It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Video; Obama, responsible for Benghazi, case closed.

page: 7
10
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2013 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by DistantRumor
 

Dear DistantRunner, I agree with parts of what you have said.

The film maker wasn't arrested by the Feds, he was arrested for a probation violation.
But the idea it had nothing to do with the film? Well, from your source:

It was no less than President Obama who blamed the Benghazi terror attack on an obscure video trailer posted on the Internet called “Innocence of Muslims.”

And it was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who promised the father of one of the Americans killed that she would see to it that the person who made the video was arrested and prosecuted.
And, really, ten officers in what was called a SWAT raid, in the middle of the night? A year in jail for probation violations? Doesn't this seem a bit unusual?

And honestly, Benghazi was always a non-issue...Republicans tried their best to make it an issue (as they are now), but informed voters saw through it.

The only ones they convinced (and are convincing now) is their own base...they are preaching to the choir.
You can say that if you want, but it is not correct. The story is out that Romney axed a hard-hitting Benghazi campaign ad. (People have been wondering if Republican candidates have been too soft in their attacks.) And, by checking the media, you'll see that it is not only the Republicans that are worried about this issue. Jonathan Karl on ABC, and Jake Tapper on CNN have been after it seriously.

Besides, the question of whether it's political or not is irrelevant. The question is "What is the truth?" If you're an American first, and a partisan second, you'll encourage those looking for the truth.

With respect,
Charles1952




posted on May, 10 2013 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Besides, the question of whether it's political or not is irrelevant. The question is "What is the truth?" If you're an American first, and a partisan second, you'll encourage those looking for the truth.


Very well put and I couldn't have said that better with paragraphs to do it in.




posted on May, 10 2013 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 



And, really, ten officers in what was called a SWAT raid, in the middle of the night? A year in jail for probation violations? Doesn't this seem a bit unusual?


First off, I don't know where you are getting your information about a "SWAT raid in the middle of the night", there are pictures of the arrest. 3-4 cops, no swat, no raid...just a regular arrest.



And no, I don't think a year in jail for breaking probation is unusual at all.



The question is "What is the truth?" If you're an American first, and a partisan second, you'll encourage those looking for the truth.


The real question is "what will qualify for the truth to you and other right wingers?"

This is Birther nonsense all over, you will never accept the truth, which by the way is already out there, because you already have your mind made up on what the "truth" is. So you won't accept the truth...you will just call it lies or more cover up...until you hear what you want to hear...you will still claim to be "seeking the truth".

Benghazi won't even be a footnote in the history books.



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by cholo
 


Holy spin Batman!

Maybe I am just plain stupid, and I hope that I am stupid and you can exploit my stupidity to everyone on ATS and hold me up as a Poster Boy for idiots.....

But can you PLEASE show me where in the second video you linked, as proof that Obama called this a terrorist attack, does Obama actually use the words, "terrorist attack"?

Fact: He never called it that. He called it an "attack". Not a "terrorist attack", simply an "attack".

Going to your first video, the whole exchange was debunked by fact checkers after the debate, who use the same point I make above. No where in your video does Obama use the word "terrorist" or "terror" or any variation of that word. So your whole premise is flat out false. I can go even further... if Obama considered this a terrorist attack from day 1... then why is Nakoula Basseley Nakoula in jail again? What is it that drew people to him? It couldn't be that Obama blamed his anti Muslim video on the protest that turned into a violent attack on the US Embassy could it? Are we all supposed to just forget how this Youtube video was the top story in all the media at that time? How it inflamed Muslims all across the Middle East resulting in mass protests and violence?



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrWendal
reply to post by cholo
 


Holy spin Batman!

Maybe I am just plain stupid, and I hope that I am stupid and you can exploit my stupidity to everyone on ATS and hold me up as a Poster Boy for idiots.....

But can you PLEASE show me where in the second video you linked, as proof that Obama called this a terrorist attack, does Obama actually use the words, "terrorist attack"?

Fact: He never called it that. He called it an "attack". Not a "terrorist attack", simply an "attack".

Going to your first video, the whole exchange was debunked by fact checkers after the debate, who use the same point I make above. No where in your video does Obama use the word "terrorist" or "terror" or any variation of that word. So your whole premise is flat out false. I can go even further... if Obama considered this a terrorist attack from day 1... then why is Nakoula Basseley Nakoula in jail again? What is it that drew people to him? It couldn't be that Obama blamed his anti Muslim video on the protest that turned into a violent attack on the US Embassy could it? Are we all supposed to just forget how this Youtube video was the top story in all the media at that time? How it inflamed Muslims all across the Middle East resulting in mass protests and violence?


Watch it again, he clearly calls it an "act of terror".

Now let's watch you play semantics with that.



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by DistantRumor
 

Dear DistantRumor,

In regards to your question about the number of officers. I saw three written reports agreeing on that number. I suspect you'd prefer this, realizing that you can't see all of the area.


Concerning the search for the truth. You must realize that more information is coming out daily from the administration. E-mails, testimony, and statements. If they are false, tell us who in the administration is lying. If they are true, then we know much more than we did a week ago, and why should we assume we have all the truth now? Why stop asking for more "truth?"

I don't understand your position. It sounds like your saying Obama & Co. have told us all the truth there is, now we should walk away and forget it. That doesn't sound like the attitude of an ATSer when confronted with possible government wrongdoing.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by DistantRumor
 

Dear DistantRumour,

If I may break in on your discussion with MrWendal over "semantics?" My take on it can be found a little erlier in this thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 03:17 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


there was no SWAT team raid as you suggested...it is plain to see those are just regular cops...don't even have guns drawn. Most are there to protect him from the media anyway.


What "new truth" is coming out? Republicans have gone through thousands and thousands of emails, documents, videos....and they got nothing...absolutely nothing.

They are still hung up on "oh...they said it was the protests at first". And I hope you can finally see how dumb that argument is...trying to argue over MOTIVE and that they didn't get it exactly right.

There is nothing here...there is no cover up...there is no treason...there is no dereliction of duty...there is no murder...there is NOTHING.

All there is are angry Republicans mad that Hillary is going to walk right into the Presidency in 2016....and this is their desperation.



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by DistantRumor
 

Dear DistantRumour,

If I may break in on your discussion with MrWendal over "semantics?" My take on it can be found a little erlier in this thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...

With respect,
Charles1952



I think your semantics show your desperation and really trying to reach to hold on to your per-determined opinion.

No amount of facts will convince you...you aren't looking for the truth...you are looking for your own opinion to be confirmed.



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 



Originally posted by MrWendal
No where in your video does Obama use the word "terrorist" or "terror" or any variation of that word.


Second video @ 57 seconds. Obama: "No "acts of terror" will ever shake the resolve of this great nation."



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



If he had said " no organized attacks of terrorism" or something along those lines then I might be able to agree with you but that is not what he said. Then we have the UN speach 2 weeks later still blaming the Youtube video. 2 weeks later. You mean to tell me 2 weeks later he was still in the dark about it being an organized terrorist attack?

Then we have this,

"Fox News and CNN both have both released stories earlier confirming that David Petraeus will state in no uncertain terms that both he and the CIA knew that the assault on the American consulate in Benghazi, immediately after it happened, was a terrorist attack linked to al-Qaeda, and not the random act of violence in response to a YouTube video that the Obama administration initially said it was. Not only does this contradict the numerous statements that President Obama made, but it also contradicts UN Ambassador Susan Rice, who was seen on many Sunday morning news programs on September 16thstating that it was in response to a YouTube video insulting Muslims."

www.policymic.com...

Pladuim

edit on 11-5-2013 by Pladuim because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-5-2013 by Pladuim because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Pladuim
 



Originally posted by Pladuim
If he had said " no organized attacks of terrorism" or something along those lines the I might be able to agree with you but that is not what he said.


So, you're actually arguing about semantics. Not content. This is a matter of pot-A-to or pot-AH-to. "act vs "attack" and "terror" vs "terrorism"... Sorry, can't get behind that critique. It's far too silly and shows that the opposition is just nit-picking and grasping at straws.



Then we have the UN speach 2 weeks later still blaming the Youtube video. 2 weeks later. You mean to tell me 2 weeks later he was still in the dark about it being an organized terrorist attack?


I don't know what he knew and I don't know his purposes and reasons in releasing to the public what he released. That's why I support an investigation. To find out what happened.



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


We could go back and forth all day I supose, but if he had intended in that speech to call Benghazi an organized act of terrorism he would have never blamed it on a youtube video. Why didn't he make it a point to address the attacks as a terrorist act in a press conference instead of blaming the Youtube video. I think your being just as silly by the way. The UN speech is very damaging, in front of the whole world he blamed the Youtube video for the attacks and now we know that wasn't the case.

Pladuim



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pladuim
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


We could go back and forth all day I supose, but if he had intended in that speech to call Benghazi an organized act of terrorism he would have never blamed it on a youtube video. Why didn't he make it a point to address the attacks as a terrorist act in a press conference instead of blaming the Youtube video. I think your being just as silly by the way. The UN speech is very damaging, in front of the whole world he blamed the Youtube video for the attacks and now we know that wasn't the case.

Pladuim




You are either incapable or unwilling to understand the difference between the event and the motive.

I have tried to explain it to you...BH is being very patient and trying her hardest...but you just can't grasp it.

An act of terror can be motivated by a video...that IS a possibility...I just don't get how you don't understand this.



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pladuim
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


We could go back and forth all day I supose, but if he had intended in that speech to call Benghazi an organized act of terrorism he would have never blamed it on a youtube video. Why didn't he make it a point to address the attacks as a terrorist act in a press conference instead of blaming the Youtube video. I think your being just as silly by the way. The UN speech is very damaging, in front of the whole world he blamed the Youtube video for the attacks and now we know that wasn't the case.

Pladuim



Here...here is the transcrip to the UN speech.

www.foxnews.com...

He is NOT soley talking about Benghazi...he is talking about ALL the protests and storming of embassies that happened across the Middle East.

Here is the EXACT text of what he said in the UN speech about the video.


And that is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, where a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. Now, I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well.
...
There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.



So please...please...please...educate yourself and stop letting others think for you.



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by DistantRumor
 


Yes, but the video had nothing to do with these attacks. Why can't you all understand THAT!

Pladuim



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pladuim
reply to post by DistantRumor
 


Yes, but the video had nothing to do with these attacks. Why can't you all understand THAT!

Pladuim


OMG...yes...everyone knows that now.

But you are suggesting that Obama and his administration denied it was a terrorist attack BECAUSE they said it was motivated by the video.

And that is just wrong...the motivation does not change the fact that they always called it an "act of terror".

This is basic and simple logic.



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 12:16 PM
link   

edit on 11-5-2013 by Pladuim because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 12:16 PM
link   

edit on 11-5-2013 by Pladuim because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 12:22 PM
link   
No, what I'm saying is that they purportedly mislead everyone, the entire world by blaming the attacks on the video. Question is, why did they do that? Was it for political reasons?

Pladuim



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join