Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Other Side" data-source="post: 1136932" data-attributes="member: 17969">Again, your attempting to sound &quot;informed&quot; but in reality, you are not.&nbsp; What i gather from your post is that you are &quot;OUTRAGED&quot; over the &quot;explanation&quot; of events?&nbsp; Departments of the goverment told us that it was a video that caused the attack, and you prefer to hear the word &quot;TERROR ATTACK&quot; ??What you leave out of your equation, is the FACT that on that VERY DAY, other embassys came under attack because of this ridiculous RIGHT WING/Christian video slamming the prophet mohammed no matter how ridiculous the video was.&nbsp;&nbsp; It was easy to &quot;assume&quot; in the heat of the moment that the libyan temporary embassy was a victim of the same violence.&nbsp; You cannot possibly believe that you can have &quot;instant gratification&quot; of information on a fluid event in the middle of the night, do you?You are &quot;outraged&quot; over not hearing the word &quot;terror&quot;?&nbsp; as if you are not smart enough to figure that out for yourself?&nbsp;&nbsp; Who in their right minds would believe this was anything &quot;other&quot; than a terrorist attack?&nbsp; Is there a &quot;video attack&quot; description for things?Causation, is what needs to be found out.&nbsp; WHY did these terrorists attack the embassy?&nbsp; Were they trying to free prisoners secretly held in the CIA black site that the temporary embassy was a front for?&nbsp; Who knows?Here is the CAIRO US EMBASSY on that same day earlier in the day.&nbsp; Violence over this video spread to a dozen muslim countries on sept 11th because of the video, and yet, you think its &quot;implausable&quot; that the libyan embassy couldnt be confused with these other events?&nbsp; I ask you WHY you leave out this part of the story??Is it because you are not TOLD to consider these facts by your Sources of information?&nbsp; Is it because you have been directed away from these events as to make it appear as if the libyan embassy was the only embassy attacked that day??<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWAY-9F_uLU" target="_blank">Riot at US Embassy in Cairo Being Attacked by Muslim - YouTube</a>I posted a CLEAR LINK demonstrating to you how the republicans in the house CUT FUNDING for ALL EMBASSYS in the world.&nbsp; In my opinion, i would think they did this on PURPOSE, hoping for some event that would end up embarrassing the president just before an election.&nbsp; Well, IMO, they got their wish.&nbsp; It matters NOT what protection ambassador stevens asked for, the GOP cut the funds to provide him with such.You want to talk about budget cuts and sequestration, but you are confusing TWO separate issues alltogether.&nbsp;&nbsp; &quot;&quot;Democrats enacted $1.803 billion for embassy security, construction and&nbsp; maintenance for fiscal 2010, when they still controlled the Senate and House.&nbsp; After Republicans took control of the House and picked up six Senate seats,&nbsp; Congress reduced the enacted budget to $1.616 billion in fiscal 2011, and to&nbsp; $1.537 billion for 2012.&quot;&quot;Its clear, the budget was cut for security PRIOR to september 11th, and the temporary libyan embassy was NOT designed for protection as it was in a residential community.&nbsp; The libyan temp embassy was to be kept &quot;LOWKEY&quot; as to not bring attention to it and exposing the CIA black site contained nearby.Its clear to ALL americans that an &quot;act of terror&quot; caused the deaths of the personnel at the embassy, and no description, whether attributed to a video or al qaeda connection makes ANY difference at all.If you are suggesting , that you cannot determine an ACT OF TERROR, unless you are told to do so, then you should really not be involved in world events.&nbsp;&nbsp; TO the rest of the country, this issue of Bengazi is a NON ISSUE because &quot;we&#039; understand that events &quot;UNFOLD&quot; over time.Talking points, are just that.. TALKING POINTS.They are NOT FACTS, they are NOT DIFINITIVE, They are NOT CONCLUSIVE.They are merely the information known at the time and subject to CHANGE.&nbsp;&nbsp; Somehow, You and the others in the &quot;outraged&quot; crowd, want to hang your hats on &quot;TALKING POINTS&quot; while disregarding the fluidity of the event given the &quot;world&quot; events that day involving other embassy&#039;s.What you need to understand is that whatever the President was told on that morning (12am), the information was presumably going to be WRONG as all the witnesses to the event were dead or dying.&nbsp; If the president had come out and said this was an act committed by al qaeda, and it later proved to be WRONG, you would be saying the same thing today, only about al qaeda.Your &quot;outrage&quot; isnt real.&nbsp; You cant define in any terms what the president lied about, or the state department lied about.What you have is conjecture created by a political party and a news source whos only function is to confuse you on issues.I ask you, &quot;WHY IF at 12 other embassys on that day, riots were breaking out over the video, is it not unrealistic to connect the libyan attack to those attacks considering they occured on the same day?&quot;PeaceTOS</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Other Side, post: 1136932, member: 17969"] Again, your attempting to sound "informed" but in reality, you are not. What i gather from your post is that you are "OUTRAGED" over the "explanation" of events? Departments of the goverment told us that it was a video that caused the attack, and you prefer to hear the word "TERROR ATTACK" ?? What you leave out of your equation, is the FACT that on that VERY DAY, other embassys came under attack because of this ridiculous RIGHT WING/Christian video slamming the prophet mohammed no matter how ridiculous the video was. It was easy to "assume" in the heat of the moment that the libyan temporary embassy was a victim of the same violence. You cannot possibly believe that you can have "instant gratification" of information on a fluid event in the middle of the night, do you? You are "outraged" over not hearing the word "terror"? as if you are not smart enough to figure that out for yourself? Who in their right minds would believe this was anything "other" than a terrorist attack? Is there a "video attack" description for things? Causation, is what needs to be found out. WHY did these terrorists attack the embassy? Were they trying to free prisoners secretly held in the CIA black site that the temporary embassy was a front for? Who knows? Here is the CAIRO US EMBASSY on that same day earlier in the day. Violence over this video spread to a dozen muslim countries on sept 11th because of the video, and yet, you think its "implausable" that the libyan embassy couldnt be confused with these other events? I ask you WHY you leave out this part of the story?? Is it because you are not TOLD to consider these facts by your Sources of information? Is it because you have been directed away from these events as to make it appear as if the libyan embassy was the only embassy attacked that day?? [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWAY-9F_uLU]Riot at US Embassy in Cairo Being Attacked by Muslim - YouTube[/url] I posted a CLEAR LINK demonstrating to you how the republicans in the house CUT FUNDING for ALL EMBASSYS in the world. In my opinion, i would think they did this on PURPOSE, hoping for some event that would end up embarrassing the president just before an election. Well, IMO, they got their wish. It matters NOT what protection ambassador stevens asked for, the GOP cut the funds to provide him with such. You want to talk about budget cuts and sequestration, but you are confusing TWO separate issues alltogether. ""Democrats enacted $1.803 billion for embassy security, construction and maintenance for fiscal 2010, when they still controlled the Senate and House. After Republicans took control of the House and picked up six Senate seats, Congress reduced the enacted budget to $1.616 billion in fiscal 2011, and to $1.537 billion for 2012."" Its clear, the budget was cut for security PRIOR to september 11th, and the temporary libyan embassy was NOT designed for protection as it was in a residential community. The libyan temp embassy was to be kept "LOWKEY" as to not bring attention to it and exposing the CIA black site contained nearby. Its clear to ALL americans that an "act of terror" caused the deaths of the personnel at the embassy, and no description, whether attributed to a video or al qaeda connection makes ANY difference at all. If you are suggesting , that you cannot determine an ACT OF TERROR, unless you are told to do so, then you should really not be involved in world events. TO the rest of the country, this issue of Bengazi is a NON ISSUE because "we' understand that events "UNFOLD" over time. Talking points, are just that.. TALKING POINTS. They are NOT FACTS, they are NOT DIFINITIVE, They are NOT CONCLUSIVE. They are merely the information known at the time and subject to CHANGE. Somehow, You and the others in the "outraged" crowd, want to hang your hats on "TALKING POINTS" while disregarding the fluidity of the event given the "world" events that day involving other embassy's. What you need to understand is that whatever the President was told on that morning (12am), the information was presumably going to be WRONG as all the witnesses to the event were dead or dying. If the president had come out and said this was an act committed by al qaeda, and it later proved to be WRONG, you would be saying the same thing today, only about al qaeda. Your "outrage" isnt real. You cant define in any terms what the president lied about, or the state department lied about. What you have is conjecture created by a political party and a news source whos only function is to confuse you on issues. I ask you, "WHY IF at 12 other embassys on that day, riots were breaking out over the video, is it not unrealistic to connect the libyan attack to those attacks considering they occured on the same day?" Peace TOS [/QUOTE]

Verification