- This topic has 191 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 1 month ago by
svelte.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 17, 2012 at 7:15 PM #752738October 17, 2012 at 7:17 PM #752740
SK in CV
Participant[quote=Veritas]Obama lied- the Ambassador died.[/quote]
Please be specific, what was the lie, and what was the lie that caused the death?
October 17, 2012 at 7:28 PM #752742Veritas
ParticipantHe lied about it being terrorism and for 2 weeks talked about the faux video. RPG’s are not something spontaneous, especially on the anniversary of 9-11.
The Ambassador died because he had inadequate security. However, nothing I say about your religious leader matters because you have made up your mind and I know I am wasting my time discussing it with you, but you obviously like to fight. So check this out and you can respond later. “Video from the compound’s cameras debunk the initial line from the Obama administration that there was a protest in front of the consulate on the night of the attacks, according to one of the U.S. intelligence officials who has seen the footage, and a senior Obama administration official familiar with what they show.”
I have to walk the dog and then I will have a glass of something and chill out. You are raising my blood pressure with your incessant harping. I will see you tomorrow and we can resume where we left off. Have a pleasant night my liberal apologist.
October 17, 2012 at 7:40 PM #752743NotCranky
ParticipantGiven that it is not unrealistic to expect the president of the United States, republican or democrat, to be somewhat of a fraud, why is this particular point so important?
October 17, 2012 at 7:59 PM #752744Participant[quote=Veritas]He lied about it being terrorism and for 2 weeks talked about the faux video. RPG’s are not something spontaneous, especially on the anniversary of 9-11.
The Ambassador died because he had inadequate security. However, nothing I say about your religious leader matters because you have made up your mind and I know I am wasting my time discussing it with you, but you obviously like to fight. So check this out and you can respond later. “Video from the compound’s cameras debunk the initial line from the Obama administration that there was a protest in front of the consulate on the night of the attacks, according to one of the U.S. intelligence officials who has seen the footage, and a senior Obama administration official familiar with what they show.”
I have to walk the dog and then I will have a glass of something and chill out. You are raising my blood pressure with your incessant harping. I will see you tomorrow and we can resume where we left off. Have a pleasant night my liberal apologist.[/quote]
He referred to as an act of terrorism at least twice in the days immediately following the attack. (Sept 12 and 13.) There is no evidence readily available to indicate it was anything other than a spontaneous attack. RPG’s take moments to launch, almost no planning is necessary. Apparently there is a train of thought that the two are incompatible. Since there is no definition of “a terrorist attack”, I’m not sure how the two can be incompatible.
The Ambassador died, so inadequate security is pretty clear, but I’m not sure where the lie is there.
I haven’t seen any comments from the administration indicating that there were protests in front of the embassay. Only that the attack was a spontaneous response to the protests in Egypt. Nothing to the effect that there were protests outside the consulate in Benghazi. Obviously, those that were involved in the attack began on the outside.
Why would disputing innacuracies make me an apologist? They’re your innacuracies, not mine.
October 17, 2012 at 8:07 PM #752745Participant[quote=Blogstar]Given that it is not unrealistic to expect the president of the United States, republican or democrat, to be somewhat of a fraud, why is this particular point so important?[/quote]
Irrespective of whether there was any real fraud involved here, point taken. I have no idea why this is a big issue. It’s possible that politics is involved.
October 17, 2012 at 8:21 PM #752746scaredyclassic
Participantim wondering? what level of security is appropriatein an embassy? I mean, we’re supposed to have diplomatc relations with the place? if it takes a battalion of soldiers to guard an embassy, probably we shouldnt have the damn embassy?
can’t we just meet somewhere safer if we need to discuss something?
October 17, 2012 at 8:29 PM #752749Participant[quote=squat250]im wondering? what level of security is appropriatein an embassy? I mean, we’re supposed to have diplomatc relations with the place? if it takes a battalion of soldiers to guard an embassy, probably we shouldnt have the damn embassy?
can’t we just meet somewhere safer if we need to discuss something?[/quote]
It’s just semantics, but there was no attack on the embassy in Libya. The embassy is in Tripoli.
October 18, 2012 at 11:41 AM #752750ParticipantSK- Right you are, but you are turning into a buzzkill tonight.
By the way, I got it wrong. Here it is: the Ambassador died; Obama lied. (Until he got caught). Time to call in a drone strike.
October 18, 2012 at 12:24 PM #752786Participant[quote=Veritas]SK- Right you are, but you are turning into a buzzkill tonight.
By the way, I got it wrong. Here it is: the Ambassador died; Obama lied. (Until he got caught). Time to call in a drone strike.[/quote]
Ok. So what was the lie? If there was a lie, what was the damage caused by the lie?
October 18, 2012 at 12:51 PM #752788dumbrenter
Participant[quote=paulflorez]”No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.”
He referred to it as an act of terror. Your interpretation is clouded by your bias. The words are right there, or do you need some kind of certificate to prove he said those words?[/quote]
Yes, we need a certificate to prove that and that certificate better be in Kenyan.
October 18, 2012 at 1:06 PM #752789ParticipantI don’t know which is worse, his lying or his defenders lying for him.
“You cannot face what will happen, so you lie. You are afraid of the consequences for telling the truth, such as these:
* Your status may suffer
* You may be punished
* You will look stupid
* Someone will get angry
* You would have to admit you were wrong”.“Lies are told because one is afraid of the consequences* should one tell the truth.” — L. Ron Hubbard (*consequences = effects, results)
http://tipsforsuccessblog.blogspot.com/2009/06/tipsforsuccess-consequences-of-lying.html
Good to know the new talking points have made the rounds.
October 18, 2012 at 1:20 PM #752792Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=Veritas]SK- Right you are, but you are turning into a buzzkill tonight.
By the way, I got it wrong. Here it is: the Ambassador died; Obama lied. (Until he got caught). Time to call in a drone strike.[/quote]
Ok. So what was the lie? If there was a lie, what was the damage caused by the lie?[/quote]
I had thought about the order of the lying and the dieing. Good job clearing that up. Anyway as it is, isn’t it more or less part of the president’s job description to lie about issues of security? Why is this the right incident to demand perfect transparency? I don’t like Obama, but what I see is a bunch of people more concerned about trying to make him look bad in association with the ambassador’s death regardless of how flimsy any actual connection is to that. That’s more annoying than the supposed failures.
October 18, 2012 at 1:30 PM #752793Participant[quote=Veritas]I don’t know which is worse, his lying or his defenders lying for him.
“You cannot face what will happen, so you lie. You are afraid of the consequences for telling the truth, such as these:
* Your status may suffer
* You may be punished
* You will look stupid
* Someone will get angry
* You would have to admit you were wrong”.“Lies are told because one is afraid of the consequences* should one tell the truth.” — L. Ron Hubbard (*consequences = effects, results)
http://tipsforsuccessblog.blogspot.com/2009/06/tipsforsuccess-consequences-of-lying.html
Good to know the new talking points have made the rounds.[/quote]
Ok, I read the washington times link. Not a single lie even implied there. Though I do find it kind of funny that they quote the administration saying it was a terrorist attack, and then apparently criticize the administration for not admitting that it was a terrorist attack.
A related question. What is the difference between a terrorist attack and a non-terrorist attack? Is the difference the least bit important in this situation? Was the theater shooting in Aurora a terrorist attack? If it had been a crazy Arab doing the shooting, would it have been a terrorist attack?
October 18, 2012 at 2:03 PM #752800Participantdefinition of terrorist attack
a surprise attack involving the deliberate use of violence against civilians in the hope of attaining political or religious aims.
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwnLooks like Aurora does not work. SK you know what he said and why and when he said it. I really have too much respect for you to continue this discussion or parse words. You believe in who you want and what he said and so will I. You will not change my opinion and I am also wasting my time with you on this discussion. Let us hope for a better year next year and for the continued health of our families. I prefer to look ahead and not be dragged down.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.