Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

White House Comes Clean: No Protest Outside Libya Consulate

page: 10
74
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Why the lies? Why the lies from the State Department, Susan Rice, the White House?

Did they think that they could cover for the terrorists?

I don't understand.

What I do know is that this is huge. A cover-up attempt by our government to avoid contreversy about an attack where 4 died.

Insane.


Did 4 die? Did anyone actually die?
Be careful what you believe.

America is being primed for revolution from within. The 'government' are
setting themselves up for a huge fall. (see 9/11 and all the only too obvious
incriminating evidence).




posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Destinyone
 


I'm surprised he hasn't blamed Bush or the GOP yet!



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by OutonaLimb
 


I guess those 4 funerals were all just for show too...you are ridiculous....


Des



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Destinyone
 


I'm surprised he hasn't blamed Bush or the GOP yet!


It's not over yet...I'm sure he'll get around to it....


Des



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutonaLimb

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Why the lies? Why the lies from the State Department, Susan Rice, the White House?

Did they think that they could cover for the terrorists?

I don't understand.

What I do know is that this is huge. A cover-up attempt by our government to avoid contreversy about an attack where 4 died.

Insane.


Did 4 die? Did anyone actually die?
Be careful what you believe.

America is being primed for revolution from within. The 'government' are
setting themselves up for a huge fall. (see 9/11 and all the only too obvious
incriminating evidence).


I stretch credibility every day. But what you're implying is byond tensile strength, in my humble opinion.




posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by MystikMushroom

I do not like Romney.

I do not like Obama.

I was raised in a predominatley Mormon community, but was raised Presbytarian. I am now a mixture of athiest/agnostic.

So, you grew up as one of the more opposite religions from the LDS faith.




Originally posted by MystikMushroom
I have studied and read The Book of Mormon as well as the Bible. I have had many talks with my former neighbors, class mates and LDS friends.

GoGoVicMorrow is 100% correct in his ascertation that Mormons are not Christians. He has even presented SOURCE material (quotes from the Book of Mormon/Pearl/Joe Smith himself).

Talks with LDS members would not lead you to that conclusion. It still sounds as if you are not understanding the basis.


Originally posted by MystikMushroom
I also agree that right-wing Xtian's are lying to themselves about Mormonism = Christianity.

Sure sure then.


Originally posted by MystikMushroom
It would be like comparing diet Coke to diet Mt. Dew. Both are "sodas" but are not both "colas".

Just as Episcopal is not Protestant.
Both are Soda, but not Colas.


Originally posted by MystikMushroom
A better comparison would be protestants (pepsi) to catholics (coke). Mormonism is like sprite or mt. dew. Yes, it's a religion that involves christ (sugar and bubbly water) -- but it is FUNDEMENTALLY different.

Again, just as all other Churches based on the following of Christ.


Originally posted by MystikMushroom
I base my opinions off of 29 years of being raised, working, going to school, reading their texts and discussing this issue with them ad naseum. If you combine that with the actual SOURCE MATERIAL already presented, GoGo's point is correct, verifyible, and defensible.

No, as it is second hand based.
Please, go get info from the LDS Church website. Instead of relying solely on the opinions of opposing churches.
edit on 10-10-2012 by macman because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by OneisOne
 


Nah...The biggest reason is that 0bama is a pacifist when it comes to foreign relations.
He would rather appease then show strength, especially towards the Muslim world.

Completely agree with you there. That is what some of his followers love about him. They would rather see him party down with JayZ, then hold a security briefing. Because as long as he is partying with JayZ, he fun & passive.

Look at him holding that peace prize in his right hand, but pay no attention to him signing off on drone attacks with his left.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   
I would just like to say...

If politicians are opening their mouths, they are lying.
Gee, the Libyans really don't like us do they? (scratches head)

And, I have a question. Where were all the other staff that didn't die that day? It seems only a handful of "ex" military and one consulate were there? Kind of thin isn't that? What about the cooks and limo drivers and house maids and sceretaries and all that? I just don't get the scenario we have been told.

I ask and I am here because I just saw a CNN bit that said they have released all these (new) details and there is talk of security cams that recorded all this as well.

Quote talking head:

"Footage clearly shows organized teams of men armed to the teeth clamber the wall and using "gerry" cans, set the place ablaze with diesel gasoline..."


The building didn't burn. It can't, it's a concrete fortress. Portions of it were gutted by fires and the "smoke from those fires overwhelmed the men in a back bathroom as they tried to call out for help and escape out a small _"



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by MystikMushroom
I base my opinions off of 29 years of being raised, working, going to school, reading their texts and discussing this issue with them ad naseum. If you combine that with the actual SOURCE MATERIAL already presented, GoGo's point is correct, verifyible, and defensible.

No, as it is second hand based.
Please, go get info from the LDS Church website. Instead of relying solely on the opinions of opposing churches.
edit on 10-10-2012 by macman because: (no reason given)


Wait, so actual quotes from their founder, and lines of text from their own book is not considered "source" material?

I'm sure if I went to a Catholic church and asked them about pedo priests I wouldn't get the "truth". I'm sure they have a nice pamphlet or some brochures on the controversey for me to puruse.

So, in your opinion, the only material that can and should be considered valid would be LDS's own public relation publications, not the actual passages from their "holy book".

This not only defys ignorance (and I've been on here a helluva lot longer than you and know what that axiom truly means), but it also defies logic. Yes, that thing that Mr. Spock always talks about from that televison show.

edit on 10-10-2012 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   
More lies comin' from this Admin....say it ain't so.

Meet the new boss (Hopefully soon, the old boss), which will be replaced the same boss.
edit on 10-10-2012 by TDawgRex because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by MystikMushroom
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


I do not like Romney.

I do not like Obama.

I was raised in a predominatley Mormon community, but was raised Presbytarian. I am now a mixture of athiest/agnostic.

I have studied and read The Book of Mormon as well as the Bible. I have had many talks with my former neighbors, class mates and LDS friends.

GoGoVicMorrow is 100% correct in his ascertation that Mormons are not Christians. He has even presented SOURCE material (quotes from the Book of Mormon/Pearl/Joe Smith himself).

I also agree that right-wing Xtian's are lying to themselves about Mormonism = Christianity.

It would be like comparing diet Coke to diet Mt. Dew. Both are "sodas" but are not both "colas".

A better comparison would be protestants (pepsi) to catholics (coke). Mormonism is like sprite or mt. dew. Yes, it's a religion that involves christ (sugar and bubbly water) -- but it is FUNDEMENTALLY different.

I base my opinions off of 29 years of being raised, working, going to school, reading their texts and discussing this issue with them ad naseum. If you combine that with the actual SOURCE MATERIAL already presented, GoGo's point is correct, verifyible, and defensible.


You carrying water for Gogo? Off Topic once again for the fifth time. Get with the topic in the OP or get out and start your own thread regarding your "personal" knowledge of Mormonism. Any thoughts on the topic and the hearings that are unfolding LIVE!!??



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by MystikMushroom

Wait, so actual quotes from their founder, and lines of text from their own book is not considered "source" material?

It is. Please provide from the LDS books whre they state God is not the one true God, Jesus is not the savior and that it is not based on the Christian Bible.


Originally posted by MystikMushroom
I'm sure if I went to a Catholic church and asked them about pedo priests I wouldn't get the "truth". I'm sure they have a nice pamphlet or some brochures on the controversey for me to puruse.

AS the Pedo thing is not based on the teaching of the Church, it is a person issue.
S, that really is a moot point. But, I understand where you are going.
Maybe, replace Pedo with Exorcism.


Originally posted by MystikMushroom
So, in your opinion, the only material that can and should be considered valid would be LDS's own public relation publications, not the actual passages from their "holy book".

Nope, try all sources. Not just the biased view of the Home Church.
Many of the beliefs of the LDS Church have been either misunderstood or misrepresented by opposing views.


Originally posted by MystikMushroom
This not only defys ignorance (and I've been on here a helluva lot longer than you and know what that axiom truly means), but it also defies logic. Yes, that thing that Mr. Spock always talks about from that televison show.

How very ATS of you to remind me that you have been here longer.
I guess, ike in life, those that have been around longer or hold positions of power are ALWAYS correct and should never be questioned.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by MystikMushroom
 


Yes, I believe that was explained that there had been a paring down of personnel there. Looks like there wasn't really much of a staff at the time.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   
What was the point of lying? So stupid.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by RealSpoke
What was the point of lying? So stupid.


Because it is 0bama's nature to lie.
And, the nature of Govt to lie as well.

Gotta protect us from everything and ourselves.
They have lied about everything else, why not lie about this?



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Unfortunately, White House officials can only release information as it was released to them. If they were told at the time that there was a protest, then they have to go with what they know to be true.

My biggest question is this - Mitt Romney is now claiming that he knew one of the Navy SEALS that was killed in this horrific attack.

Did he get an early heads up about the attack because of his connection to this person, then jump the gun ahead of the official statement?

He's done this before, told people things he shouldn't have (like meeting with head of MI6 in London) so he has a track record.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Unfortunately, White House officials can only release information as it was released to them. If they were told at the time that there was a protest, then they have to go with what they know to be true.

My biggest question is this - Mitt Romney is now claiming that he knew one of the Navy SEALS that was killed in this horrific attack.

Did he get an early heads up about the attack because of his connection to this person, then jump the gun ahead of the official statement?

He's done this before, told people things he shouldn't have (like meeting with head of MI6 in London) so he has a track record.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


It's actually human nature to lie, but that has nothing to do with the point behind this particular Libya lie.

edit on 10-10-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by babybunnies
Unfortunately, White House officials can only release information as it was released to them. If they were told at the time that there was a protest, then they have to go with what they know to be true.

You really believe that shovel full of BS?
Now that is either ignorant or gullible.


Originally posted by babybunnies
My biggest question is this - Mitt Romney is now claiming that he knew one of the Navy SEALS that was killed in this horrific attack.

He stated just recently that he met one of the SEALs at a party a little while ago, and was able to recognize the name and associate it with the one that was killed there during the attack.


Originally posted by babybunnies
Did he get an early heads up about the attack because of his connection to this person, then jump the gun ahead of the official statement?

No, because anyone with a brain could see it was not over a stupid movie.


Originally posted by babybunnies
He's done this before, told people things he shouldn't have (like meeting with head of MI6 in London) so he has a track record.

Again, just common sense to look at the situation and realize that the Govt is telling lies.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
I'd just like to point out that the WHITE HOUSE, isn't really the group that is in control or giving us the reports. It's either the CIA or the State Department.

The CIA is a collection of factions, some good, some bad.

This is like everything you THINK you now about that Underwear bomber incident was based on a lie. The bomber had a passport, the State Department TRIED TO STOP HIM getting on the plane, but the CIA said he was part of an "ongoing investigation" and basically that trumps the issue.

The White House got ZERO benefit out of this bombing. It was a black eye on the administration. So we have to actually drill down to who said what, when, and why.

The first thing you should assume about any event in the Middle East is that the first thing you are told is ALWAYS A LIE.





new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join