posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:43 PM
I find myself very leery about this entire affair.
Is there any speculation about what motive would be behind hesitation to acknowledge this was an organized attack?
Is there any information about the peculiar security lapses (if that's what they were?)
What is the point of the whole 'media-government' collaboration? We can usually expect that most media which is subordinate to huge mult-national
corporations, or cartels and conglomerates would be pliable to political expedience identified by their favorite political celebrities... we can
expect that governments can to a certain extent, 'strong-arm' some media to acquiesce to their decrees about information and how or when it is
But I still can't understand why? Who benefits from the misinformation, lies, propaganda, etcetera?
Why did we apparently get a message that this was about some cheesy anti-Islam production by 'expendable' personalities? Why were we apparently led
to presume this political appointee (made ambassador posthumously) was doing some kind of "diplomatic" function - when indicators now show that may
not be true?
Why would the Columbia Broadcasting Service risk the fallout (assuming there will be any meaningful fallout)?
And can we at least agree now, without hesitation, that commercial media is not a repository for journalism anymore?
edit on 5-11-2012 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)