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.
Originally posted by SwillsSwills, 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.
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)
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.
. If you are not familiar with those articles and or refuse to read the short snippets what can I do.... Originally posted by Taiyedexcuse you but you aren't exactly providing any source materials either
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.
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.
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...
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.
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]
Originally posted by hanyak69
reply to post by Taiyed
Looking at all of your Pro obama bin laden posts you sir are a troll.
