It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

BREAKING! Proof That Benghazi Was Preventable?

page: 3
140
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Ante, let's cut to the guts:




Where did they come up with it? If not indirectly through Sputnik or directly from a Russian propagandist — the live feed for #PodestaLeaks2 on Twitter?

Can you imagine if anyone who wasn't a clown and didn't have such a hardcore base of fact-phobic robots failing that hard? We're not talking about a single line. It wasn't a gaffe. It was a couple minutes of him spewing something that was utterly and completely false. He even tried to correct the author! Who he believed was Syndney Blumenthal. When he was done he tossed the paper in a sort of "mic drop."


I wouldn't deny for a second that Trump's source was the same one that published Eichenwald's story. But to me in doesn't make sense. If Russia is backing Trump, and Sputnik is a propaganda tool, why would they publish an unverfied story? And if Trump was in bed with Russia, why would he repeat an unverfied story?




So no, not conclusive (though suggestive) of Russian influence but the alternative really ain't much better is it?


Tying Trump to Russia through a spoof article is by no means proof of collusion, it's quite the opposite. If Trump had direct ties to Russia, he would have verified the story. If Russia was attempting to control Trump and passed them this article, they would have verified the story.

Ockham's razor - Trump has no ties to Russia and he took a Russian article at face value to his embarrassment.




posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Trump got played. Pretty foolish. Consequently, the Sputnik article was deleted.



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 11:32 PM
link   
a reply to: desert
Wow. So Trump was told weeks before the debates that Russia was directly involved in the recent hacks, yet he still chose to say he had no idea who was behind it during the debates. Wonder why?

ETA: That article deserves it's own thread.
edit on 10-10-2016 by underwerks because: (no reason given)


+5 more 
posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 11:33 PM
link   
a reply to: ghostrager



Ockham's razor - Trump has no ties to Russia and he took a Russian article at face value to his embarrassment.


Occams' razor says Trump is an unwitting stooge. Ok.
That would be my assessment. He has no concern with critical thought, no bother with vetting, just self aggrandizement.


I am stunned. Shocked, even.


edit on 10/10/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 11:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I just read it. It is as Eichenwald says it is.



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 11:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage




Occams' razor says Trump is an unwitting stooge. Ok.


No. It doesn't.

If it did you would have bared burden of proof on how Sputnik was a Russian propaganda tool - which you didnt.


+1 more 
posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 11:37 PM
link   
a reply to: ghostrager




No. It doesn't.

You just said it does.

Trump has no ties to Russia and he took a Russian article at face value to his embarrassment.

He's being played.



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 11:38 PM
link   
First, good fake click bait title.

Second.. how does this undermine the credibility of the claims (in many threads) that the Benghazi incident was preventable?

Phage, I know you don't support Trump and I understand why. I'm with you if you think that Hillary can run this show (better than Trump) in the same direction, but I'm sure you agree we need a different direction?

I'm not saying Trump is the right direction but it IS a different approach. How do you propose it would turn out after four years if Trump was elected as apposed to Hillary?


edit on 10/10/2016 by Alien Abduct because: To add, (better than trump)



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 11:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: ghostrager
a reply to: Phage




Occams' razor says Trump is an unwitting stooge. Ok.


No. It doesn't.

If it did you would have bared burden of proof on how Sputnik was a Russian propaganda tool - which you didnt.

"Sputnik (pronounced spʊtnɪk) is an online news and radio broadcast service established by the Russian government-controlled news agency Rossiya Segodnya."
en.m.wikipedia.org...(news_agency)



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 11:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Alien Abduct




How do you propose it would turn out after four years if Trump was elected as apposed to Hillary?

My crystal ball broke.
But I've learned from experience that no President has been shown to be either disaster or savior. Trump claims to the latter. That, and he being who he is, invokes dread.

edit on 10/10/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 11:43 PM
link   
I'll just quote Robert De Niro,guess he nailed it


"I mean, he’s so blatantly stupid. He’s a punk. He’s a dog. He’s a pig. he’s a con, a bulls—t artist, a mutt who doesn’t know what he’s talking about, doesn’t do his homework, doesn’t care, thinks he’s gaming society, doesn’t pay his taxes. He’s an idiot.

Colin Powell said it best: He’s a national disaster. He’s an embarrassment to this country. It makes me so angry that this country had gotten to the point that this fool, this bozo, has wound up where he has."

edit on 10-10-2016 by ErrorErrorError because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 11:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage




You just said it does.


Your argument is disingenuous.



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 11:43 PM
link   
a reply to: ghostrager


What makes you think that Sputnik speaks for Russia?


It's a little confusing and incestuous. Rossiya Segodnya translates to "Russia Today" and is a state-owned Russian language news agency. The English language TV channel RT (stands for 'Russia Today') was according to the Kremlin (and RT), not directly connected to Rossiya Segodnya.

However, a woman named Margarita Simonyan is editor-in-chief of both.

Sputnik is part of Rossiya Segodnya and was launched back in 2014. It consists of the website and a radio station which is the successor to (ironically enough given your question), Voice of Russia.

I was reading an interview with Margarita Simonyan somewhere and she was going on about how she has complete editorial discretion but then admitted that she does in fact have a red yellow phone on her desk with no dial pad. A red yellow phone that connects to the Kremlin.

EDIT:

Here's one that mentions the yellow phone.

Time - Insid


Simonyan, now 34, bristles at suggestions that her media empire is not editorially independent. Is it possible, for instance, that someone from the Kremlin might call her up and demand that she not broadcast a particular story? “How can you imagine such a thing?” she asks, looking genuinely hurt.

And yet on her desk sits an old yellow telephone, a government landline, the sort with no dial pad, the sort usually seen in the offices of senior Russian officials. It is her secure connection, she admits, directly to the Kremlin. What’s it for, then, if not to talk shop? “The phone exists,” she says, “to discuss secret things.”

edit on 2016-10-10 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 11:44 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

From your own posted Trump transcript of what Trump says....




So Blumenthal writes a quote.



Trump acknowledges Blumenthal wrote a quote.

Context.

This came from the source leak material, the same source the Sputnik got it from, the leak released....duh.

If Sputnik can pour over the publicly released hacks, why cannot the Trump team and everyone else interested do the same?

This belongs in the HOAX bin. The OP states Trump attributed the quote to Blumenthal when Trump's own words state clearly that Blumenthal wrote a quote.



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 11:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ghostrager

You sort of miss the point. It doesn't really matter who Russia said the source is. They "leaked" it.

The point is that Trump ate it up. No extreme extreme extreme vetting. No vetting.

Ok, he's not a knowing Russian pawn. He's a Russian stooge. Much better. Much. Beautiful.


How does that benefit the Russians with egg on Trumps face? He's a stooge though, but for the democrats. Who would this benefit? The democrats.



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 11:46 PM
link   
For some reason, I feel his supporters don't even have the intelligence to even comprehend this revelation.

Wave the yellow foam fingers...go Trump!

If this was the October surprise, it's much more damaging than pussygate.
edit on 10-10-2016 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 11:47 PM
link   
a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall
Good point.

I guess. Maybe they thought Trump was a little smarter than he is.



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 11:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

or the OP is a non-sequitur.



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 11:49 PM
link   
a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall
Which part?



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 11:51 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian




I was reading an interview with Margarita Simonyan somewhere and she was going on about how she has complete editorial discretion but then admitted that she does in fact have a red phone on her desk with no dial pad. A red phone that connects to the Kremlin.


If RT is connected to Sputnik by having the same editor in chief, that's one of th bigger links. Especially if you can back up the claim of a 'red phone with no dial pad that connects to the Kremlin' and the news source is verifiable.

I'm not doubting that you didn't read that, but it seems very James Bondish.

Edit to reflect updated post:

The Time article is nice, but it still seems like a long shot to suggest that one article (Time) that verifies that since Simonyan has an alleged 'phone with no dial to the Kremlin' and is editor in chief to RT and Sputnik that she some how made the mistake to publish an unverfied story and leaked it to Trump to manipulate the elections for Putin. And yet, was happy to give 'Time' an exposé on how her publications work.

That's a lot of if's. Doesn't it make more sense that Trump just mistook a Sputnik article as fact?
edit on 11-10-2016 by ghostrager because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
140
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join