Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

U.S. says CIA responded within 25 minutes to Benghazi attack (NO Stand Down!)

page: 13
20
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


And what exactly don't you agree with and or source are you challenging? I've posted sources so feel free to disagree with their info but as I've said no matter what source we get our information by the story is still forever changing.
edit on 4-11-2012 by Swills because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by Vitruvian
 


Your devotion to FOX is outright creepy. I have never seen anyone literally sing praise to a network before. You should look into getting paid for it.

On topic... the poster above you already linked that FOX article.


Exactly. Fox News has proven itself to be full of crap and should no be trusted at all. Everything they put out as "news" needs to be examined & dissected. But we all know this so I proposed that poster is none other than...




posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by GrantedBail
 


More Damage Control for Obama from two Notoriously Liberal Rags.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swills
Exactly. Fox News has proven itself to be full of crap and should no be trusted at all. Everything they put out as "news" needs to be examined & dissected. But we all know this so I proposed that poster is none other than...


It begs the question, do you feel the same about CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NYTimes, LATimes, Politico, etc, etc? Because they all make news and hardly just report it. What say you? Shall we realize that all media is self-serving and it all needs to be held to a critical eye? Or just Fox because of hatred?



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by Swills
Exactly. Fox News has proven itself to be full of crap and should no be trusted at all. Everything they put out as "news" needs to be examined & dissected. But we all know this so I proposed that poster is none other than...


It begs the question, do you feel the same about CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NYTimes, LATimes, Politico, etc, etc? Because they all make news and hardly just report it. What say you? Shall we realize that all media is self-serving and it all needs to be held to a critical eye? Or just Fox because of hatred?


Absolutely I do. All news outlets, world wide, should be taken with a grain of salt. How many times have they gotten it wrong, whether by design or not?



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swills
reply to post by Honor93
 


And what exactly don't you agree with and or source are you challenging? I've posted sources so feel free to disagree with their info but as I've said no matter what source we get our information by the story is still forever changing.
edit on 4-11-2012 by Swills because: (no reason given)
Swills, i posted several examples in a previous post, if you are too lazy to review and substantiate them, at this point, i could care less ... more of the story has been released to a point that nullifies a majority of your previous assumptions anyway.

you didn't provide any source in this entire thread.
you did provide one link to another ATS thread, however, you have yet to indicate any particular source for your nonsense. (from that thread or any other source)

since you'd prefer we don't communicate (as indicated by your PMs), please, find someone else to engage ... old news isn't getting us anywhere, anyway.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


This entire thread, including your "arguments", is a text book example of Circular Logic.

Someone makes a claim with no proof, others ask for proof, you point back to your original argument as your proof.

Someone should copy/paste this entire thread and put it in a logic textbook as an example of Circular Logic.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by zonetripper2065
reply to post by purplemer
 


You would feel the same way if your government abandoned some of your people for dead.


Government abandoned you years ago.. You now in the hands of corporations and banks..



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 



My assumptions? Are you kidding me? And the link I posted was an ATS link, yes, to another post of mine where I list numerous sources, and most of them used to make my assumptions
. If you are not familiar with those articles and or refuse to read the short snippets what can I do....

And like I said OVER and OVER again, ever since this attack was made public the story has been ever changing MEANING old information can and will be outdated so please forgive me if some of my assumptions don't match up to any newer information you have come across...

And yes, since you've started PMing me, or as I like to call it, harassment, I would love it if you put me on your mental ignore list and stop contacting me and I really should just ignore your posts in this thread because going circles with you over NOTHING is a complete waste of time but I can't help it when you post non sense like that. ATS really should incorporate an ignore feature.
edit on 4-11-2012 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taiyed
reply to post by Honor93
 


This entire thread, including your "arguments", is a text book example of Circular Logic.

Someone makes a claim with no proof, others ask for proof, you point back to your original argument as your proof.

Someone should copy/paste this entire thread and put it in a logic textbook as an example of Circular Logic.
excuse you but you aren't exactly providing any source materials either

can't/won't contribute, why harrass those who do ?



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 09:44 AM
link   
What President Obama really said in that '60 Minutes' interview about Benghazi

Read more: politics.blogs.foxnews.com...

ANALYSIS: Two days before the election, CBS posted additional portions of a Sept. 12 "60 Minutes" interview where President Obama seems to contradict himself on the Benghazi attack. As the Benghazi investigation gets more attention and focus, CBS is once again adding to the Benghazi timeline.





posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


Wow... everyone needs to read this. I am going to quote the part of the article that will make you click the link.




These are two crucial answers in the big picture. Right after getting out of the Rose Garden, where, according to the second debate and other accounts he definitively called the attack terrorism, Obama is asked point blank about not calling it terrorism. He blinks and does not push back. Understand that this interview is just hours after he gets out of the Rose Garden. How after this exchange and the CIA explanation of what was being put up the chain in the intel channels does the Ambassador to the United Nations go on the Sunday shows and say what she says about a spontaneous demonstration sparked by that anti-Islam video? And how does the president deliver a speech to the United Nations 13 days later where he references that anti-Islam video six times when referring to the attack in Benghazi?

There are many questions, and here are a few more. Why did CBS release a clip that appeared to back up Obama's claim in the second debate on Oct. 19, a few days before the foreign policy debate, and not release the rest of that interview at the beginning?

Why on the Sunday before the election, almost six weeks after the attack, at 6 p.m. does an obscure online timeline posted on CBS.com contain the additional "60 Minutes" interview material from Sept. 12?

Why wasn't it news after the president said what he said in the second debate, knowing what they had in that "60 Minutes" tape -- why didn't they use it then? And why is it taking Fox News to spur other media organizations to take the Benghazi story seriously?

Whatever your politics, there are a lot of loose ends here, a lot of unanswered questions and a lot of strange political maneuvers that don't add up. That's what reporters should live for, but this time they're not. We will.

Read more: politics.blogs.foxnews.com...


Why indeed?



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


Ok instead of discussion your going to be a smart ass and totally avoid the topic. that's fine I'll go be the stupid American elsewhere and leave you to it.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Taiyed
 


Looking at all of your Pro obama bin laden posts you sir are a troll.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Taiyed
 


And you walk among us????
that is scary



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 11:08 PM
link   
This lady takes the BS out of the Benghazi story. I only wish the ones she addresses would listen, would care.




posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by GrantedBail
reply to post by shaneslaughta
 


American soil? What are you talking about?


Any American embassy or consulate in any country is considered American soil by International law.


I am sorry but this is a very common misconception people have mostly due to media like movies however it is not true.


Contrary to popular belief, diplomatic missions do not enjoy full extraterritorial status and are not sovereign territory of the represented state.[5][6] Rather, the premises of diplomatic missions remain under the jurisdiction of the host state while being afforded special privileges (such as immunity from most local laws) by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Diplomats themselves still retain full diplomatic immunity, and (as an adherent to the Vienna Convention) the host country may not enter the premises of the mission without permission of the represented country. The term "extraterritoriality" is often applied to diplomatic missions, but only in this broader sense.

As the host country may not enter the representing country's embassy without permission, embassies are sometimes used by refugees escaping from either the host country or a third country. For example, North Korean nationals, who would be arrested and deported from China upon discovery, have sought sanctuary at various third-country embassies in China. Once inside the embassy, diplomatic channels can be used to solve the issue and send the refugees to another country. See List of people who took refuge in a diplomatic mission for a list of some notable cases.



The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 is an international treaty that defines a framework for diplomatic relations between independent countries. It specifies the privileges of a diplomatic mission that enable diplomats to perform their function without fear of coercion or harassment by the host country. This forms the legal basis for diplomatic immunity. Its articles are considered a cornerstone of modern international relations. It has been ratified by 187 countries. The 1961 UN Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations marked its 50th anniversary in April 2011. [1]


source



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by hanyak69
reply to post by Taiyed
 


Looking at all of your Pro obama bin laden posts you sir are a troll.


I am no fan of President Obama...but you just defined "pot calls the kettle black" with this tidbit. Heck, I even go toe-to-toe in the electronic form with Taiyed but this....is just classic. I love my country......






top topics



 
20
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join