What REALLY happened in Benghazi

[DMC]

The event itself isn't important to most Americans, there are some in the SOC community who would take issue with claiming it doesn't affect the lives of Americans when their comrades are dead. What it does do however is show the blatant bias that people have toward a political party that wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire. It's like listening to homers talking about refereeing. Chumpdumper doesn't care because GWB isn't in the WH. WC cares because Obama is in the WH. It affects neither of you but both of you are here yammering on about it (as are many others).

[clambake]

looks like princess is wearing the full tiara.

[Nbadan]

W
ashington (CNN) - Americans are giving the White House low marks for how it's handled the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and the resignation of former CIA Director David Petraeus, according to a new national survey.

But according to a CNN/ORC International poll released Tuesday, a majority of the public doesn't believe the Obama administration intentionally tried to mislead Americans on the September attack that left the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans dead....

...On Libya, 54% of the country is dissatisfied with the administration's response to the Benghazi attack, with only four in ten saying they're satisfied with the way the White House handled the matter.

"But that dissatisfaction is not because Americans see a cover-up," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "Only 40% believe that the inaccurate statements that administration officials initially made about the Benghazi attack were an attempt to deliberately mislead the public. Fifty-four percent think those inaccurate statements reflected what the White House believed to be true at the time."


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/27/cnn-poll-thumbs-down-on-w-h-reaction-to-benghazi-attack-and-petraeus-resignation/

[ChumpDumper]

The event itself isn't important to most Americans, there are some in the SOC community who would take issue with claiming it doesn't affect the lives of Americans when their comrades are dead. What it does do however is show the blatant bias that people have toward a political party that wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire. It's like listening to homers talking about refereeing. Chumpdumper doesn't care because GWB isn't in the WH. WC cares because Obama is in the WH. It affects neither of you but both of you are here yammering on about it (as are many others).I would've felt the same way about Bush tbh -- I don't think he is a Muslim either.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't recall. How many of you are so happy about the successful changes in Egypt? Remember how well Obama embraced this Arab Spring?

[Th'Pusher]

I don't recall. How many of you are so happy about the successful changes in Egypt? Remember how well Obama embraced this Arab Spring?
When you say embraced, do you you mean taking an extremely cautious approach and "leading from behind" while only intervening when he had no other option?

[George Gervin's Afro]

I don't recall. How many of you are so happy about the successful changes in Egypt? Remember how well Obama embraced this Arab Spring?

what were our alternatives?

[Wild Cobra]

what were our alternatives?
What was wrong with leaving it alone? Why did he have to involve us? We had no active threats from them.

[George Gervin's Afro]

What was wrong with leaving it alone? Why did he have to involve us? We had no active threats from them.

So then you oppose the US trying to promote democracy in the Middle East....

[CosmicCowboy]

So then you oppose the US trying to promote democracy in the Middle East....

It would have served US interests better to leave Hussein, Mubarek and Gaddafi in power.

[Drachen]

It would have served US interests better to leave Hussein, Mubarek and Gaddafi in power.

This is an incredibly callous view that I completely agree with.


It is also not the same thing as saying that we should or shouldn't have helped out the populations there.

[ChumpDumper]

It would have served US interests better to leave Hussein, Mubarek and Gaddafi in power.What did we do in Egypt?

I know some here think we should have actively helped the dictator in this case.

[CosmicCowboy]

What did we do in Egypt?

I know some here think we should have actively helped the dictator in this case.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/02/01/obama-calls-on-mubarak-to-hand-over-power-immediately/

[ChumpDumper]

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/02/01/obama-calls-on-mubarak-to-hand-over-power-immediately/Wow.

That's incredible.

Really.

So your answer is nothing.

[CosmicCowboy]

If you say so Bouchumnp...:rolleyes

[George Gervin's Afro]

So then you oppose the US trying to promote democracy in the Middle East....

[ChumpDumper]

With Egypt, doing nothing put the US on the right side of history in the region for once.

Given the fact that a lot of our problems around there came from installing and/or propping up dictators, I'm fine with trying something different. We'll have to wait some years to see if the result is any different.

[CosmicCowboy]

With Egypt, doing nothing put the US on the right side of history in the region for once.

Given the fact that a lot of our problems around there came from installing and/or propping up dictators, I'm fine with trying something different. We'll have to wait some years to see if the result is any different.

Throwing the backing of the President of the United States behind the protestors and demanding Mubarek step down was hardly "nothing". It told the Egyptian military which way to jump, which resulted in Mubarek being overthrown.

[LnGrrrR]

Throwing the backing of the President of the United States behind the protestors and demanding Mubarek step down was hardly "nothing". It told the Egyptian military which way to jump, which resulted in Mubarek being overthrown.

IIRC, Obama didn't say anything until the writing was on the wall already for Mubarak.

[Drachen]

Throwing the backing of the President of the United States behind the protestors and demanding Mubarek step down was hardly "nothing". It told the Egyptian military which way to jump, which resulted in Mubarek being overthrown.

The military also did nothing. If they jumped, they jumped with a perfectly perpendicular trajectory relative to the ground.


IIRC, Obama didn't say anything until the writing was on the wall already for Mubarak.

bingo.

[RandomGuy]

I don't recall. How many of you are so happy about the successful changes in Egypt? Remember how well Obama embraced this Arab Spring?

The Egyptians are grownups with their own country. I am neither happy nor upset about the fact they have decided to change their government. It just is.

Should I be unhappy?

If so, why?

You seem to be attached to emotional arguments over dispassionate analysis. You should change that, it leads to bad conclusions based on faulty logic.

[RandomGuy]

Throwing the backing of the President of the United States behind the protestors and demanding Mubarek step down was hardly "nothing". It told the Egyptian military which way to jump, which resulted in Mubarek being overthrown.

He was going down anyway.

Do you think we should have intervened militarily to stop it? What should/could we have done?

[RandomGuy]

It would have served US interests better to leave Hussein, Mubarek and Gaddafi in power.

No it wouldn't.

That statement ignores why the Al Qaeda ideology has such traction in the muslim world.

Realpolitic that supports immoral dictators is extremely short-sighted and ultimately self-defeating.

Do you understand why the Al Qaeda ideology hates us? Explain it in your own words.

[CosmicCowboy]

IMHO the military held all the cards. If they had backed Mubarek he would still be in power IMHO. Once the US abandoned him they knew they needed to negotiate a power sharing partnership with the brotherhood.

[RandomGuy]

IIRC, Obama didn't say anything until the writing was on the wall already for Mubarak.

That is the case. That is also the responsible, smart thing to do.

This places the whackadoodle Obama hating crowd in the position of having to say that, since Obama never does anything right, this must have, by definition, been the wrong course of action. It is good fun to get them to suggest viable alternatives that clearly were dumb ideas. At some level they know that we did about the right thing, but the cognitive dissonance is funny to watch play out, as they try to hold the idea that "Obama never does anything right" with the subconscious realization that the administration made the only call they could in the circumstances. Hedging your bets is a time honored diplomatic tactic.

[CosmicCowboy]

No it wouldn't.

That statement ignores why the Al Qaeda ideology has such traction in the muslim world.

Realpolitic that supports immoral dictators is extremely short-sighted and ultimately self-defeating.

Do you understand why the Al Qaeda ideology hates us? Explain it in your own words.

GFY

[RandomGuy]

IMHO the military held all the cards. If they had backed Mubarek he would still be in power IMHO. Once the US abandoned him they knew they needed to negotiate a power sharing partnership with the brotherhood.

The military is backing Syrias leader.

How is that scenario working out for Assad?

[CosmicCowboy]

The military is backing Syrias leader.

How is that scenario working out for Assad?

Last I checked he wasn't dead.

[RandomGuy]

GFY

I asked, respectfully and rationally, a question that you could easily answer.

If all you have is expletives to support your ideas, what do you think that says about how valid they are?

[RandomGuy]

Last I checked he wasn't dead.

The answer is:

The military would not have been able to counter the overwhelming opposition, without a civil war.

Since the military command structure was not made up of a different ethnic group, as it was in Syrias case, it would have not have been possible to get the army to actually crack down on their fellow Egyptians.

The military command chose between a civil war, and fulfilling its normal societal role in that country (do some background reading on this, it is interesting). It was an easy call, and had almost nothing to do with what the US did or didn't want. They knew we need them too badly and would not cut off aid no matter what they did. They were free to make their own call.

[RandomGuy]

How is that working for Assad?


Last I checked he wasn't dead.

Yet.

His military bases are being abandoned and overrun by rebels. He will not last much longer, as the rebels get better armed, and his army deserts him because even the common soldier sees the writing on the wall at this point.

He will end up as Ghadaffi did, if he doesn't take Hitler's out.

[CosmicCowboy]

I asked, respectfully and rationally, a question that you could easily answer.

If all you have is expletives to support your ideas, what do you think that says about how valid they are?

I'm not going to write a fucking dissertation on mideast relations just because you demand it.

[RandomGuy]

With Egypt, doing nothing put the US on the right side of history in the region for once.

Given the fact that a lot of our problems around there came from installing and/or propping up dictators, I'm fine with trying something different. We'll have to wait some years to see if the result is any different.

Siding with, and propping up dictators is one of the prime stated reasons in all of Al Qaeda's stated manifestos. The US then becomes identified with the hated dicatators, and that is why you get 9-11 style mass attacks on Westerners.

Propping them up harms our long term interests far more, as the dictators are temporary, but the resentment will outlive them long long after they are dead.

If Cosmic Cowboy ever ventured far enough from Fox news to actually read what these people say about their own motives and agenda, he would know that.

Thinking that propping up such dictators is in our best interest is only possible if you are sadly ignorant of who/what the Al Qaeda brand generally is, IMO.

[TeyshaBlue]

Siding with, and propping up dictators is one of the prime stated reasons in all of Al Qaeda's stated manifestos. The US then becomes identified with the hated dicatators, and that is why you get 9-11 style mass attacks on Westerners.

Propping them up harms our long term interests far more, as the dictators are temporary, but the resentment will outlive them long long after they are dead.

If Cosmic Cowboy ever ventured far enough from Fox news to actually read what these people say about their own motives and agenda, he would know that.

Thinking that propping up such dictators is in our best interest is only possible if you are sadly ignorant of who/what the Al Qaeda brand generally is, IMO.

I think you are assigning something approaching reason to AQ's motivations. As a group, AQ is not bound by nor operates under rule of reason.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Siding with, and propping up dictators is one of the prime stated reasons in all of Al Qaeda's stated manifestos. The US then becomes identified with the hated dicatators, and that is why you get 9-11 style mass attacks on Westerners.

Propping them up harms our long term interests far more, as the dictators are temporary, but the resentment will outlive them long long after they are dead.

If Cosmic Cowboy ever ventured far enough from Fox news to actually read what these people say about their own motives and agenda, he would know that.

Thinking that propping up such dictators is in our best interest is only possible if you are sadly ignorant of who/what the Al Qaeda brand generally is, IMO.

I thought AQ hated us because of our freedoms...

[RandomGuy]

I'm not going to write a fucking dissertation on mideast relations just because you demand it.

That is because you can't.

If you don't want to admit it, that is your business I guess, but don't ask me to support policy ideas based on your ignorance.

I know how and why the things you say are wrong, can spell that out, and can provide a few sources if you want to improve your understanding. It is human to push back against information that goes against existing understanding, even if that information is valid and true.

If you want to learn a bit more, I can provide you some background.

[CosmicCowboy]

So RG wants to throw Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and the UAE under the Al Qaeda bus?

[CosmicCowboy]

That is because you can't.

If you don't want to admit it, that is your business I guess, but don't ask me to support policy ideas based on your ignorance.

I know how and why the things you say are wrong, can spell that out, and can provide a few sources if you want to improve your understanding. It is human to push back against information that goes against existing understanding, even if that information is valid and true.

If you want to learn a bit more, I can provide you some background.

:lmao

GFY

[CosmicCowboy]

BTW, where was Obama's moral outrage when Bahrain was cracking heads on their protestors?

[RandomGuy]

I think you are assigning something approaching reason to AQ's motivations. As a group, AQ is not bound by nor operates under rule of reason.

I am not assigning them reason.

I am assigning them honesty, because there is no indication they are lying about why they hate us, and do what they do.

Crazy does prohibit honesty, or even semi-logical reasoning, based on crazy delusions. Even schizophrenics act with a certain internal logic, however misguided.

[CosmicCowboy]

:lmao @ RandomGuy, the Al Qaeda apologist.

[RandomGuy]

:lmao

GFY

If you wish. It was well meant, and freely given. I like to read up on this, and seek as much information as possible.

[RandomGuy]

So RG wants to throw Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and the UAE under the Al Qaeda bus?

Moving from expletives to strawmen.

Be my guest. Let me know when you get tired of fighting ideas and opinions I don't have.

[RandomGuy]

:lmao @ RandomGuy, the Al Qaeda apologist.

Moving from expletives to strawmen.

Be my guest. Let me know when you get tired of fighting ideas and opinions I don't have. Part 2

[CosmicCowboy]

If you wish. It was well meant, and freely given. I like to read up on this, and seek as much information as possible.

The reason I resent the fuck out of you bashing me on the middle east is that I have stated over and over that IMHO we have no fucking business being over there and aren't accomplishing a damn thing but blowing trillions of dollars and getting a lot of people killed. Your accusations of me being a Fox news clone are outrageous lies.

[RandomGuy]

The reason I resent the fuck out of you bashing me on the middle east is that I have stated over and over that IMHO we have no fucking business being over there and aren't accomplishing a damn thing but blowing trillions of dollars and getting a lot of people killed. Your accusations of me being a Fox news clone are outrageous lies.

Alright then. I apologize, and will refrain from saying it in the future.

I am of the opinion we should pull back as well, for the most part. We still have interests there, so it is not quite easy to simply walk away though.

[Th'Pusher]

Maddow posited last night that the only reason they are giving ambassador rice trouble is so that Kerry will get the job thereby resigning his senate seat which scott Brown could theoretically fill giving the Rs a seat back in the senate. I thought it was a little conspiratorial at the time, but now that multiple senators have come out in favor of Kerry for SoS, I have to say there may be something to it.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/gop-senator-backs-john-kerry-for-secretary-of-state-i-believe-he-would-sail-through-the-nominating-process/

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm not going to write a fucking dissertation on mideast relations just because you demand it.

He didn't ask for that. He just asked for you to tell what you thought created the anti-American Muslim fundamentalst sentiment against the US. I could do that in about a paragraph but heaven forbid you actually answer thoughtfully or intelligently when you can instead cling to what you want to believe.

[RandomGuy]

Maddow posited last night that the only reason they are giving ambassador rice trouble is so that Kerry will get the job thereby resigning his senate seat which scott Brown could theoretically fill giving the Rs a seat back in the senate. I thought it was a little conspiratorial at the time, but now that multiple senators have come out in favor of Kerry for SoS, I have to say there may be something to it.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/gop-senator-backs-john-kerry-for-secretary-of-state-i-believe-he-would-sail-through-the-nominating-process/

If that were the case, Obama would simply not nominate Kerry.

Not exactly an effective ploy, if true.

[Th'Pusher]

If that were the case, Obama would simply not nominate Kerry.

Not exactly an effective ploy, if true.
Hmm? They want Kerry as they want his seat in The senate. They don't want Rice so they are smearing her credibility.

[RandomGuy]

He didn't ask for that. He just asked for you to tell what you thought created the anti-American Muslim fundamentalst sentiment against the US. I could do that in about a paragraph but heaven forbid you actually answer thoughtfully or intelligently when you can instead cling to what you want to believe.

To be fair to him, he is attacked quite a bit. It goes back and forth from both sides.

Kind of a vicious cycle and hard to break.

I dunno, it gets tiring to be angry all the time. I would rather have a good discussion at the moment. Guess I am getting old, heh.

[RandomGuy]

Hmm? They want Kerry as they want his seat in The senate. They don't want Rice so they are smearing her credibility.

They want to embarrass the administration in any way possible.

Maddow is a fairly astute analyst, IMO, but misses the point that Kerry can decline to accept the nomination, and Obama can easily nominate someone who won't swing control of the Senate, or push it closer to that point.

[CosmicCowboy]

He didn't ask for that. He just asked for you to tell what you thought created the anti-American Muslim fundamentalst sentiment against the US. I could do that in about a paragraph but heaven forbid you actually answer thoughtfully or intelligently when you can instead cling to what you want to believe.

GFY anklebiter

[Th'Pusher]

They want to embarrass the administration in any way possible.

Maddow is a fairly astute analyst, IMO, but misses the point that Kerry can decline to accept the nomination, and Obama can easily nominate someone who won't swing control of the Senate, or push it closer to that point.

Sure. As capable as Kerry is, I wouldn't nominate him for anything. Sucks for him, but that's reality. The GOP is clearly pushing for a Kerry nomination and it is 100% because they think brown can win his seat.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

GFY anklebiter

Translation: :cry I cannot make an intelligent argument so I hide behind bluster.

It's transparent

[FuzzyLumpkins]

To be fair to him, he is attacked quite a bit. It goes back and forth from both sides.

Kind of a vicious cycle and hard to break.

I dunno, it gets tiring to be angry all the time. I would rather have a good discussion at the moment. Guess I am getting old, heh.

Sorry but that's no excuse. I am attacked pretty consistently but I don't act like a petulant bitch. I may be a mean bastard but I don't deviate from an attempt at an intelligent approach.

I don't see it as him being defensive about anything other than an inability to present an articulate argument.

[CosmicCowboy]

Translation: :cry I cannot make an intelligent argument so I hide behind bluster.

It's transparent

No it means that there are posters in here that I will carry on a meaningful dialogue with all day long if I want to. You aren't one of them. You are just a stupid anklebiter that I choose to ignore.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No it means that there are posters in here that I will carry on a meaningful dialogue with all day long if I want to. You aren't one of them. You are just a stupid anklebiter that I choose to ignore.

But you're not ignoring me. Are you including RG in that too because his response was similar when you were asked about giving an intelligent response?

See this is the thing: your word ring hollow. If you actually believe what you are saying that is delusional and sad.

So why do you think that AQ hates us? Or is that not meaningful discussion?

[CosmicCowboy]

But you're not ignoring me. Are you including RG in that too because his response was similar when you were asked about giving an intelligent response?

See this is the thing: your word ring hollow. If you actually believe what you are saying that is delusional and sad.

So why do you think that AQ hates us? Or is that not meaningful discussion?

Are you that fucking stupid? They hate us because we keep fucking with them or support others that fuck with them.

[boutons_deux]

"So why do you think that AQ hates us"

OBL said he wanted to attack USA because US military was occupying/defiling the sacred sands of his native Saudi Arabia (after the 1st Gulf War).

since then, USA has busted into Iraq-for-oil, killed 1000s of Muslim women and children, as in bombing wedding parties, drone attacks, and of course supported Israeli ethnic cleansing of Gaza. What's not to hate?

[RandomGuy]

Are you that fucking stupid? They hate us because we keep fucking with them or support others that fuck with them.

That is the conundrum.

AQ ideology is an idea, not an individual.

Dealing with individuals is easy. Bullets and bombs, problem solved.

Dealing with ideas is harder. The way to kill them is to discredit them. The best way to do that is to clearly show them to be false.

Supporting oppressive dictators feeds the idea, namely that we are evil, and support oppression, which is not altogether untrue in such cases.

You aren't going to convince the current crop of nutters that their idea is wrong, but you can keep them from getting the next crop of nutters to buy their bullshit before they become nutters.

We spent trillions of dollars on military actions in the last decade or so.

I can't help but wonder how things would be different, if we had spent as much or even a small percentage on smartly structured foreign aid and sanctions.

[CosmicCowboy]

That is the conundrum.

AQ ideology is an idea, not an individual.

Dealing with individuals is easy. Bullets and bombs, problem solved.

Dealing with ideas is harder. The way to kill them is to discredit them. The best way to do that is to clearly show them to be false.

Supporting oppressive dictators feeds the idea, namely that we are evil, and support oppression, which is not altogether untrue in such cases.

You aren't going to convince the current crop of nutters that their idea is wrong, but you can keep them from getting the next crop of nutters to buy their bullshit before they become nutters.

We spent trillions of dollars on military actions in the last decade or so.

I can't help but wonder how things would be different, if we had spent as much or even a small percentage on smartly structured foreign aid and sanctions.

I don't know either but I'm pretty sure we don't want the muslim brotherhood running Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Bahrain.

[boutons_deux]

I don't know either but I'm pretty sure we don't want the muslim brotherhood running Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Bahrain.

It's Their Country

Why should the MIC have any say in how other countries are run?

[RandomGuy]

I don't know either but I'm pretty sure we don't want the muslim brotherhood running Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Bahrain.

My take:

It isn't our business who they pick. Their country, they get to pick.

They get the right to pick anyone they want to, as long as they don't start shoving money at AQ or violent nutters. The second they do, we slam the hammer down.

We just need to find ways to, (bemused) empower the secularists and liberals in those countries, so that their religious nutjobs have some restrictions on the power they can exercise.

AQ and fundamentalist islamists hate secular liberalism, and with good reason, as it is the prime force keeping them from imposing their vision of "perfect" governments.

[CosmicCowboy]

OK, I'm clearly outnumbered. I think you all would have an issue with $300 a barrel oil if the religious nutters decided to play vengeful god with our economy.

[CosmicCowboy]

I can remember gasoline shortages back when I was driving a freaking L88 Vette that got 9mpg and had a 16 gallon gas tank. We had lines at gas stations all over the country just like the ones they had in New Jersey after the recent hurricane/storm.

[RandomGuy]

I can remember gasoline shortages back when I was driving a freaking L88 Vette that got 9mpg and had a 16 gallon gas tank. We had lines at gas stations all over the country just like the ones they had in New Jersey after the recent hurricane/storm.

I would point out that the US is far less vulnerable now than we used to be per unit of GDP. We use less oil per dollar for a host of reasons. Fuel standards for cars being a prime driver. (hehe)

Given that we are set to outpace the Saudi's for oil production, if the ME goes to shit, the oil we produce will get hugely valuable. The prospect of $300/bbl for our oil companies from the poor sods in China should make you giddy.

We are far closer to viable electric cars than we were in the 1970's as well. I know you think they are not there yet, but such an oil crisis would make it happen right quick, and that would have a synergetic effect of permanent oil demand destruction, meaning the ME would get much lower prices for the oil they had left, and that would not be coming from US. Hell, $300/bbl prices would spur a fuckuva lot of domestic development here.

Things have changed. :)

(edit)
China is now the worlds #2 consumer of oil, ahead of Japan. Back in the 1970's it was an oil exporter.
China's oil consumption will almost certainly surpass ours at some point in my lifetime.

[ChumpDumper]

I think you are assigning something approaching reason to AQ's motivations. As a group, AQ is not bound by nor operates under rule of reason.I respectfully disagree. The real AQ (not all these "affiliates" that stupidly get lumped in with the original) had/has a pretty specific agenda and philosophical/political/religious bases for that agenda. It's definitely not the reasoning we are used to nor would we be expected in any way to agree with it, but they aren't just some kind of chaotic entity blowing shit up at random.
GFY:rolleyes

[TeyshaBlue]

nat gas says hi!

[TeyshaBlue]

I respectfully disagree. The real AQ (not all these "affiliates" that stupidly get lumped in with the original) had/has a pretty specific agenda and philosophical/political/religious bases for that agenda. It's definitely not the reasoning we are used to nor would we be expected in any way to agree with it, but they aren't just some kind of chaotic entity blowing shit up at random.:rolleyes

I guess I've not discovered the "real" (core?) AQ. Got a cliff notes summary for me or point me in a particular direction for some info?

[RandomGuy]

I guess I've not discovered the "real" (core?) AQ. Got a cliff notes summary for me or point me in a particular direction for some info?

THe "affiliates' tend to have more local concerns.


Strategy

On March 11, 2005, Al-Quds Al-Arabi published extracts from Saif al-Adel's document "Al Quaeda's Strategy to the Year 2020".[60][61] Abdel Bari Atwan summarizes this strategy as comprising five stages to rid the Ummah from all forms of oppression:

Provoke the United States and the West into invading a Muslim country by staging a massive attack or string of attacks on U.S. soil that results in massive civilian casualties.
Incite local resistance to occupying forces.
Expand the conflict to neighboring countries, and engage the U.S. and its allies in a long war of attrition.
Convert al-Qaeda into an ideology and set of operating principles that can be loosely franchised in other countries without requiring direct command and control, and via these franchises incite attacks against the U.S. and countries allied with the U.S. until they withdraw from the conflict, as happened with the 2004 Madrid train bombings, but which did not have the same effect with the July 7, 2005 London bombings.
The U.S. economy will finally collapse by the year 2020 under the strain of multiple engagements in numerous places, making the worldwide economic system which is dependent on the U.S. also collapse leading to global political instability, which in turn leads to a global jihad led by al-Qaeda and a Wahhabi Caliphate will then be installed across the world following the collapse of the U.S. and the rest of the Western world countries.

Atwan also noted, regarding the collapse of the U.S., "If this sounds far-fetched, it is sobering to consider that this virtually describes the downfall of the Soviet Union."[60]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda

Lots of good information there.

Read up on the writings of Sayyid Qutb, there is some basic stuff at the wiki. Basically his was a call to fundamentalism to begin with. I found his stuff creepy and hard to slog through, but it is the kind of stuff that makes for revolutionary fervor, and makes people start having to prove how devout they were or be judged as "apostates".

Start with that, then view the actions of the US through that kind of prism.

[TeyshaBlue]

THe "affiliates' tend to have more local concerns.

No Thread specified. If you followed a valid link, please notify the administrator. http://www.audioandanarchy.com/images/smilies/really1.png

[RandomGuy]

No Thread specified. If you followed a valid link, please notify the administrator. http://www.audioandanarchy.com/images/smilies/really1.png

Sorry, it was wikipedia. DOn't know why the board HTML handlers put a hyperlink in my snarky "quote by" thing.

Here is a bit on Qutb:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qutbism

I would note that he was executed by the Egyptian government in 1966.

[ChumpDumper]

I guess I've not discovered the "real" (core?) AQ. Got a cliff notes summary for me or point me in a particular direction for some info?The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright is a great book about the formation of AQ. You can google a bunch of interviews with him about the book if you don't have the time for the whole thing. I'd pay attention to the influence of guys like Sayyid Qutb on both Bin Laden and Zawahiri.

[TeyshaBlue]

Let's not confuse logic with linear exposition.

Qutb outlined his ideas in his book Ma'alim fi-l-Tariq (aka Milestones). Other important principles of Qutbism include:[citation needed]
Adherence to Sharia as sacred law accessible to humans, without which Islam cannot exist
Adherence to Sharia as a complete way of life that will bring not only justice, but complete freedom from servitude, peace, personal serenity, scientific discovery and other benefits
Avoidance of Western and non-Islamic "evil and corruption," including socialism and nationalism.[5]
Vigilance against Western and Jewish conspiracies against Islam
A two-pronged attack of 1) preaching to convert and 2) jihad to forcibly eliminate the "structures" of Jahiliyya[6]
The importance of offensive Jihad to eliminate Jahiliyya not only from the Islamic homeland but from the face of the earth.

[TeyshaBlue]

The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright is a great book about the formation of AQ. You can google a bunch of interviews with him about the book if you don't have the time for the whole thing. I'd pay attention to the influence of guys like Sayyid Qutb on both Bin Laden and Zawahiri.

I'll give it a read. It's something that does hold interest but I've just not devoted much time to it. Thx, Chump, RG.:toast

[ChumpDumper]

I'm not saying we should find it reasonable. Just that they have their reasons and worldview. Doesn't validate them.

:toast

[TeyshaBlue]

I'm not saying we should find it reasonable. Just that they have their reasons and worldview. Doesn't validate them.

:toast

Point taken.:toast

[TeyshaBlue]

sorry...I meant gfy. :lol

[LnGrrrR]

I think you are assigning something approaching reason to AQ's motivations. As a group, AQ is not bound by nor operates under rule of reason.

While this is true, I do think more people than AQ have issues with us supporting dictators. At the least, it would take away a talking point for AQ's recruitment.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

OK, I'm clearly outnumbered. I think you all would have an issue with $300 a barrel oil if the religious nutters decided to play vengeful god with our economy.

And you are inconsistent in your logic. this statement does not jive with:


The reason I resent the fuck out of you bashing me on the middle east is that I have stated over and over that IMHO we have no fucking business being over there and aren't accomplishing a damn thing but blowing trillions of dollars and getting a lot of people killed. Your accusations of me being a Fox news clone are outrageous lies.

Which is it going to be? We don't have any business being over there or that we have a clear economic interest in being over there?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I would point out that the US is far less vulnerable now than we used to be per unit of GDP. We use less oil per dollar for a host of reasons. Fuel standards for cars being a prime driver. (hehe)

Given that we are set to outpace the Saudi's for oil production, if the ME goes to shit, the oil we produce will get hugely valuable. The prospect of $300/bbl for our oil companies from the poor sods in China should make you giddy.

We are far closer to viable electric cars than we were in the 1970's as well. I know you think they are not there yet, but such an oil crisis would make it happen right quick, and that would have a synergetic effect of permanent oil demand destruction, meaning the ME would get much lower prices for the oil they had left, and that would not be coming from US. Hell, $300/bbl prices would spur a fuckuva lot of domestic development here.

Things have changed. :)

(edit)
China is now the worlds #2 consumer of oil, ahead of Japan. Back in the 1970's it was an oil exporter.
China's oil consumption will almost certainly surpass ours at some point in my lifetime.

This is the reason that i loathe the Keystone pipeline. I DO NOT WANT domestic oil production to be sold to competing economic interests when in a decade it will be worth much more relative to CPI. It's a typical short term interest oil interest that we have no business supporting through ID or subsidies.

[CosmicCowboy]

And you are inconsistent in your logic. this statement does not jive with:



Which is it going to be? We don't have any business being over there or that we have a clear economic interest in being over there?

God you are fucking stupid and want to argue about the dumbest shit..

We arm the fuck out of those guys so they can defend themselves. It's in our economic interest to preserve the totalitarian societies over that that are still our allies.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

God you are fucking stupid and want to argue about the dumbest shit..

We arm the fuck out of those guys so they can defend themselves. It's in our economic interest to preserve the totalitarian societies over that that are still our allies.

Translation: :cry

Again if you want veracity then you need to make supporting arguments. You still sound petulant and hollow.

I would think that Iraq nor Syria nor Libya were our 'allies.' That makes your latest argument not cogent to the discussion. You suck at logic. I wish you would think through or at least attempt to think through the logical conclusions/connections of your regurgitation. If you are criticizing Rice for reading erroneous talking points then I think you merit some introspection.

So exactly what is your issue with the current administration? An intelligence report was inaccurate in the days immediately following the attack?

[CosmicCowboy]

Translation: :cry

Again if you want veracity then you need to make supporting arguments. You still sound petulant and hollow.

I would think that Iraq nor Syria nor Libya were our 'allies.' That makes your latest argument not cogent to the discussion. You suck at logic. I wish you would think through or at least attempt to think through the logical conclusions/connections of your regurgitation. If you are criticizing Rice for reading erroneous talking points then I think you merit some introspection.

So exactly what is your issue with the current administration? An intelligence report was inaccurate in the days immediately following the attack?

Jesus, how old are you? You write like a pompous high school sophomore that just discovered the thesaurus.

Iraq was the perfect geopolitical foil for Iran when Sadaam Hussein was running the place. Bush broke that and we never fixed it.

Libya had actually cleaned up it's act since Reagan nearly blew Gadaffi up with the F-111 raid. Gadaffi was a hell of a lot better than what they have running the place now.

I don't know where the fuck you got that I said Syria was an allie. Just another Fuzzynuts lie. One of many. If you are going to be an argumentative little bitch at least get your facts straight.

[CosmicCowboy]

BTW, every time you try to start another stupid argument with me another baby seal gets clubbed.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Jo7lJoQhtjw/SeBW7dsuhPI/AAAAAAAAFKw/sFF60jpY5G4/s1600/seal%2Bbaby%2Bbeing%2Bclubbed.JPG

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Jesus, how old are you? You write like a pompous high school sophomore that just discovered the thesaurus.

Iraq was the perfect geopolitical foil for Iran when Sadaam Hussein was running the place. Bush broke that and we never fixed it.

Libya had actually cleaned up it's act since Reagan nearly blew Gadaffi up with the F-111 raid. Gadaffi was a hell of a lot better than what they have running the place now.

I don't know where the fuck you got that I said Syria was an allie. Just another Fuzzynuts lie. One of many. If you are going to be an argumentative little bitch at least get your facts straight.

And you sound like the typical ignorant fuck that feels threatened by intelligence. Age smack coming from a boomer is hilarious. I would much rather be that kid then a member of the largest failure of a generation than the last one the gilded age spat out. I talk the way that i think and only dumb myself down for kids and even then I try and push them to a greater vocabulary. If you like to mire yourself in the world of a simpleton then go ahead but again your criticisms because I refuse to stoop to said level are again hollow.

Iraq invaded Kuwait. That's what broke the 'that.'

Libya was instrumental in the proliferation of nuclear weapons to states hostile to our own. Kadhafi had 'cleaned himself up' before that too. Nevermind his attacks or support of attacks against the US and our allies.

And i never said that you claimed Syria was an ally. I never claimed that you said the other two were either. This goes back to your lack of considering logical extensions. Think some more and if you still fail then i will once again hold your hand through the process.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Posturing about my arguments being stupid is all well and good but you need to consider that I am arguing statements that you have made. That begs the question: where does the stupidity originate?

Introspection is important.

[CosmicCowboy]

And you sound like the typical ignorant fuck that feels threatened by intelligence. Age smack coming from a boomer is hilarious. I would much rather be that kid then a member of the largest failure of a generation than the last one the gilded age spat out. I talk the way that i think and only dumb myself down for kids and even then I try and push them to a greater vocabulary. If you like to mire yourself in the world of a simpleton then go ahead but again your criticisms because I refuse to stoop to said level are again hollow.

Iraq invaded Kuwait. That's what broke the 'that.'

Libya was instrumental in the proliferation of nuclear weapons to states hostile to our own. Kadhafi had 'cleaned himself up' before that too. Nevermind his attacks or support of attacks against the US and our allies.

And i never said that you claimed Syria was an ally. I never claimed that you said the other two were either. This goes back to your lack of considering logical extensions. Think some more and if you still fail then i will once again hold your hand through the process.

Boy, for someone that claims to be smart you sure don't know shit.

The first gulf war fixed Kuwait. You do remember there were TWO invasions of Iraq and not one, right? The first was a well deserved bitchslap/spanking. The second one was a giant clusterfuck.

Please provide proof that Libya was providing nuclear weapons to states hostile to our own. Did one of your imaginary friends in West Coast Utah tell you that?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Boy, for someone that claims to be smart you sure don't know shit.

The first gulf war fixed Kuwait. You do remember there were TWO invasions of Iraq and not one, right? The first was a well deserved bitchslap/spanking. The second one was a giant clusterfuck.

Please provide proof that Libya was providing nuclear weapons to states hostile to our own. Did one of your imaginary friends in West Coast Utah tell you that?

I don't claim to be smart. You say i don't know shit and then followup with :


The first gulf war fixed Kuwait. You do remember there were TWO invasions of Iraq and not one, right? The first was a well deserved bitchslap/spanking. The second one was a giant clusterfuck.

Was or was not Iraq a hostile state follwong the first Gulf War?

As for Kadhafi and nuclear weapons read up:

http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/libya/nuclear/

He was collaborating with Khan. You know who Dr. Khan is right? Saying that I do not know shit after demonstrating ignorance is good for entertainment value.

[CosmicCowboy]

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

Your OWN LINK says he gave up all his nuclear ambitions and let us disassemble everything.

Doesn't say shit about him providing nuclear weapons to states hostile to our own

your exact words, bitch.

still awaiting proof to back up your hyperbole.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You are aware they found a whole lot of uranium that he said he didn't have right?

He was collaborating with Khan. That was the point of the link. He also had a ton of uranium that he said he didn't have.

http://news.yahoo.com/us-says-libyan-chemical-nuclear-material-secure-183713150.html

Was your head up your ass when all that discussion of finding his stockpiles of nuclear material, chemical weapons and various delivery devices needed to be a priority? Rebels found them because we had no idea they were there.

On a final note you need to look up the term hyperbole. What i do see is naivete about the earnestness of Kadhafi 'cleaning his act up.' He lied to the IAEA over and again.

You know the cliche: fool me once shame on you, fool me twice.....

[CosmicCowboy]

So tell me again...I must have missed it...who did Gaddafi give nukes to?

BTW, if you think I don't understand the meaning of hyperbole then that means you really do believe Gaddafi gave nukes away. I knew you were stupid but I was giving you the benefit of the doubt while owning your ass again.

[DMC]

I would've felt the same way about Bush tbh -- I don't think he is a Muslim either.

Right, but feeling it and saying it are two different things, or are you the only non-biased poster here?

[DMC]

With Egypt, doing nothing put the US on the right side of history in the region for once.

Given the fact that a lot of our problems around there came from installing and/or propping up dictators, I'm fine with trying something different. We'll have to wait some years to see if the result is any different.
lol

Wait some years = don't blame Obama.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So tell me again...I must have missed it...who did Gaddafi give nukes to?

BTW, if you think I don't understand the meaning of hyperbole then that means you really do believe Gaddafi gave nukes away. I knew you were stupid but I was giving you the benefit of the doubt while owning your ass again.

You understand the irony of calling me a teenager and then following up with this "owning your ass again" line. I realize hypocrisy is your way but at least try.

If you are looking for a smoking gun that Libya sold a centrifuge to Iran on such and such date then you are not going to get one. The links I gave you outlined two things.

1) Libya had nuclear materials and enrichment equipment that we did not know they had. At one point the IAEA found 2.5 times as much as they claimed to have and after he was overthrown they found all kinds of stockpiles that again were unknown to exist.

2) Libya, Iran, North Korea and Pakistan all collaborated on nuclear weapons programs for over a decade.

This gets back to logical conclusions which you are unable to reach.

[CosmicCowboy]

You understand the irony of calling me a teenager and then following up with this "owning your ass again" line. I realize hypocrisy is your way but at least try.

If you are looking for a smoking gun that Libya sold a centrifuge to Iran on such and such date then you are not going to get one. The links I gave you outlined two things.

1) Libya had nuclear materials and enrichment equipment that we did not know they had. At one point the IAEA found 2.5 times as much as they claimed to have and after he was overthrown they found all kinds of stockpiles that again were unknown to exist.

2) Libya, Iran, North Korea and Pakistan all collaborated on nuclear weapons programs for over a decade.

This gets back to logical conclusions which you are unable to reach.

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

So...lets get this straight...Gaddafi didn't give anyone nuclear weapons like you claimed?

Is that your final answer?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

So...lets get this straight...Gaddafi didn't give anyone nuclear weapons like you claimed?

Is that your final answer?

While i am not surprised that this is the conclusion that you draw, it's still pretty sad. I'm going to go watch the game. The only one you are 'owning' here is yourself.

Oh and an incorrect statement is not hyperbole. Need me to link the definition? Since I am going to be gone here you go:

Hyperbole (play /haɪˈpɜrbəliː/ hy-PUR-bə-lee;[1] Greek: ὑπερβολή hyperbolē, "exaggeration") is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally.

[CosmicCowboy]

While i am not surprised that this is the conclusion that you draw, it's still pretty sad. I'm going to go watch the game. The only one you are 'owning' here is yourself.

Oh and an incorrect statement is not hyperbole. Need me to link the definition? Since I am going to be gone here you go:

Hyperbole (play /haɪˈpɜrbəliː/ hy-PUR-bə-lee;[1] Greek: ὑπερβολή hyperbolē, "exaggeration") is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally.

Kind of like when you claimed Gaddafi gave away nuclear weapons? Even when (I was giving you the benefit of the doubt) You should have known that Gaddafi never had nuclear weapons to give away?

You don't go to UTSA do you?

[CosmicCowboy]

Oh and an incorrect statement is not hyperbole.

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

Admitting you lied about Libya giving away nukes to try to win your new argument on "hyperbole" definition smack?

This shit is priceless.

And to think I considered putting you on ignore because you were so fucking stupid.

[CosmicCowboy]

BTW, Spurs are blowing them out in an ugly game in case you are really watching.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Kind of like when you claimed Gaddafi gave away nuclear weapons? Even when (I was giving you the benefit of the doubt) You should have known that Gaddafi never had nuclear weapons to give away?

You don't go to UTSA do you?

I said 'instrumental to the proliferation of nuclear weapons to states hostile to our own.' Again he had stockpiles of uranium and enrichment equipment. There was a known collaborative effort between Pakistan, Iran, Libya and North Korea. You are creating a strawman because you lack the reading comprehension and vocabulary of an 8th grader.

[CosmicCowboy]

I said 'instrumental to the proliferation of nuclear weapons to states hostile to our own.' Again he had stockpiles of uranium and enrichment equipment. There was a known collaborative effort between Pakistan, Iran, Libya and North Korea. You are creating a strawman because you lack the reading comprehension and vocabulary of an 8th grader.

You said providing nuclear weapons to states hostile to our own

Seriously dude. Quit fighting the quicksand. You got owned again.

There is always tomorrow if I don't get bored and put you on ignore.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Oh and an incorrect statement is not hyperbole.

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

Admitting you lied about Libya giving away nukes to try to win your new argument on "hyperbole" definition smack?

This shit is priceless.

And to think I considered putting you on ignore because you were so fucking stupid.

That's not an admission. Your assertion is that I am wrong in stating that and then calling it hyperbole. Given your premise, you clearly did not understand the meaning of the word. You really suck at logic. I am not kidding; your ability to come to a conclusion given identities is just shit.

Me saying that something is something is not the same thing as me saying that I myself and doing that thing. You were demonstrated this yesterday yet you repeat the same mistake once again. That is the sign of a lack of intelligence or more specifically the inability to learn.

Let's steer this topic back though:

1) Iraq's invasion of Kuwait is what precipitated the breakdown of relations between our states.
2) Libya was still stockpiling nuclear materials and the equipment used to make them fissionable, chemical weapons, and collaborating with Iran, Iran and North Korea while lying to the IAEA about it's endeavours.
3) Syria has been allied with the Soviets and not us for over 50 years.

So exactly what is your issue with the current administration? The deposing of Mubarak? The intelligence community not getting it right the day after the attacks?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And you sound like the typical ignorant fuck that feels threatened by intelligence. Age smack coming from a boomer is hilarious. I would much rather be that kid then a member of the largest failure of a generation than the last one the gilded age spat out. I talk the way that i think and only dumb myself down for kids and even then I try and push them to a greater vocabulary. If you like to mire yourself in the world of a simpleton then go ahead but again your criticisms because I refuse to stoop to said level are again hollow.

Iraq invaded Kuwait. That's what broke the 'that.'

Libya was instrumental in the proliferation of nuclear weapons to states hostile to our own. Kadhafi had 'cleaned himself up' before that too. Nevermind his attacks or support of attacks against the US and our allies.

And i never said that you claimed Syria was an ally. I never claimed that you said the other two were either. This goes back to your lack of considering logical extensions. Think some more and if you still fail then i will once again hold your hand through the process.

That is the exact quote. Now you are being dishonest. You lack honor.

[CosmicCowboy]

That is the exact quote. Now you are being dishonest. You lack honor.

:lol

You ****

I cut and pasted your quote.

The fact that you edited it after the fact and then call me dishonest speaks volumes about what a shithead you are.

[Wild Cobra]

So then you oppose the US trying to promote democracy in the Middle East....
I have no opposition to promoting democracy. Force is not promotion.

[Wild Cobra]

It would have served US interests better to leave Hussein, Mubarek and Gaddafi in power.
I disagree with Hussein, but agree with the other two.

[Wild Cobra]

Throwing the backing of the President of the United States behind the protestors and demanding Mubarek step down was hardly "nothing". It told the Egyptian military which way to jump, which resulted in Mubarek being overthrown.
He probably would have had those first 112 cruise missiles heading his way that Gaddafi received instead if he had not complied.

[Wild Cobra]

IIRC, Obama didn't say anything until the writing was on the wall already for Mubarak.
Bullshit. The writing wasn't written in stone, until it had the backing of our president. Just like in Libya. The Libyan civil war would have ended real fast if we didn't eliminate Gaddafi's ability to repel the rebels.

[Wild Cobra]

The Egyptians are grownups with their own country. I am neither happy nor upset about the fact they have decided to change their government. It just is.

Should I be unhappy?

If so, why?

You seem to be attached to emotional arguments over dispassionate analysis. You should change that, it leads to bad conclusions based on faulty logic.

I see you haven't seen the recent changes. Egypt will now be controlled by a tyrannical dictator.

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao @ RandomGuy, the Al Qaeda apologist.
I now believe he is in bed with them.

[Wild Cobra]

Maddow is a fairly astute analyst,
LOL...

Seriously...

LOL...

You have to be joking...

LOL...

As partisan as she is...

As much bullshit as she spews...

LOL...

You can't be that blind...

[Wild Cobra]

I don't know either but I'm pretty sure we don't want the muslim brotherhood running Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Bahrain.
No shit.

Anyone who thinks the Brotherhood has any intent other than imposing Sharia law, is pretty damn ignorant.

[ChumpDumper]

Right, but feeling it and saying it are two different things, or are you the only non-biased poster here?I have actually defended Bush in some instances concerning foreign policy. Make of that what you will.


lol

Wait some years = don't blame Obama.Nah, it really is the first time we did anything like this in the region. He'll get the blame if it goes to shit.

[ChumpDumper]

I see you haven't seen the recent changes. Egypt will now be controlled by a tyrannical dictator.So the net effect is no change.

OK.

[boutons_deux]

Another indication of how fucked TX Repugs are, electing this asshole:

GOP Rep. Floats New Conspiracy Theory: Obama Ousted Qaddafi ‘So Al-Qaeda Could Take Over’ (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/11/29/1255401/louie-gohmert-obama-libya/)

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Louie-Gohmert.jpg

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/11/29/1255401/louie-gohmert-obama-libya/

[RandomGuy]

I see you haven't seen the recent changes. Egypt will now be controlled by a tyrannical dictator.

Bad assumption on your part, or lame trolling. You tell me which.

Yes, I know about Morsi's power grab. As noted before, we need to make sure that we are supporting the secular liberals that might prevent Egypt from becoming a theocracy.

Suck on that as your best, seemingly preferred option. Delicious irony to me.

[RandomGuy]

Bullshit. The writing wasn't written in stone, until it had the backing of our president. Just like in Libya. The Libyan civil war would have ended real fast if we didn't eliminate Gaddafi's ability to repel the rebels.

That does not jibe with any of the analysis I have read.

Our official position was that of a fence sitter, until it was well underway.

You have deluded yourself about how much we could have influenced this, as you delude yourself about a lot of things.

(edit)

In a time honored diplomatic tradition, we hedged out bets until the winner became clear.

What do you think would have happened had we supported him and he been overthrown anyway?

[RandomGuy]

Another indication of how fucked TX Repugs are, electing this asshole:

GOP Rep. Floats New Conspiracy Theory: Obama Ousted Qaddafi ‘So Al-Qaeda Could Take Over’ (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/11/29/1255401/louie-gohmert-obama-libya/)

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Louie-Gohmert.jpg

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/11/29/1255401/louie-gohmert-obama-libya/

:clap

Yay, whackadoos!!!

See what happens when you don't need evidence to support stuff? All sorts of fun theories just pop right up.

[RandomGuy]

It's in our economic interest to preserve the totalitarian societies over that that are still our allies.

I would heartily disagree.

Totalitarian regimes are not permanent things. Preserving them is neither moral, nor in in our long term interests.

This is one case where doing the right thing coincides with what is good for us.

[boutons_deux]

"Totalitarian regimes are not permanent things"

they don't have to be permanent, only live as long as the current generation of US propper uppers.

Marcos/philippines
Saddam/Iraq (our ally vs Iran)
All heads of all Gulf Oil regimes
Junta/Greece
military/s. Korea
etc, etc, etc.

[boutons_deux]

:clap

Yay, whackadoos!!!

See what happens when you don't need evidence to support stuff? All sorts of fun theories just pop right up.

When one believes in the fantasies of the Bible or other worshipped text (esp the cherry-picked Bible), then fantasies are available in every realm.

[TeyshaBlue]

When one believes in the fantasies of the Bible or other worshipped text (esp the cherry-picked Bible), then fantasies are available in every realm.

not really.

[RandomGuy]

LOL...

Seriously...

LOL...

You have to be joking...

LOL...

As partisan as she is...

As much bullshit as she spews...

LOL...

You can't be that blind...

She is entertaining to watch.

BUT

She has her own narrative.

I don't take her interpretations of anything as gospel, but having a viewpoint does not make anything she says automatically wrong, Wild ad hominem Cobra.

Like any commentator, she should be taken with some reasonable skepticism and understanding of her narrative.

That said, she is a fairly astute observer, whether you agree with her or not.

[boutons_deux]

TB! :lol GFY, REALLY!

[TeyshaBlue]

TB! :lol GFY, REALLY!

You made another ridiculous statement with nothing to back it up with. Nothing new. gfy, little bitch.

[RandomGuy]

Anyone who thinks the Brotherhood has any intent other than imposing Sharia law, is pretty damn ignorant.

I agree.

That said, I don't care overmuch if they do impose sharia. It is their country. Yet it appears to bother people like you.

Why?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I agree.

That said, I don't care overmuch if they do impose sharia. It is their country. Yet it appears to bother people like you.

Why?

You don't believe in the notion of inalienable rights? I understand we cannot impose our will over the whole world but i have a definite issue with religious dogma used as an excuse to shit on rights that I find inalienable. Majoritarianism is not just this wonderful happyland of self-determination for all.

[boutons_deux]

"notion of inalienable rights"

it's pure bullshit.

The only rights anyone has anywhere is whatever

1) the society(govt) grants them

AND

2) enforces.

eg, USA as the Bill of Rights (for Human-Americans) that don't apply to Human-non-Americans

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There is a difference between how they manifest in a government and how an individual views their importance. The two motions are linked anyway. Go read thinkprogress and tell em to go fuck myself. I get tired of having to wade through your forcefed ideology.

[RandomGuy]

"notion of inalienable rights"

it's pure bullshit.

The only rights anyone has anywhere is whatever

1) the society(govt) grants them

AND

2) enforces.


Pretty much.

[RandomGuy]

You don't believe in the notion of inalienable rights? I understand we cannot impose our will over the whole world but i have a definite issue with religious dogma used as an excuse to shit on rights that I find inalienable. Majoritarianism is not just this wonderful happyland of self-determination for all.

I didn't say I liked sharia or thought it overly moral in some places and applications.

If Egypt wants to impose it, because most of the population supports sharia, I don't see it as my business other than telling them when/where they are doing things I don't think are right or moral.

I have the hope that people everywhere will slowly cast off the shackles of religion, and Islam will be due for an Enlightenment at some point in their societal development.

They will have to make their own mistakes, and find their own way.

(edit)

I think there are some rights that we can all agree on, yes. I also think that we should strive very strongly to protect the rights we choose for ourselves, and I am fairly happy with those embodied in our Constitution.

The concept of "alienable" means that there is some outside universal grantor/definer of rights, to my understanding, and that is not something I buy into.

[RandomGuy]

Further:

Sharia doesn't exactly mean that you are going to impose draconian death penalties for religious crimes. "Sharia" is rather vague and open to interpretation as anything is.

It all depends on how it is applied. To be fair: in most muslim countries, the low educational attainment dictates literal interpretations, and cultural backwardness in terms of patriarchies, mean that in practice it gets brutal, especially for women. That is a fault of culture as much as anything else.

[TeyshaBlue]

I didn't say I liked sharia or thought it overly moral in some places and applications.

If Egypt wants to impose it, because most of the population supports sharia, I don't see it as my business other than telling them when/where they are doing things I don't think are right or moral.

I have the hope that people everywhere will slowly cast off the shackles of religion, and Islam will be due for an Enlightenment at some point in their societal development.

They will have to make their own mistakes, and find their own way.

(edit)

I think there are some rights that we can all agree on, yes. I also think that we should strive very strongly to protect the rights we choose for ourselves, and I am fairly happy with those embodied in our Constitution.

The concept of "alienable" means that there is some outside universal grantor/definer of rights, to my understanding, and that is not something I buy into.

I think the concept of alienable rights is more construed to universal, not necessarily arbitrated rights. The right to individual freedom for example. Along these lines, I'm inclined to agree with Fuzzy.

[TeyshaBlue]

This type of right, exists outside of governmental decree, although our very history proves this as false, in practice. Still, the decree (slavery) was eliminated because it was in conflict with the fundamental, (universal) right of personal freedom.

[RandomGuy]

This type of right, exists outside of governmental decree, although our very history proves this as false, in practice. Still, the decree (slavery) was eliminated because it was in conflict with the fundamental, (universal) right of personal freedom.

How do you determine what a "universal" right is?

[TeyshaBlue]

How do you determine what a "universal" right is?

It's existence is postulated, of course. Evidence of it's existence by dint of it's non-existence as was the case in our history?

[TeyshaBlue]

The notion seemed to exist outside of societal/governmental decree until it became a societal/governmental decree.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Sharia is based on the Sunnah and Koran and they are more than a little specific and explicit in edicts against violent crime, infidelity, and terpitude.

Sure they can do the same thing we do and play the 'we'll just forget about this inconvenient one' game but religious literalists do what they do. They are about a century behind us in terms of that progression and who is to say they will follow the same path.

I am not saying coercion by any means but i understand the desire to influence a different outcome completely.

[RandomGuy]

It's existence is postulated, of course. Evidence of it's existence by dint of it's non-existence as was the case in our history?

Not sure exactly what the second sentence is asking for, but I don't think we are actually far off from saying the same thing.

We are left to our own devices to figure out what they are (boutons' #1), and then we have to figure out what to do about it.(boutons' #2)

Gov't is just where these decisions play out.

[RandomGuy]

Sharia is based on the Sunnah and Koran and they are more than a little specific and explicit in edicts against violent crime, infidelity, and terpitude.

Sure they can do the same thing we do and play the 'we'll just forget about this inconvenient one' game but religious literalists do what they do. They are about a century behind us in terms of that progression and who is to say they will follow the same path.

I am not saying coercion by any means but i understand the desire to influence a different outcome completely.

Eyup.

Read an interesting article on atheism and islam in the Economist that touched on it pretty well.

[TeyshaBlue]

Not sure exactly what the second sentence is asking for, but I don't think we are actually far off from saying the same thing.

We are left to our own devices to figure out what they are (boutons' #1), and then we have to figure out what to do about it.(boutons' #2)

Gov't is just where these decisions play out.
Disagree. The govt framework has nothing whatsoever to do with the notion of an inalienable right. The notion seemed to exist outside of societal/governmental decree until it became a societal/governmental decree.

[RandomGuy]

Disagree. The govt framework has nothing whatsoever to do with the notion of an inalienable right. The notion seemed to exist outside of societal/governmental decree until it became a societal/governmental decree.

How exactly does a right existing outside of a societal determination work? You yourself said we have to decide, right?

[TeyshaBlue]

How exactly does a right existing outside of a societal determination work? You yourself said we have to decide, right?

I'm saying that it apparently did exist outside of our governmental framework. To will that notion into actionable events is when we invoke government.

And you're right, we're not that far apart. I just take issue with the need of a structure to produce the notion of a universal right.

[boutons_deux]

LOL...

Seriously...

LOL...

You have to be joking...

LOL...

As partisan as she is...

As much bullshit as she spews...

LOL...

You can't be that blind...

WC calling somebody blind! :lol

you'll get better, more accurate info from Maddow in one hour than from Fox in one year.

[Th'Pusher]

Does red team still care about Chris Stevens now that the election is over, Hillary is stepping down and Susan Rice is no longer a candidate for SOS? My guess is what really happened in Benghazi will not be nearly as important to red team, but may reemerge as an important issue four years from now.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/19/us/politics/inquiry-into-libya-attack-is-sharply-critical-of-state-department.html?hp&_r=0

[Wild Cobra]

you'll get better, more accurate info from Maddow in one hour than from Fox in one year.
Your point?

Did you know that I don't watch Fox News?

[boutons_deux]

Your point?

Did you know that I don't watch Fox News?

but you qualify as a Fox Repug Propaganda talking asshole

[Wild Cobra]

but you qualify as a Fox Repug Propaganda talking asshole
Even though I have zero exposure, except what I see here.

Now I ask that you think outside that tiny box you live in for a moment...

Don't you think it's possible that they simply reflect the views of people like me, rather than people like me watching them to know what to think?

The Mad Cow is a chronic liar. She is one of the most inaccurate propaganda puppets out there. At the moment, only Randi Rhodes comes to mind as the bigger liar.

[ChumpDumper]

Even though I have zero exposure, except what I see here.

Now I ask that you think outside that tiny box you live in for a moment...

Don't you think it's possible that they simply reflect the views of people like me, rather than people like me watching them to know what to think?

The Mad Cow is a chronic liar. She is one of the most inaccurate propaganda puppets out there. At the moment, only Randi Rhodes comes to mind as the bigger liar.Give us some examples off the top of your head. No googling. We can verify later.

[boutons_deux]

WC simply can't stand the bitch slapping Rachel whups on the Repugs every night.

[LnGrrrR]

Except it wasn't exactly like Libya, since we did provide physical support. AFAIK, we didn't provide material support to Egypt.

[Nbadan]

Weeks after she was forced to retract her "60 Minutes" report on the attack in Benghazi, Libya, Lara Logan and producer Max McClellan will be taking a leave of absence from the CBS News staple.
The Huffington Post's Michael Calderone broke the news.



Logan was forced to admit that the report was a "mistake" after a British security contractor's account of the attack was discredited.

In a memo circulated Tuesday and obtained by HuffPost, CBS News chairman and "60 Minutes" executive producer Jeff Fager detailed the findings from his review of Logan's report. Fager wrote that Logan did not adequately attribute "her assertions that Al Qaeda carried out the attack" and that she had an apparent "conflict" in covering the story:

--Questions have also been raised about the role of Al Qaeda in the attack since Logan declared in the report that Al Qaeda fighters had carried it out. Al Qaeda’s role is the subject of much disagreement and debate. While Logan had multiple sources and good reasons to have confidence in them, her assertions that Al Qaeda carried out the attack and controlled the hospital were not adequately attributed in her report.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/lara-logan-taking-leave-of-absence-from-60-minutes

[boutons_deux]

NYTimes Investigation Brings Bad News For Benghazi Hoaxers

Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO's extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.

There is no doubt that anger over the video motivated many attackers. A Libyan journalist working for The New York Times was blocked from entering by the sentries outside, and he learned of the film from the fighters who stopped him. Other Libyan witnesses, too, said they received lectures from the attackers about the evil of the film and the virtue of defending the prophet.

But the Republican arguments appear to conflate purely local extremist organizations like Ansar al-Shariah with Al Qaeda's international terrorist network.The only intelligence connecting Al Qaeda to the attack was an intercepted phone call that night from a participant in the first wave of the attack to a friend in another African country who had ties to members of Al Qaeda, according to several officials briefed on the call. But when the friend heard the attacker's boasts, he sounded astonished, the officials said, suggesting he had no prior knowledge of the assault.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/12/28/nytimes-investigation-brings-bad-news-for-bengh/197381

So, another attack on USA as blowback for USA's attack on The Prophet and his religion.

And American sheeple, esp Muslim-hating "Christians" ask, "Why Do They Hate Us?"

[Wild Cobra]

Yep.

We helped the wrong guys. Should have left Gaddafi in power.

[boutons_deux]

GOP Report Acknowledges That The U.S. Military Couldn’t Have Changed Benghazi Outcome (http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/02/11/3276171/gop-benghazi-military-hasc/)

In a new report (http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=C4E16543-8F99-430C-BEBA-0045A6433426) released on Tuesday, the House Armed Services Committee concludes that there was no way for the U.S. military to have responded in time to the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya to save the four Americans killed that night. In doing so, the report debunks entirely a right-wing myth that says the White House ordered the military not to intervene.

For months after the attack that resulted in the death of U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens, conservative media was awash in reports that on the night of the assault the Obama administration at some point ordered the military not to take action (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/11/02/1128831/new-details-discredit-fox-news-benghazi/) that would have saved lives. This supposed “stand down order” led to a bevy of right-wing conspiracies (http://www.blackfive.net/main/2012/10/bigger-than-watergate-proof-that-the-president-is-lying-about-benghazi.html) about just why the President and his administration had let the Americans die.

“Who told the SEALs to stand down?” Rep. Steve King asked in Nov. 2012 (http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/11/03/1134581/steve-king-obamas-response-to-libya-attack-is-worse-than-watergate/), in just one of many interviews with Republicans referring to the response to Benghazi as “worse than Watergate. (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/10/01/933261/republican-lawmaker-obamas-handling-of-libya-is-worse-than-watergate/)”

As Media Matters reports, Fox News cited reports of a stand-down order no fewer than 85 times (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/06/27/no-benghazi-stand-down-order-was-given-another/194644) during prime-time segments as of June 2013. As the new report — which the Republican majority of the committee authored –makes very clear (http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=C4E16543-8F99-430C-BEBA-0045A6433426) in its findings, however, no such order ever existed. “There was no ‘stand down’ order issued to U.S. military personnel in Tripoli who sought to join the fight in Benghazi,” the report says, noting that the military was not positioned to respond to the attack.

“Given the military’s preparations on September 11, 2012, majority members have not yet discerned any response alternatives that could have likely changed the outcome of the Benghazi attack,” the report concludes.

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/02/11/3276171/gop-benghazi-military-hasc/

[Wild Cobra]

They shouldn't have been left in such an unguarded position to begin with.

[rascal]

Your point?

Did you know that I don't watch Fox News?

But do you listen to conservative talk radio?

[Wild Cobra]

But do you listen to conservative talk radio?
Not regularly.

Your prejudiced responses are going to put you in a serious bind some day.

[rascal]

Not regularly.



So yes.

[Wild Cobra]

So yes.
Far less than you listen to any liberal news I bet. I only listen to talk radio when I am driving. For the last several months, I haven't changed my car radio from a classic rock station. 92.3 KGON, and they rarely report politics at all.

One of my coworkers is always visiting liberal sites and printing material out at work. He then propagates the same bullshit You lemmings start threads here about. I often have a heads up and do searches myself as to the truth of matters.

[rascal]

Far less than you listen to any liberal news I bet. I only listen to talk radio when I am driving. For the last several months, I haven't changed my car radio from a classic rock station. 92.3 KGON, and they rarely report politics at all.

One of my coworkers is always visiting liberal sites and printing material out at work. He then propagates the same bullshit You lemmings start threads here about. I often have a heads up and do searches myself as to the truth of matters.

I don't listen to Liberal news. I listen to WCBS news radio 88 in new York while I drive. No way is that news packed with talk shows full of political opinions.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't listen to Liberal news. I listen to WCBS news radio 88 in new York while I drive. No way is that news packed with talk shows full of political opinions.
And television?

It is rare for me to turn the local news on, and I discarded cable years ago. Most the stuff I see is from these forums I visit.

[boutons_deux]

This Map Is Not the Benghazi Smoking Gun Conservatives Think It Is

http://www.motherjones.com/files/benghazi_0.jpg

This map of the location of US Navy ships during the 2012 attack on the consulate in Benghazi, Libya, obtained by the conservative group Judicial Watch (http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/NavymapBenghazi.pdf), is the latest purported smoking gun in what Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has called "the worst tragedy since 9/11." The implication: The White House was in a position to intervene while the attack was ongoing but, for some reason, chose not to. "Map Shows Dozens of U.S. Military Ships Stationed In North Africa Waters During Benghazi Attack (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/07/30/benghazi-survivor-left-on-a-roof-top-for-20-hours-before-help-came-n1652359)," wrote Katie Pavlich at Town Hall, a headline that was picked up by the esteemed Fox Nation.

But that's not quite right. Most of the "dozens" of ships were nowhere near Benghazi, and the list includes many vessels that wouldn't do much good in a rescue situation.

For instance, the Lewis and Clark is a cargo vessel, and it was somewhere off the coast of West Africa.

The map features eight minesweepers and a tug boat in Bahrain, in the Persian Gulf, a very long way from Benghazi.

The Laramie, an oiler, was off the coast of Yemen.

Per the Navy, the nearest aircraft carrier was 128 hours away.

Only a handful of ships were even in the same body of water as Benghazi, and given the small window in which the attack unfolded, mobilizing a destroyer from the Iranian coastline probably wasn't going to fix the problem.

Still, with Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state at the time, mulling a presidential bid, expect even more Benghazi "smoking guns" in the years ahead.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/02/new-map-worst-benghazi-smoking-gun-ever

[Spurtacular]

So you wanted them all to disclose classified information to the public?

L

O

L

That's OK. Republicans did that for them.

:lmao Mr. Concerned Citizen
:lmao Hillary gave away classified info to everybody and their dog

[Spurtacular]

With Egypt, doing nothing put the US on the right side of history in the region for once.

Given the fact that a lot of our problems around there came from installing and/or propping up dictators, I'm fine with trying something different. We'll have to wait some years to see if the result is any different.

:lmao Chump's patented Do Nothing philosophy.

[Spurtacular]

lol

Wait some years = don't blame Obama.

:lmao Yup. But Egyptians were smart enough to boot Chump's Muslim Brotherhood on their own and in months not years like Chump forecasted. :lmao

[baseline bum]

They knew within 24 hours, but kept talking about the Youtube video. It's not surprising you won't admit that.

And yet Trump has known for 7 months, but kept talking about how it would just go away

[DarrinS]

And yet Trump has known for 7 months, but kept talking about how it would just go away

I had Chinese lung AIDS and it was a Nothingburger.

Lol, desperately searching for Benghazi thread to bump.

[baseline bum]

I had Chinese lung AIDS and it was a Nothingburger.

Lol, desperately searching for Benghazi thread to bump.

4 > 200000?

[Spurtacular]

And yet Trump has known for 7 months, but kept talking about how it would just go away


4 > 200000?

Such shameless narratives.

[baseline bum]

Imagine a 200,000 patty nothingburger

[Will Hunting]

4 > 200000?
His disease deaths don’t matter criteria still doesn’t explain why the 4 Benghazi deaths matter so much more than the 60+ deaths that occurred during embassy attacks under Bush

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/13-benghazis-that-occurre_b_3246847

[ChumpDumper]

I had Chinese lung AIDS and it was a Nothingburger.

Lol, desperately searching for Benghazi thread to bump.You survived Benghazi too.

And 9/11.

All nothingburgers to you, chubbs.

[Spurtacular]

Imagine a 200,000 patty nothingburger

I don't have to imagine. I'm living it. :lol

TheGreatYacht

[DMC]

Imagine a 200,000 patty nothingburger

Doubt you'd share

[ElNono]

I had Chinese lung AIDS and it was a Nothingburger.

Lol, desperately searching for Benghazi thread to bump.

So we're supposed to take your anecdote and overlook 150k+ deaths? Not how it works.

[Spurminator]

I had Chinese lung AIDS and it was a Nothingburger.

Lol, desperately searching for Benghazi thread to bump.

LOL I just bet you did, just like you haven't voted since the 80's.

[DMC]

Funny, people want to compare raw numbers with Benghazi and COVID, murder vs natural causes death.. while the same group scoffs at the 500K deaths a year from smoking related illnesses, because "choice". Either use the numbers or don't. You don't get convenient exceptions for shitty comparisons.

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao DMC the pissy forum cop

[Winehole23]

Certified Honest Broker, Circle of Trust(tm)

[Spurtacular]

Funny, people want to compare raw numbers with Benghazi and COVID, murder vs natural causes death.. while the same group scoffs at the 500K deaths a year from smoking related illnesses, because "choice". Either use the numbers or don't. You don't get convenient exceptions for shitty comparisons.

Would you expect the chumpettes to not have convenient positions?

[Trainwreck2100]

Funny, people want to compare raw numbers with Benghazi and COVID, murder vs natural causes death.. while the same group scoffs at the 500K deaths a year from smoking related illnesses, because "choice". Either use the numbers or don't. You don't get convenient exceptions for shitty comparisons.

Kinda like how we accept a soldiers loss of life in a mideast shit hole they shouldn't be in but when four guys who get got a said shit hole when two of them were fucking mercenaries its a damn national tragedy. Like that?

[Spurtacular]

Kinda like how we accept a soldiers loss of life in a mideast shit hole they shouldn't be in but when four guys who get got a said shit hole when two of them were fucking mercenaries its a damn national tragedy. Like that?

I'd say you're on about your fourth beer.

[Trainwreck2100]

I'd say you're on about your fourth beer.

i don't drink beer

[Spurtacular]

i don't drink beer

You shouldn't take that excuse away from yourself, tbh.

[Will Hunting]

I LIKE BEER

[DMC]

Kinda like how we accept a soldiers loss of life in a mideast shit hole they shouldn't be in but when four guys who get got a said shit hole when two of them were fucking mercenaries its a damn national tragedy. Like that?

No, though much of what you just said is incomprehensible gibberish.

So when the soldier works for shit pay he's honorable, but if he gets paid a living wage and protects the same embassy, he's a piece of shit deserving of death.

You're so stupid.

I don't think their lives are more important than any other American lives, but they were murdered because of a lack of adequate response from the government. People who die from a disease were not murdered, they may have died due to similar negligence but it wasn't intentional. But let's consider COVID deaths more of a deal because of the numbers. I'm cool with that. Just don't get amnesia when it comes to other forms of preventable deaths like they aren't important because of some arbitrary condition you set to preserve your forum W.

[Trainwreck2100]

No, though much of what you just said is incomprehensible gibberish.

So when the soldier works for shit pay he's honorable, but if he gets paid a living wage and protects the same embassy, he's a piece of shit deserving of death.

You're so stupid.

I don't think their lives are more important than any other American lives, but they were murdered because of a lack of adequate response from the government. People who die from a disease were not murdered, they may have died due to similar negligence but it wasn't intentional. But let's consider COVID deaths more of a deal because of the numbers. I'm cool with that. Just don't get amnesia when it comes to other forms of preventable deaths like they aren't important because of some arbitrary condition you set to preserve your forum W.


Kinda like how we accept a soldiers loss of life in a mideast shit hole they shouldn't be in, but when four guys who get got(it means they got killed) a said shit hole, when two of them were fucking mercenaries its a damn national tragedy. Like that?


So when the soldier works for shit pay he's honorable, but if he gets paid a living wage and protects the same embassy, he's a piece of shit deserving of death.

Not what i meant at all, you claim to care about two mercs dying in a shithole but i seen nary a peep from you about the thousands that have died in said shithole because they were soldiers. They died thanks to the lack of an adequate response from the government after all. So by your own definition it's the gov's fault. Also :lol weeping for mercs :lol

[DMC]

Not what i meant at all, you claim to care about two mercs dying in a shithole but i seen nary a peep from you about the thousands that have died in said shithole because they were soldiers. They died thanks to the lack of an adequate response from the government after all. So by your own definition it's the gov's fault. Also :lol weeping for mercs :lol

Why would I talk about it here? I wouldn't try to win political points from the deaths of soldiers on a political forum. If you ever served you'd know.

I didn't weep for the PMCs. If anything, your people wept because those PMCs cost you the 2016 election.

Still no fucking idea what "who get got a said shit hole" means.

[Trainwreck2100]

Why would I talk about it here? I wouldn't try to win political points from the deaths of soldiers on a political forum. If you ever served you'd know.

I didn't weep for the PMCs. If anything, your people wept because those PMCs cost you the 2016 election.

Still no fucking idea what "who get got a said shit hole" means.

how about "who get got in said shit hole"

your people wept because those PMCs cost you the 2016 election.

lol just because i think you trump rubbing people have lost something either in life, or in intelligence, that drove you to put your faith in a self serving jackass, doesn't make me a fucking dem or hillary fan.

[DMC]

The event itself isn't important to most Americans, there are some in the SOC community who would take issue with claiming it doesn't affect the lives of Americans when their comrades are dead. What it does do however is show the blatant bias that people have toward a political party that wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire. It's like listening to homers talking about refereeing. Chumpdumper doesn't care because GWB isn't in the WH. WC cares because Obama is in the WH. It affects neither of you but both of you are here yammering on about it (as are many others).


how about "who get got in said shit hole"


lol just because i think you trump rubbing people have lost something either in life, or in intelligence, that drove you to put your faith in a self serving jackass, doesn't make me a fucking dem or hillary fan.

My opinion from 2012 hasn't changed on this. It's the midlife crisis edgelords here that need to try to play the shock value card of Benghazi and pretend all deaths matter just as much - except smoking related deaths.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol DMC trying to say that's edgy. Clutches his pearls while at the same time practicing casual nihilism for his Trump.

[RandomGuy]

Either use the numbers or don't. You don't get convenient exceptions for shitty comparisons.


Would you expect the chumpettes to not have convenient positions?

I expect them to have coherent thoughts. :lol

This was funny. Get off the stage.

[Ef-man]

I LIKE BEER

I have preference for dark beer, the more malt the better.

[Winehole23]

BENGHAZI!


The United States has arrested a ​person suspected of playing #a role in the 2012 attack on #the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Attorney General Pam Bondi said on Friday.



Bondi said Zubayar al-Bakoush ⁠has been #extradited to the United States and will face #murder, arson and terrorism related charges.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/us-arrests-benghazi-suspect-bondi-150238683.html

[Yonivore]

BENGHAZI!

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/us-arrests-benghazi-suspect-bondi-150238683.html
I hope he's a talker.


https://youtu.be/F66mGV8xKqo

[ChumpDumper]

yoni pretends to care about what happened in Benghazi again.

Why did you stop caring about Iraq's WMDs, yoni?