Proof that all the outrage about Benghazi is fake and manufactured

page: 3
24
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 9 2013 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by redtic
 


I appreciate your concern for my level of research...such that it is. When we can talk on equal levels of background knowledge, I'll enjoy continuing the debate. However, I can't even make sense of what points you're trying to make, when you are trying to make one ...as evidenced earlier in the thread. You didn't clarify that the murder wasn't your point until the follow-up with photos showing, in some detail, how he was killed. Then it's a 180 for how you 'define' your focus at that stage. Well.... That's a bit hard to continue debating with.

The lengths people are going to whitewash this makes previous scandals look petty in some comparisons. The more people carry the water for the cover-up of the events of that night, the more determined people like I become to dig deeper and find whatever this is all about.

After all, proof and certain knowledge is what these hearings and investigation is all about. That effort to find it, is what is being downplayed and ridiculed.

If there is nothing to find and only confirmation of the official statements to have in the end? Why be bothered by the effort to do it? In a real way, it will actually be supporting and confirming those things already in the public record.....not uncovering what has yet to come out. Aren't we all for truth and full disclosure, wherever that may lead? ....or is that conditional to context and people involved?




posted on May, 9 2013 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
It was a systematic failure on the part of many within this administration. They should be ashamed of their poor performance and some in this thread should be ashamed about carrying their water. Who ever dropped the ball should be held accountable.


Of course - if the administration was negligent in the manner in which they handled the attack, they *should* be ashamed and *should* be held accountable. And I hope they get to a determining point where they can say whether they were negligent or not. At this point, there is no evidence to show that they were. But, of course, if an unbiased body comes out and determines they weren't, it must be a cover-up, right?



Most people are honest enough to admit that this situation could have been handled MUCH better and the bold lies they peddled are almost as disgusting as the lack of leadership they showed.


They obviously could have handled things better - ideally, the attack wouldn't have happened and no one would have been murdered. But the reality is that these sorts of things do happen -- a lot -- unfortunately. 9/11 shouldn't have happened. Boston shouldn't have happened. So this is just more rhetoric to promote the false idea that we have some sort of bumbling idiot in the white house, which we don't. As the OP suggests - more fake outrage.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 10:43 AM
link   
I would have been much more impressed if the State Department had done their own research and put for a plan to prevent this sort of thing in the future.

Clearly there was a failure at high levels in the state department. Will anyone be fired? Will anyone be reassigned? Will this happen again? How will the state department handle the next situation?

My opinion is they need professional personnel who can make decisions in a timely manor. If political appointees override the professional staff and fail, they should be fired.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by camaro68ss

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by jjkenobi
Typical liberal logic. None of those reported incidents could have been prevented if the administration at the time had ordered military intervention. A car bomb explodes - the event is over. It wasn't like Al-Qada was actively storming and attacking the embassy, which is EXACTLY what was happening when Obama went back to sleep and Hillary ordered a stand down TWICE in Benghazi.


are you rush Limbaugh or sean Hannity?


Neither, sounds like a logical American thinking for himself and not being spoon feed propaganda.

whats your thoughts jimmyx? do you think Obama and Hillary did everything in there power to try and save these people? Or are you thinking "why does it matter"?
edit on 9-5-2013 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)


why would they not? what would be their motive? as much vile hatred for both Obama and Hilary and right before an election, they allowed this to happen?.....how is this logic?



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by redtic
 


For the record on this? I'd like to clarify something because it matters a lot here.

I've never believed Obama is at direct fault here. Nor do I want it to focus on HIM, personally and as an individual. The real, hard evidence of cables, memos and communications between the Consulate in Benghazi, Embassy in Tripoli and State Department in Washington show without question, this failure built over the course of months. The decisions came from the top of the chain within the State Department and other agencies which need to answer for that.

Focusing on Obama will turn what NEEDS to be a serious and sober investigation, into a 3 ring circus where nothing gets done and in the end, no one is to blame.

If evidence leads to him, so be it. However, that should never be the initial goal ...as evidence, which DOES exist in the public record, shows that isn't where the systemic failures over time happened or started.

So... To suggest this is about the persecution of a President is simply uninformed, to use a gentle word on the matter.

edit on 9-5-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I appreciate your concern for my level of research...such that it is. When we can talk on equal levels of background knowledge, I'll enjoy continuing the debate. However, I can't even make sense of what points you're trying to make, when you are trying to make one ...as evidenced earlier in the thread. You didn't clarify that the murder wasn't your point until the follow-up with photos showing, in some detail, how he was killed. Then it's a 180 for how you 'define' your focus at that stage. Well.... That's a bit hard to continue debating with.


I apologize for so easily losing you. You had stated:

"A U.S. Ambassador was murdered and a United States Consulate was over-run and totally destroyed, while our leaders watched it happen, as we now know, on video by drones overhead."

to which I replied:

"We do? How exactly do we *know* that?"

I had assumed highlighting the word "know", in reference to your "as we now know", would infer my reference, but that obviously did not work. Apologies.

But I suppose we digress..



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by redtic
 



Of course - if the administration was negligent in the manner in which they handled the attack, they *should* be ashamed and *should* be held accountable.

Good!





And I hope they get to a determining point where they can say whether they were negligent or not. At this point, there is no evidence to show that they were.

That’s absolutely not true. They knew there was a threat, they were told there was a threat, the failed to pull the Ambassador or provide more security, they told first responders to stand down, they lied about their knowledge of the events in an attempt to cover it up, etc. What more do you want??

If it smells bad – don’t eat it!




So this is just more rhetoric to promote the false idea that we have some sort of bumbling idiot in the white house, which we don't. As the OP suggests - more fake outrage.


That’s questionable.




posted on May, 9 2013 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by 48e18

Well, because no one cared about the 11 embassy attacks, 90+ injured, and 50+ killed in other embassy attacks between 2002-2008.


Please substantiate your supposition that 'no one cared'.

Thank you.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by camaro68ss

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by jjkenobi
Typical liberal logic. None of those reported incidents could have been prevented if the administration at the time had ordered military intervention. A car bomb explodes - the event is over. It wasn't like Al-Qada was actively storming and attacking the embassy, which is EXACTLY what was happening when Obama went back to sleep and Hillary ordered a stand down TWICE in Benghazi.


are you rush Limbaugh or sean Hannity?


Neither, sounds like a logical American thinking for himself and not being spoon feed propaganda.

whats your thoughts jimmyx? do you think Obama and Hillary did everything in there power to try and save these people? Or are you thinking "why does it matter"?
edit on 9-5-2013 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)


why would they not? what would be their motive? as much vile hatred for both Obama and Hilary and right before an election, they allowed this to happen?.....how is this logic?


I dont know, Thats why there is a hearing. Its said that hilary called for a stand down on reinforcments. How is this logical? dont know?
edit on 9-5-2013 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wildbob77
I would have been much more impressed if the State Department had done their own research and put for a plan to prevent this sort of thing in the future.

Clearly there was a failure at high levels in the state department. Will anyone be fired? Will anyone be reassigned? Will this happen again? How will the state department handle the next situation?

My opinion is they need professional personnel who can make decisions in a timely manor. If political appointees override the professional staff and fail, they should be fired.


they did, it cost money, republicans cut the money when Hilary was sec. of state...pretty simple to me. the republicans want this country to fail and they don't care who gets hurt, so long as they can somehow show the democrats are to blame.....again, pretty simple to me, due to what they have done already.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wildbob77
I would have been much more impressed if the State Department had done their own research and put for a plan to prevent this sort of thing in the future.

Clearly there was a failure at high levels in the state department. Will anyone be fired? Will anyone be reassigned? Will this happen again? How will the state department handle the next situation?

My opinion is they need professional personnel who can make decisions in a timely manor. If political appointees override the professional staff and fail, they should be fired.


they did, it cost money, republicans cut the money when Hilary was sec. of state...pretty simple to me. the republicans want this country to fail and they don't care who gets hurt, so long as they can somehow show the democrats are to blame.....again, pretty simple to me, due to what they have done already.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 11:01 AM
link   
An American was killed, and drug through the streets. From what I understand they did horrible things to him. I don't need to "manufacture" any outrage, I simply feel it, and I don't need Rush or any other yahoo to tell me to feel it.

I was outraged and saddened the minute I heard about it, before any commentary was made. I am saddened that you Don't feel any outrage, after all he is a human being.

By the way, you showed no proof of "manufactured" outrage in your op, not one bit of "proof".



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by artnut
An American was killed, and drug through the streets. From what I understand they did horrible things to him. I don't need to "manufacture" any outrage, I simply feel it, and I don't need Rush or any other yahoo to tell me to feel it.

I was outraged and saddened the minute I heard about it, before any commentary was made. I am saddened that you Don't feel any outrage, after all he is a human being.

By the way, you showed no proof of "manufactured" outrage in your op, not one bit of "proof".

You're the first one I've seen mention that in awhile ...what some reports say was done with the body. Yeah... I'll leave off the details I've also read in reports that wouldn't include anything in MSM to define that word. I don't know if they're accurate or bad intelligence to the fog of war and uncertainty of the days following the event. If they're true though, that too will have to come out and be examined at some point.

Honestly though...if there is merit to those reports, I sincerely hope they come out as some of the last things to be looked at, and only as the proof of much more beforehand is established. In respect for his memory and his Family, I personally hope we don't go much further into that line of things ATM. Of course, that's just my humble opinion.
edit on 9-5-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by 48e18
 


What makes you assume there isn't outrage to the others? Where does that come from to say and how does it have *ANY* bearing on what happened that night in Libya? (Or the months leading up to it)

If outrage is lacking in other areas it should be, it doesn't make the events in Benghazi any less horrific or flat wrong. At best, it makes the investigation of the other incidents less than they should have been, if that can be fairly said.

That's an incredible leap to make for justifying why the events relating to the destruction of the Benghazi Consulate should be a non-issue.


I don't know, I think I would have noticed the news cycle being filled with cries of treason and cover up over a small consulate attack. The fact is that there wasn't any and all of you know it. That is why there is such a reaction from you guys who are currently so outraged over this...you know it's manufactured...but it's hard to admit that you have been played by the talking heads to be outraged by something that isn't exactly an uncommon event.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by 48e18
 


Umm.. Okay, so I don't get suckered by a "Oh..I didn't mean THAT...I really meant THIS..." a second time in one thread, let me ask for some clarification here.

When did you not see coverage, where you think you would have expected to? Are you suggesting the news cycle wasn't wall to wall coverage on this following Sept 11, 2012? Or is it another period of time you're referring to?

Really...it's a big deal if you're referring to the days and weeks following this, and suggesting it was some minor blip on the radar of news?



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by camaro68ss
I dont know, Thats why there is a hearing. Its said that hilary called for a stand down on reinforcments. How is this logical? dont know?
edit on 9-5-2013 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)


She could call for a stand down all she wants, but it's an illegal order. She's not in the chain of command, so there is no reason for anyone to obey any order she gives (if you want to get technical the President can't give orders either, as he is not technically in the chain of command). The State Department doesn't command the US military, it would have had to come from somewhere higher in the administration for it to be a legal order.

Although the Air Force said they wouldn't have arrived in time no matter what they did. The strike aircraft in Italy didn't have access to tankers to get to Libya, and the reaction force would have had to ride a Libyan C-130 to the area, that didn't arrive until after the end of the attack.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Heya Zaphod.... I respect your opinion and experience in military matters, so I have a couple questions that are directly to that.

1st... Weren't the witnesses yesterday referring to a quick reaction force out of the Tripoli Embassy, roughly 200 air miles away (If I recall the mileage charts I made up awhile back on this)? I understand the Embassies in both Triploi and Cairo had their own issues and attention was getting split all over the place...yet still?

Second.. In terms of Obama for whatever role may have had him directly involved, doesn't he come in as the ultimate end of the Chain of Command? I had thought, as official Command and Chief, as part of his actual job and duties, that carried with it the ultimate override authority on anything military related? I know they rarely choose to use such direct action from the White House and it's a long way from proving that happened here, either way, granted.

However, that being said, isn't that among his ultimate powers as President? I honestly don't know from the real world stance of being in Uniform to have the 'pointy end' perspective of what is and is not a fact of chains of command with how it actually works?



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by 48e18
 



I don't know, I think I would have noticed the news cycle being filled with cries of treason and cover up over a small consulate attack. The fact is that there wasn't any and all of you know it. That is why there is such a reaction from you guys who are currently so outraged over this...you know it's manufactured...but it's hard to admit that you have been played by the talking heads to be outraged by something that isn't exactly an uncommon event.



So are the families whom lost loved ones in this and "WANT ANSWERS" showing a "manufactured outrage"?

Are the F.E.S.K. team who was told to stand down and allow their fellow citizens to be slaughtered by some "unknown" force, showing a "manufactured outrage"?

WOW! Your handlers really need to real you in!

If that isn't the case, you Progs have really stooped to a new low in trying to make light of people being murdered just to protect your savior.........

Step outside your false political paradigm for a few moments and think about what you are saying!!!!

What kind of government are we accepting in this country, if when they are caught doing something wrong, the never ending excuse will ALWAYS BE, "This is a manufactured outrage, base on politics!"????

We might as well hang it up as a country, if we take an immoral stance on a tragedy such as this and make it into a political stunt! By acting as you are, we are doing nothing more than giving BOTH parties the license to kill at will, because it will ALWAYS just turn out to be "manufactured outrage"!

BRAVO!!! You have proven the teachings of Edward Bernays!!



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by 48e18
 


What a disgusting and disrespectful thread. Are you serious? The US Ambassador died along with several other brave Americans in a deliberate act of terrorism and all you can say is this is a distraction by Republicans?? Shameful.



I've never understood the cries of cover up, because no one ever says what they suspect they are covering up.


Of course there was a cover up! They knew security was lax, they knew there was a credible threat on the anniversary of 9/11, they failed to respond with backup by lying about what they knew and when they knew it, and they deliberately blamed the incident on a video when they knew DAMN WELL it had nothing to do with video.

This is ridiculous!



What is disgusting is that people's outrage seems to be determined by what party is in office. Or what is your excuse for your absence of outrage for the other embassy attacks?

The truth hurts, that is why you are angry right now...you know that your emotions are being fed to you by talking heads and now that you realize that there have been many attacks and many deaths due to those attacks, you are confused. This is supposed to be a horrible unprecedented situation...when in fact it is not and there have been many more attacks under Bush than there has been under Obama.


And where is all this proof that we had specific information on a credible threat? Why is it that you only hear about this on the internet and from the talking heads, but there is no official documentation of it?

The fact is that this outrage over this is all manufactured by the right wing media, they preyed on the naïve and the easily fooled, and they played off of the hatred that many people have for Obama. They know that people like this will believe just about anything if it is another reason to funnel their hatred.

I'm sorry your angry, but you should be angry at those that played with your emotions and fooled you into being outraged over something that has happened many times and at larger scales.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by 48e18
 


More 0bama butt kissing. It really is getting old.

0bama, Hillary and many others lied about it and tried to cover things up.
There was outrage for the other instances as well. You seem to just ignore that.



new topics
 
24
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join