

I guess the fact that that is not why he was thrown in jail is irrelevant to you.


Especially since the fact that he is on parole is publicly available:  http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/nakoula-charges
 
2014-05-11 12:41:54 AM  

The_Forensicator: theknuckler_33: How was I non-committal? As I said, no one disputes the timeline.

You are ill informed.  The timeline of lies (was) in question.


So why don't you tell us what you think happened? In your own words.
 
2014-05-11 12:42:50 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: Mrtraveler01: Noam Chimpsky: Witty_Retort: Noam Chimpsky: The motivation must have mattered to the Democrats enough to lie about it and send some guy to prison for exercising a basic 1st Amendment right.

If there was any initial confusion as to the motivations of the terrorist attack, there was no confusion at the time they rounded up the crappy video artist.

The guy who violated his parole? That guy?

Why does the Right continue to embrace criminals?

The problem you'll have is that it's going to be extremely tough for the people being grilled at these hearings to play dumb. Put yourself in their shoes and imagine trying to claim with a straight face that the jailing had nothing to do with the protests in Egypt or the attack in Benghazi. I'm not as certain as some seem to be, such as theknuckler33, that they will get up there and say that the guy would have been jailed without Benghazi going down. I think there might be a dilemma there for them. The followup question will be "Would he have been thrown into jail if the Egyptians hadn't protested?", and the answer will be "If the authorities knew he was posing videos as a parole violation, then yes". But then there is a followup to that one.

"So you wouldn't ever, no way no how, seek to prosecute someone for doing this sort of mocking of religious figures like Muhammad  unless they have a term against it in the conditions of their parole?"

What do you think he'll say? They can bring thousands of people up there to answer that question, and they should. My guess is that they won't say that a non parolee is free to  mock the prophet without being prosecuted. I'm 85% certain of it.

So you're tacitly admitting that his video was responsible for what happened at the US Embassy in Cairo?

I've already said that I believe there is a 65% chance that the video was a false flag part of an operation, in cahoots with the Arab League and Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, that would allow Obama to make an example of those who woul ...


Where is your proof? None of that ever came up in any of the testimony in any of the hearings or investigations.
 
2014-05-11 12:44:28 AM  

mark12A: Benghazi boils down to this: The State Department screwed up protecting it's people, so when they did get attacked, they tried to spin it as America's fault, because of that stupid First Amendment allowing "irresponsible Americans" to stir up the Muzzies.

That's what really sucks. OUR State Department trying to spin it as America bringing it on itself, WHEN THEY KNEW DAMM WELL it was an Al Quada attack.  It stinks of disloyalty to their fellow American citizens.

That's what I really hate about those goddam State Department Drones. These over educated, elitist PRINKS  constantly snicker at the America people, who give them the tax money for their way cool meetings, receptions, parties, etc. They run America down as they buddy up to foreign officials.

When Americans get in trouble abroad, the State Department looks the other way until CongressCritters scream and yell at them to DO THEIR JOBS. I've seen it happen over and over again. The State Department needs to understand the American People are their customers, not the assorted dictators/crooks they hob nob with.


Get a load of THIS guy. Sheesh...
 
2014-05-11 12:46:29 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: I've already said that I believe there is a 65% chance that the video was a false flag part of an operation, in cahoots with the Arab League and Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, that would allow Obama to make an example of those who would mock the prophet and that the Egyptian protests were part of the plan. I allowed that the Benghazi attack wasn't part of the plan, or at least as far as Obama knew at the time it wasn't.


And the purpose of this plan that you believe has a 2/3 probability of being true had the purpose of....?
 
2014-05-11 12:46:43 AM  

DeArmondVI: mark12A: Benghazi boils down to this: The State Department screwed up protecting it's people, so when they did get attacked, they tried to spin it as America's fault, because of that stupid First Amendment allowing "irresponsible Americans" to stir up the Muzzies.

That's what really sucks. OUR State Department trying to spin it as America bringing it on itself, WHEN THEY KNEW DAMM WELL it was an Al Quada attack.  It stinks of disloyalty to their fellow American citizens.

That's what I really hate about those goddam State Department Drones. These over educated, elitist PRINKS  constantly snicker at the America people, who give them the tax money for their way cool meetings, receptions, parties, etc. They run America down as they buddy up to foreign officials.

When Americans get in trouble abroad, the State Department looks the other way until CongressCritters scream and yell at them to DO THEIR JOBS. I've seen it happen over and over again. The State Department needs to understand the American People are their customers, not the assorted dictators/crooks they hob nob with.

It was an Al Quada attack?


No, but hush. He's rolling
 
2014-05-11 12:46:45 AM  

The_Forensicator: Dimensio: The_Forensicator: Any 'non-Believers' can feel free to add their own timeline and version of their facts (as they understand them).  I'd be happy to rationally discuss them.

As you have consistently refused to explain what you believe the "facts" to be, and instead you have dishonestly attempted to justify a refusal to explain the "facts", absolutely no rational discussion with you is possible.

You are a liar, and no claim issued by you is credible.

You're the 2nd in a row to dismiss the point by ignoring simply stating you own beliefs.

*golfclap*.


You have presented no "facts" to actually ignore. Your claim is a lie, you are a liar, and no claim issued by you is credible.
 
2014-05-11 12:47:07 AM  

The_Forensicator: theknuckler_33: How was I non-committal? As I said, no one disputes the timeline.

You are ill informed.  The timeline of lies (was) in question.


No, the timeline was pretty much accepted. Well, only by people who looked at the facts and testimony.
 
2014-05-11 12:47:20 AM  

The_Forensicator: theknuckler_33: How was I non-committal? As I said, no one disputes the timeline.

You are ill informed.  The timeline of lies (was) in question.


Of course.
 
2014-05-11 12:51:42 AM  

palelizard: Destructor: Agneska: Someone in the White House decided not to send help when the attacks were happening. I'm sure they had a good and valid reason to give the stand down order. This is about to get very interesting.

Can it please get more interesting faster? Because the Republicans have mismanaged this thing so badly, it's hard to see what good can come from it.

The Republicans haven't mismanaged anything. It's just that Clinton's propaganda machine has been in full force since before day 1 orchestrating the cover-up.  It's hard to get accurate facts from those involved when they've been threatened by Washington insiders.  I've no doubt that President Obama had no idea about what was really happening--but there's no way Clinton did not. Didn't she advertise about who Americans wanted to get the middle of the night call?  This whole thing is an attempt to discredit Obama, likely in a way that improves Hillary's chances in 2016.  I hope he doesn't let her drag him down.  He should appoint a special prosecutor, someone non-partisan and trusted by all, to get to the bottom of this.

Look at it this way--the Clintons got away with Vince Foster, Whitewater, an extramarital affair and perjury, all while we knew full well they'd done it but were stymied by their incredibly cover-up apparatus. Obama couldn't convince people he was born in the country.  Heck, he was on the ropes about the whole birth certificate thing when the Republican governor of Hawaii stepped in a bailed him out.  It's not his fault--without a teleprompter, he's just a community organizer who bit off more than he bargained for.  Out of the two, who do you think really orchestrated this cover-up?

Sadly, much like before, this has been done so well we may never be able to prove it and in twenty years, people who don't remember will just think of it as 'one more conspiracy theory', despite H. R. Clinton being in her fifth term.


They have therapy and medication today that could help you live an almost normal life. You REALLY should look into it.
 
2014-05-11 12:52:05 AM  

theknuckler_33: Noam Chimpsky: theknuckler_33: Noam Chimpsky: theknuckler_33: Noam Chimpsky: LordJiro: Noam Chimpsky:

Would he have been arrested if the Benghazi attack hadn't occurred. That's a damn good question. Who should be asked that question at the hearings?

Whoever was responsible for him being arrested. If they testify that, yes, he would have been arrested without Benghazi, how will you feel then?

Throwing a guy in jail for exercising the most basic 1st Amendment right is the worst thing in this whole ordeal in my opinion.

I guess the fact that that is not why he was thrown in jail is irrelevant to you.


Again, I think you're gonna be disappointed when they bring these people up to testify at the hearings and they insist that someone can be prosecuted for stirring up unrest abroad with their speech regardless of whether or not they are on parole.

The Republicans better not the mistake of only asking one person about this at the hearing. If the Obama people think the question is only going to be asked of one of them, they might lie and later on say "that guy was wrong about that". If you bring up dozens of Obama people, including Holder, to say "No, he wouldn't have been jailed except for the parole condition", then you have saved the Constitution from absolute destruction because it solidifies that basic free speech principle.
 
2014-05-11 12:57:44 AM  

mark12A: There is something seriously wrong with you.
No snark there. You should seek help.

I'm not the one who needs help.

Example: Back in the 80's, an Iranian-American co-worker of mine was trying to get his brother into the States. His brother had managed to escape Iran and the tender mercies of Ayatolla Khomeni after the Islamic revolution and got as far as Italy. I listened to Azimi on the phone, calling the State Department over and over again, begging for help. They kept blowing him off.

Finally, I told Azimi to call his Senator and explain the situation. The State Department simply does not care about private American citizens. The Senator's staff live for this kind of thing, cause they know the State Department fears congress, because congress will do naughty things to them, like force them to fly economy class, thus the Senator (whoever the Pennsylvania senators were in 1986)  stuck his foot up the State Department's ass and Azimi's brother  was promptly flown to the states. Typical story.

I once needed an emergency ex-fil after my idiot step father got mixed up with some Islamic Indonesian gun runners shipping arms to the southern Philippines, and they were going to shoot *my ass* as a warning to him, so, once again, the state department was all "do we know you??" until my uncle called congress and I was out the next day without anybody knowing about it.

The State Department is staffed by tools. Period. Benghazi is even worse, because they dicked over THEIR OWN PEOPLE.


The bullshiat detector just exploded.
 
2014-05-11 01:00:03 AM  
I enjoyed listening to the Maddow podcast on this last night.  But this is a train wreck of a thread.
 
2014-05-11 01:00:22 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: theknuckler_33: Noam Chimpsky: theknuckler_33: Noam Chimpsky: theknuckler_33: Noam Chimpsky: LordJiro: Noam Chimpsky:

Would he have been arrested if the Benghazi attack hadn't occurred. That's a damn good question. Who should be asked that question at the hearings?

Whoever was responsible for him being arrested. If they testify that, yes, he would have been arrested without Benghazi, how will you feel then?

Throwing a guy in jail for exercising the most basic 1st Amendment right is the worst thing in this whole ordeal in my opinion.

I guess the fact that that is not why he was thrown in jail is irrelevant to you.

Again, I think you're gonna be disappointed when they bring these people up to testify at the hearings and they insist that someone can be prosecuted for stirring up unrest abroad with their speech


Again, that's not why he was arrested or prosecuted. Why is it so hard for you to admit objective observable reality?

I appreciate the fact that you think I'll be disappointed, though.
 
2014-05-11 01:02:00 AM  

heap: Destructor: Benghazi is so worn in the minds of most American's, they just want to stop hearing about it.

it wasn't a matter of timing, or when republicans did what committee - to find something, it has to be there - just what is it you think is there that hasn't been covered dozens of times by now?

some times, the problem w/ a political attack is that there is no there...there. Perhaps some of the confusion is in not seeing it as what it is to begin with - a political attack.


What we are seeing is indeed a political attack, but it's so ham fisted and fantasy based that it boggles the mind. Sorry for the oblique Godwin, but it truly is an attempt at "the big lie".
 
2014-05-11 01:06:36 AM  

theknuckler_33: Noam Chimpsky: I've already said that I believe there is a 65% chance that the video was a false flag part of an operation, in cahoots with the Arab League and Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, that would allow Obama to make an example of those who would mock the prophet and that the Egyptian protests were part of the plan. I allowed that the Benghazi attack wasn't part of the plan, or at least as far as Obama knew at the time it wasn't.

And the purpose of this plan that you believe has a 2/3 probability of being true had the purpose of....?


You can't give 100% certainty to a conspiracy theory. My theory would require that almost all of the elements be true if any of the theory is right. I'd only give it a 5% chance of having only half the elements correct. That would mean that there is a 30% chance that my theory is cockamamie.
 
2014-05-11 01:09:25 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: theknuckler_33: Noam Chimpsky: I've already said that I believe there is a 65% chance that the video was a false flag part of an operation, in cahoots with the Arab League and Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, that would allow Obama to make an example of those who would mock the prophet and that the Egyptian protests were part of the plan. I allowed that the Benghazi attack wasn't part of the plan, or at least as far as Obama knew at the time it wasn't.

And the purpose of this plan that you believe has a 2/3 probability of being true had the purpose of....?

You can't give 100% certainty to a conspiracy theory. My theory would require that almost all of the elements be true if any of the theory is right. I'd only give it a 5% chance of having only half the elements correct. That would mean that there is a 30% chance that my theory is cockamamie.


Well, thanks for responding with something that not only does not answer my question, but is also entirely incomprehensible.
 
2014-05-11 01:09:34 AM  

mark12A: There is something seriously wrong with you.
No snark there. You should seek help.

I'm not the one who needs help.

Example: Back in the 80's, an Iranian-American co-worker of mine was trying to get his brother into the States. His brother had managed to escape Iran and the tender mercies of Ayatolla Khomeni after the Islamic revolution and got as far as Italy. I listened to Azimi on the phone, calling the State Department over and over again, begging for help. They kept blowing him off.

Finally, I told Azimi to call his Senator and explain the situation. The State Department simply does not care about private American citizens. The Senator's staff live for this kind of thing, cause they know the State Department fears congress, because congress will do naughty things to them, like force them to fly economy class, thus the Senator (whoever the Pennsylvania senators were in 1986)  stuck his foot up the State Department's ass and Azimi's brother  was promptly flown to the states. Typical story.

I once needed an emergency ex-fil after my idiot step father got mixed up with some Islamic Indonesian gun runners shipping arms to the southern Philippines, and they were going to shoot *my ass* as a warning to him, so, once again, the state department was all "do we know you??" until my uncle called congress and I was out the next day without anybody knowing about it.

The State Department is staffed by tools. Period. Benghazi is even worse, because they dicked over THEIR OWN PEOPLE.


Are you sure you are posting to the right site? Might want to give FR or WND a shot, unless you enjoy being labeled as full of it...
 
2014-05-11 01:11:49 AM  

theknuckler_33: Noam Chimpsky: theknuckler_33: Noam Chimpsky: theknuckler_33: Noam Chimpsky: theknuckler_33: Noam Chimpsky: LordJiro: Noam Chimpsky:

Would he have been arrested if the Benghazi attack hadn't occurred. That's a damn good question. Who should be asked that question at the hearings?

Whoever was responsible for him being arrested. If they testify that, yes, he would have been arrested without Benghazi, how will you feel then?

Throwing a guy in jail for exercising the most basic 1st Amendment right is the worst thing in this whole ordeal in my opinion.

I guess the fact that that is not why he was thrown in jail is irrelevant to you.

Again, I think you're gonna be disappointed when they bring these people up to testify at the hearings and they insist that someone can be prosecuted for stirring up unrest abroad with their speech

Again, that's not why he was arrested or prosecuted. Why is it so hard for you to admit objective observable reality?

I appreciate the fact that you think I'll be disappointed, though.


I guess you are saying that the guy could have been prosecuted for the video regardless of having a parole condition but he had a parole condition so the point of whether he could have been prosecuted without the parole condition is moot?
 
2014-05-11 01:15:48 AM  

danfrank: 4804 total Americans died in Iraq in the 10 years we had troops there.

That is 480 per year. 1.3 a day. So basically, a Benghazi about every 3 days. For 10 farking years.

Even if you forget for a second the botched intelligence that got us into that mess (hard to do, I know), during that time we had the "Mission Accomplished" speech, "You're with us or you're against us", "The army you have not the army you want", Jessica Lynch, Pat Tillman, the "wolves at the doorstep" political ad, and countless other attempts by the GOP to either gain political advantage from the war effort or to mitigate political damage after a botched operation.
 But NOW they are outraged over a POTUS (maybe) considering politics amidst 4 American deaths in the middle east.


And this is what is called perspective. Learn it.
 
2014-05-11 01:16:17 AM  

TheBigJerk: Triple Oak: You sure know how to make friends. I'm more willing to talk at length with SunsetLament about anything than consider what you have to say at this point.

Aren't they the same person?


Hmm good point. Not every derper alt is the same person... I'll talk to Noam, he seems to have his fingers in his ears right now. We'll work our way through them.
 
2014-05-11 01:18:59 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: theknuckler_33: Noam Chimpsky: theknuckler_33: I guess the fact that that is not why he was thrown in jail is irrelevant to you.

Again, I think you're gonna be disappointed when they bring these people up to testify at the hearings and they insist that someone can be prosecuted for stirring up unrest abroad with their speech

Again, that's not why he was arrested or prosecuted. Why is it so hard for you to admit objective observable reality?

I appreciate the fact that you think I'll be disappointed, though.

I guess you are saying that the guy could have been prosecuted for the video regardless of having a parole condition but he had a parole condition so the point of whether he could have been prosecuted without the parole condition is moot?


No. As you are most clearly aware and, for some reason, being intentionally obtuse about, he was arrested for a parole violation that had nothing to do with the Benghazi attacks.
 
2014-05-11 01:19:37 AM  

mark12A: Why, though, would the State Department care about an Iranian citizen? Sounds like Azimi was barking up the wrong tree. And you might be an idiot for suggesting that the State Department should treat citizens of another country living in a third country the exact same as they would treat a citizen.

Excuse me? Is this the same Fark that cries great big crocodile tears about poor illegal immigrant families getting split up by that mean old border patrol and sent back to Mexico to try again?

Azimi made it to the states, became a citizen, ending up working with me for the Navy. The very *least* we could have done was to help him save his brother from certain death.....


His brother...who was in Italy...is this performance art?
 
2014-05-11 01:28:08 AM  

theknuckler_33: Noam Chimpsky: theknuckler_33: Noam Chimpsky: I've already said that I believe there is a 65% chance that the video was a false flag part of an operation, in cahoots with the Arab League and Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, that would allow Obama to make an example of those who would mock the prophet and that the Egyptian protests were part of the plan. I allowed that the Benghazi attack wasn't part of the plan, or at least as far as Obama knew at the time it wasn't.

And the purpose of this plan that you believe has a 2/3 probability of being true had the purpose of....?

You can't give 100% certainty to a conspiracy theory. My theory would require that almost all of the elements be true if any of the theory is right. I'd only give it a 5% chance of having only half the elements correct. That would mean that there is a 30% chance that my theory is cockamamie.

Well, thanks for responding with something that not only does not answer my question, but is also entirely incomprehensible.


Oh, I think it distresses the hell out of Obama that someone can mock the prophet. The future doesn't belong to those folks. And he can't have the sort of relationship he wants with Muslim countries if he is sitting as the figurehead of a country where the people are free to do this sort of hurtful stuff to Islam. He would never make them understand the nuance of speech happening that he doesn't have the power to stop. So he must stop it.
 
2014-05-11 01:29:27 AM  
I'll tell you what "Benghazi" is in America before and now...

Originally Benghazi was a middle eastern town not a whole lot of people had ever heard of.

Then it became known as an attack on a U.S. Embassy that resulted in some American lives lost. But that isn't what it is anymore...

NOW Benghazi is a way for pointless farking idiots to out themselves as pointless farking idiots. It lets all the rest of us sane people know exactly who will try and exploit the tragic deaths of our fellow Americans for their own personal and/or political gain.

Some of you are doing it in this very thread. You're revealing your true character... and we see it.
 
2014-05-11 01:30:43 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: I think


No... no you don't. You talk a lot of shiat... but you don't think.
 
2014-05-11 01:32:32 AM  

Destructor: cameroncrazy1984: What did those supposed "withheld" documents contain? Why were they withheld?

It's not "stonewalling" if the administration didn't provide unrelated crap that doesn't involve Benghazi at all.

Evidence that contradicts the administrations assertion that the Rice claim originated with the CIA. It may have originated with the State Department. As for why they were withheld, I have no idea. Obama said they contained nothing new, I guess? If we take him at his word, that would be why. Here's a link to FactCheck (I honestly don't know if it swings left or right... Whatever).


Actually, in reality, the CIA claims the origin themselves for operational reasons. WTF is wrong with you people? This was a tragedy, not a scandel. Maybe the GOP could try winning on merit instead...too hard I guess.
 
2014-05-11 01:38:22 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: I've already said that I believe there is a 65% chance that the video was a false flag part of an operation, in cahoots with the Arab League and Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, that would allow Obama to make an example of those who would mock the prophet and that the Egyptian protests were part of the plan.


It's at this point that people should stop taking you seriously.

Now you're just too obvious of a troll.
 
2014-05-11 01:41:34 AM  

The_Forensicator: theknuckler_33: How was I non-committal? As I said, no one disputes the timeline.

You are ill informed.  The timeline of lies (was) in question.


Only to idiots.
 
2014-05-11 01:43:21 AM  

JohnnyC: Noam Chimpsky: I think

No... no you don't. You talk a lot of shiat... but you don't think.


JohnnyC: Noam Chimpsky: I think

No... no you don't. You talk a lot of shiat... but you don't think.


You are not going to convince me that someone can talk a shiat. Although, I have been watching House on Netflix and I expect any episode now someone is going to poop out of their mouth and House will solve the mystery of how it happened. I got 5 seasons to go and I can predict with 60% certainty that case will come up.
 
2014-05-11 01:46:29 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: JohnnyC: Noam Chimpsky: I think

No... no you don't. You talk a lot of shiat... but you don't think.

JohnnyC: Noam Chimpsky: I think

No... no you don't. You talk a lot of shiat... but you don't think.

You are not going to convince me that someone can talk a shiat. Although, I have been watching House on Netflix and I expect any episode now someone is going to poop out of their mouth and House will solve the mystery of how it happened. I got 5 seasons to go and I can predict with 60% certainty that case will come up.


So based upon your track record we can safely assume (not having seen any other episodes) that there is a 0% chance that this happened.
 
2014-05-11 01:52:14 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: theknuckler_33: Noam Chimpsky: theknuckler_33: And the purpose of this plan that you believe has a 2/3 probability of being true had the purpose of....?

You can't give 100% certainty to a conspiracy theory. My theory would require that almost all of the elements be true if any of the theory is right. I'd only give it a 5% chance of having only half the elements correct. That would mean that there is a 30% chance that my theory is cockamamie.

Well, thanks for responding with something that not only does not answer my question, but is also entirely incomprehensible.

Oh, I think it distresses the hell out of Obama that someone can mock the prophet. The future doesn't belong to those folks. And he can't have the sort of relationship he wants with Muslim countries if he is sitting as the figurehead of a country where the people are free to do this sort of hurtful stuff to Islam. He would never make them understand the nuance of speech happening that he doesn't have the power to stop. So he must stop it.


So, I just want to be clear...

You post:

I believe there is a 65% chance that the video was a false flag part of an operation, in cahoots with the Arab League and Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, that would allow Obama to make an example of those who would mock the prophet and that the Egyptian protests were part of the plan. I allowed that the Benghazi attack wasn't part of the plan, or at least as far as Obama knew at the time it wasn't.

I say:

And the purpose of this plan that you believe has a 2/3 probability of being true had the purpose of....?

Your response is:

Oh, I think it distresses the hell out of Obama that someone can mock the prophet. The future doesn't belong to those folks. And he can't have the sort of relationship he wants with Muslim countries if he is sitting as the figurehead of a country where the people are free to do this sort of hurtful stuff to Islam. He would never make them understand the nuance of speech happening that he doesn't have the power to stop. So he must stop it.


Have I got that right?

And that makes sense to you?
 
2014-05-11 01:53:36 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Noam Chimpsky: JohnnyC: Noam Chimpsky: I think

No... no you don't. You talk a lot of shiat... but you don't think.

JohnnyC: Noam Chimpsky: I think

No... no you don't. You talk a lot of shiat... but you don't think.

You are not going to convince me that someone can talk a shiat. Although, I have been watching House on Netflix and I expect any episode now someone is going to poop out of their mouth and House will solve the mystery of how it happened. I got 5 seasons to go and I can predict with 60% certainty that case will come up.

So based upon your track record we can safely assume (not having seen any other episodes) that there is a 0% chance that this happened.


Hey, by the way, no spoilers in case someone has already seen all the episodes.  You win no ribbons if you make my 60% prediction a slight fail. Unless it happened, in which case tell me the episode so I can skip ahead and watch it. Just don't spoil it if it didn't happen.
 
2014-05-11 01:54:58 AM  

Destructor: Karac: How does Obama show incompetence over Iran nuke development? Or how does he show more incompetence than every other administration since the ayatollahs took over and decided they wanted a h-bomb? Did they successfully test one and I missed hearing about it?

The minute the sanctions actually looked like they were going to take affect--which everyone knew would be brutal and hurt the civilian population with the goal of fomenting revolt--is the minute we caved in. Iran getting rid of their uranium stockpile by oxidizing it? Have they even started "down blending" yet? And from what I understand, the agreement is easily escapable by either side. They can just say, "Okay, thanks for the stuff, we're going to back out of the agreement now." and then they can resume operations as normal.

Either let them develop nukes or don't. The "or don't" part was (much to my surprise) actually working, and then we caved in.


Have they started? They've almost completed. As far as backing out, the agreement was escapable by design. Coercion and agreement are different things.
 
2014-05-11 01:56:01 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: cameroncrazy1984: Noam Chimpsky: JohnnyC: Noam Chimpsky: I think

No... no you don't. You talk a lot of shiat... but you don't think.

JohnnyC: Noam Chimpsky: I think

No... no you don't. You talk a lot of shiat... but you don't think.

You are not going to convince me that someone can talk a shiat. Although, I have been watching House on Netflix and I expect any episode now someone is going to poop out of their mouth and House will solve the mystery of how it happened. I got 5 seasons to go and I can predict with 60% certainty that case will come up.

So based upon your track record we can safely assume (not having seen any other episodes) that there is a 0% chance that this happened.

Hey, by the way, no spoilers in case someone has already seen all the episodes.  You win no ribbons if you make my 60% prediction a slight fail. Unless it happened, in which case tell me the episode so I can skip ahead and watch it. Just don't spoil it if it didn't happen.


I didn't spoil it. Your track record with making absolutely zero correct predictions did.
 
2014-05-11 02:00:17 AM  

theknuckler_33: Noam Chimpsky: theknuckler_33: Noam Chimpsky: theknuckler_33: I guess the fact that that is not why he was thrown in jail is irrelevant to you.

Again, I think you're gonna be disappointed when they bring these people up to testify at the hearings and they insist that someone can be prosecuted for stirring up unrest abroad with their speech

Again, that's not why he was arrested or prosecuted. Why is it so hard for you to admit objective observable reality?

I appreciate the fact that you think I'll be disappointed, though.

I guess you are saying that the guy could have been prosecuted for the video regardless of having a parole condition but he had a parole condition so the point of whether he could have been prosecuted without the parole condition is moot?

No. As you are most clearly aware and, for some reason, being intentionally obtuse about, he was arrested for a parole violation that had nothing to do with the Benghazi attacks.


In fact, if you bother to examine the circumstances around Nakoula's arrest, not only was he never initially implicated in the Benghazi attacks, had it not been for the Benghazi attacks, he might never have popped up on the FBI's radar.

The video, created in 2011 by "Sam Bassile" and credited to "Alan Roberts" was a fraudulent production from beginning to end, having misled not only the actors as to the actual content of the script, but also the investors and Media for Christ, the agency which originally obtained the filming permits. Nakoula was under investigation prior to the film's release because of alleged terroristic threats, although he had told investors and Media for Christ that he was never under investigation. He also falsely used a pseudonym in violation of his parole.

The 9/11 release date was, in fact, not accidental; it was promoted and heavily advertised by--Pastor Terry Jones, he of the Koran-burning church in Florida. The video had been uploaded by July 1 and dubbed in to Arabic by August; it was that redubbing that led to the changes in the content and subsequent protests worldwide. By then, "Sam Bacile" and his cohorts were already being sought by authorities, although nobody yet knew he was Nakoula. After the deaths at Benghazi, the FBI doubled down on their search, and found that they were the same individual.

The actual charges against Nakoula included violation of his supervised release terms, using a false name without approval of his probation officer, use of the Internet without approval of his probation officer, lying to Federal officials, and fraud.

If this was some orchestrated false flag to create a situation where Obama could punish those who would mock the Prophet (or whatever the chimpmeister has cobbled together), they sure went the long way around and did it the hard way.
 
2014-05-11 02:04:26 AM  
theknuckler_33: Have I got that right?

And that makes sense to you?


Yeah, well, that's my stab at it.

Dude, I'm giving Obama kinda pure motives here so back off. I'm thinking Obama is someone who grew up around benevolent Muslims and has a lot of affection for them and the religion and it led him to fall into a trap. I used to think there was a 35% chance of him being a jihadi sleeper cell Muslim himself until he did the "future doesn't belong" thing. No sleeper cell Muslim would say that.
 
2014-05-11 02:10:04 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: Destructor: udhq: Destructor: I'm already satisfied there's incompetence

Care to elaborate?

It's outside the scope of this thread, but I hate leaving questions unanswered... so I'll keep it brief. ACA implementation, handling of sundry domestic issues (ex: Beer summit), various foreign policy issues (Iran nuke development, red line). Those are the big ones, I think.

A A rollout was  Rocky, but it's a success overall...the red line is definitely a comment he shouldn't have made, but it's a pretty small deal, really.  I don't even see how the others qualify as incompetence,  but I don't watch FOX, which seems to be a requirement for seeing failure everywhere.


Any mistake, no matter how small, has to be equated to overall incompetence because it's the only way he can maintain his fence-sitting position. Remember, he has no dog in this fight. #2abovethefray4me
 
2014-05-11 02:13:13 AM  

theknuckler_33: Noam Chimpsky: theknuckler_33: Noam Chimpsky: I've already said that I believe there is a 65% chance that the video was a false flag part of an operation, in cahoots with the Arab League and Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, that would allow Obama to make an example of those who would mock the prophet and that the Egyptian protests were part of the plan. I allowed that the Benghazi attack wasn't part of the plan, or at least as far as Obama knew at the time it wasn't.

And the purpose of this plan that you believe has a 2/3 probability of being true had the purpose of....?

You can't give 100% certainty to a conspiracy theory. My theory would require that almost all of the elements be true if any of the theory is right. I'd only give it a 5% chance of having only half the elements correct. That would mean that there is a 30% chance that my theory is cockamamie.

Well, thanks for responding with something that not only does not answer my question, but is also entirely incomprehensible.


You need to study it out, man. Study. It. Out.
 
2014-05-11 02:14:06 AM  
i172.photobucket.com
 
2014-05-11 02:28:02 AM  
Gyrfalcon: If this was some orchestrated false flag to create a situation where Obama could punish those who would mock the Prophet (or whatever the chimpmeister has cobbled together), they sure went the long way around and did it the hard way.

Why would he have do it "fraudulently", if he did do it fraudulently? He wouldn't have to do it that way, would he?  Have you seen the video? I haven't seen it myself. I imagine that everyone would say they were misled after the shiat hit the fan just to distance themselves from the controversy, but maybe they were misled. It just seems like if there was all this fraud and misleading that there is some mischief apart from doing a heartfelt critique of Islam going on. You probably have the same suspicions.
 
2014-05-11 02:31:01 AM  
Noam Chimpsky is a "birther". That means that, by definition, he is mentally ill. He is incapable of rational thought and reasoned discourse.
 
2014-05-11 02:41:08 AM  

Summoner101: Agneska: Someone in the White House decided not to send help when the attacks were happening. I'm sure they had a good and valid reason to give the stand down order. This is about to get very interesting.

You may be surprised by this, but we haven't gotten to the point where we can drop troops in somewhere automatically.


That's why we need all the military spending, to prepare for ODST.
 
2014-05-11 02:47:02 AM  

Fantasta Potamus: Lionel Mandrake: Agneska: Someone in the White House decided not to send help when the attacks were happening. I'm sure they had a good and valid reason to give the stand down order. This is about to get very interesting.

Yeah, they should have sent in the FTL fighters with the special kill-only-bad-guys smart bombs.

Seriously?  People are still fkn this chicken?

I see the "they could have sent fighter jets during the attack" posted everywhere.

It boggles the mind as to what they think could be done. How do you even consider dropping a bomb on or around a building when there are actually people you don't want to kill?

That would be a real scandal.


I have a cousin who's an airforce loadmaster that honestly does work with special operations, and recently at a get together with a bunch of my radical right family, they begged him to recount how he was on a runway ready to go but they were not given the order and those brave American's had to die because of Obama's and Hillary's inability to deal with the situation.

I let him get his big spiel out while everybody salivated at his 'truth' and how, as a civilian I wouldn't and couldn't question his story. Welp.. To everyone's surprise I begged him to blow the doors wide open on the scandal. We have another cousin who is an aide for a former florida congressperson (R), and another who interned for John Goddamn McCain, so it wouldn't be hard to get him in front of Issa and get Obummer thrown right out of office for lies and deceit. He declined, and now everybody hates me because he'd be in danger of losing his job somehow, and that of course that's more important than bringing down.... Obama?. and Hillary?. or some shiat? They're story and anger kinda falls apart at that point.

Hi-Farking-Hilarious
 
2014-05-11 02:51:47 AM  

FnkyTwn: loadmaster


heh...heheh...heheheh...
 
2014-05-11 03:35:54 AM  
Republicans offer only 2 choices to America: No jobs or no benefits. Take your pick.
 
2014-05-11 03:54:48 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: Gyrfalcon: If this was some orchestrated false flag to create a situation where Obama could punish those who would mock the Prophet (or whatever the chimpmeister has cobbled together), they sure went the long way around and did it the hard way.

Why would he have do it "fraudulently", if he did do it fraudulently? He wouldn't have to do it that way, would he?  Have you seen the video? I haven't seen it myself. I imagine that everyone would say they were misled after the shiat hit the fan just to distance themselves from the controversy, but maybe they were misled. It just seems like if there was all this fraud and misleading that there is some mischief apart from doing a heartfelt critique of Islam going on. You probably have the same suspicions.


Goddamn, I want some of whatever you're smoking. You were the one who suggested it was a false flag, ape-man. And that it was redubbed after the fact is not in question--the guy who did the redubbing actually admitted the same.

What I DO suspect is that you've been hitting the pipe unusually hard today and it's begun affecting what few brain cells you have left.
 
2014-05-11 08:16:01 AM  

mark12A: Why, though, would the State Department care about an Iranian citizen? Sounds like Azimi was barking up the wrong tree. And you might be an idiot for suggesting that the State Department should treat citizens of another country living in a third country the exact same as they would treat a citizen.

Excuse me? Is this the same Fark that cries great big crocodile tears about poor illegal immigrant families getting split up by that mean old border patrol and sent back to Mexico to try again?

Azimi made it to the states, became a citizen, ending up working with me for the Navy. The very *least* we could have done was to help him save his brother from certain death.....


According to your story, Azimi's brother had already escaped from Iran, and was in Italy, where he could seek political asylum. Italy was not going to ship him back to Iran; he was safe.
 
2014-05-11 08:21:23 AM  
And while the endless prattle about Benghazi continues, House Republicans voted to increase the deficit, despite all their bloviating to the contrary.  AND THEY ARE PROUD OF IT!

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117670/eric-cantor-should-support -e xtension-unemployment-benefits
 
Displayed 50 of 375 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report