OOOPS! Maybe it WAS a terrorist attack!

No shit Sherlock. We knew that day one.

US Libyan embassy attack: What's the real story?
Intelligence sources tell Fox News they are convinced the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was directly tied to Al Qaeda -- with a former Guantanamo detainee involved.
That revelation comes on the same day a top Obama administration official called last week's deadly assault a "terrorist attack" -- the first time the attack has been described that way by the administration after claims it had been a "spontaneous" act.
"Yes, they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy," Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, said during a Senate hearing Wednesday.
Olsen echoed administration colleagues in saying U.S. officials have no specific intelligence about "significant advanced planning or coordination" for the attack.
However, his statement goes beyond White House Press Secretary Jay Carney and Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, saying the Sept. 11 attack on the consulate was spontaneous. He is the first top administration official to call the strike an act of terrorism.
Sufyan Ben Qumu is thought to have been involved and even may have led the attack, Fox News' intelligence sources said. Qumu, a Libyan, was released from the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in 2007 and transferred into Libyan custody on the condition he be kept in jail. He was released by the Qaddafi regime as part of its reconciliation effort with Islamists in 2008.
His Guantanamo files also show he has ties to the financiers behind the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The declassified files also point to ties with the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a known Al Qaeda affiliate.
Olson, repeating Wednesday that the FBI is handling the Benghazi investigation, also acknowledged the attack could lead back to Al Qaeda and its affiliates.
"We are looking at indications that individuals involved in the attack may have had connections to Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda's affiliates, in particular Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb," he said at the Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing.
Still, Olsen said "the facts that we have now indicate that this was an opportunistic attack on our embassy, the attack began and evolved and escalated over several hours," Olson said.
Carney said hours earlier that there still is "no evidence of a preplanned or pre-meditated attack," which occurred on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks.
"I made that clear last week, Ambassador Rice made that clear Sunday," Carney said at the daily White House press briefing.
Rice appeared on "Fox News Sunday" and four other morning talk shows to say the attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans was "spontaneous" and sparked by an early protest that day outside the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, Egypt, over an anti-Islamic video.
"It was a reaction to a video that had nothing to do with the United States," Rice told Fox News. "The best information and the best assessment we have today is that this was not a pre-planned, pre-meditated attack. What happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo."
However, that account clashed with claims by the Libyan president that the attack was in fact premeditated. Other sources, including an intelligence source in Libya who spoke to Fox News, have echoed those claims. The intelligence source even said that, contrary to the suggestion by the Obama administration, there was no major protest in Benghazi before the deadly attack which killed four Americans. A U.S. official did not dispute the claim.
In the face of these conflicting accounts, Carney on Tuesday deferred to the ongoing investigation and opened the door to the possibility of other explanations.
Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, called Wednesday for an independent review of the attack.
"A State Department Accountability Review Board to look into the Benghazi attack is not sufficient," Collins said. "Given the loss of the lives of four Americans who were serving their country and the serious questions that have been raised about the security at our Consulate in Benghazi, it is imperative that a non-political, no-holds-barred examination be conducted."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz26ygWPN00

Quote:

---

Intelligence sources tell Fox News they are convinced the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was directly tied to Al Qaeda -- with a former Guantanamo detainee involved.

---

Love the 'sources said' game by Faux News

probably the same 'intelligence sources' that said Saddam was building a nuclear weapon and was an immenent threat...

Sources say oil desolves in water
Sources say obama is a commie
Sources say the dems made a deal with the devil to win the 2012 elections..

anyone who thought that it wasn't a terrorist attack in the first place has serious mental deficiencies.

Every media outlet in the free world needs to have running cartoon strips of Allah and Muhammed getting it in the ass by a Jewish Peter North.

Whether it was premeditated or not it was a terror attack....so they can label it anything they want...what wing-nuts like CC want to do is blame Obama because he wasn't peronally there to stop these attackes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

Whether it was premeditated or not it was a terror attack....so they can label it anything they want...what wing-nuts like CC want to do is blame Obama because he wasn't peronally there to stop these attackes

---

Just as Bush got the blame for 9/11. It comes with being in charge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

Just as Bush got the blame for 9/11. It comes with being in charge.

---

Well, the difference being that with the Able Danger evidence we know Bush knew more about the 911 attacks than he admitted to the 911 commission..

Didn't the WH say it was a terrorist attack the day after it happend?

:lol CC gets his news from Fox News.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

Didn't the WH say it was a terrorist attack the day after it happend?

---

dunno. the first statement I recall from the WH was that it wasn't. Libya claims they warned us; the WH denied it.

At any rate, the fuckers shelled the safe house in Benghazi -- on September 11 -- with the ambassador there, and killed him. Close on the heels of a targeted assassination of an AQ higher up.

Coincidence?

Why do Americans insist on placing buildings with American flags in other countries and then bitch when they get attacked?

Do you see the KKK with a recruiting office in the middle of Harlem?

Without going back and reviewing what everyone in the Govt was saying.. didn't the administration preface their comments with the infromation they had at the moment? I would assume the red teamers would not want our govt to release statements before they actually knew what happened..right?

Is that correct? Or is this one of those Obama derangement episodes?


I would also assume that policemen don't decide what happened at a crime scene before they investigate? Much less a crime scene they hadn't been to yet.. am I missing something?


So I guess the red teamers want the US govt to run off and start throwing around accusations before all of the intel is available... ooookkkkk


Although they prefaced their statements it was foolish for the administration to claim it was because of the video... they should have just said we don't have enough information to make any claim... red teamerrs would have whined no matter what so they didn't have anythng to lose by saying we don't know yet..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

Didn't the WH say it was a terrorist attack the day after it happend?

---

No

They were still pushing the view that it was a "spontaneous demonstration" over the film on the Sunday talk shows.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

We knew that day one.

---

No, actually you didn't know.

Better:

You strongly suspected that, but had no personal first-hand knowledge of the event.

"knowing" and arriving at a reasonable estimation of probability are two seperate things.

FWIW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

No

They were still pushing the view that it was a "spontaneous demonstration" over the film on the Sunday talk shows.

---

"They" were likely being diplomatically circumspect about an event where solid evidence was still being gathered.

You and Bullshit Mountain would criticize the administration no matter what they did, so your criticism rings rather hollow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

"They" were likely being diplomatically circumspect about an event where solid evidence was still being gathered.

You and Bullshit Mountain would criticize the administration no matter what they did, so your criticism rings rather hollow.

---

And you would defend them as well, even when the defense defies all logic.

and if there's one thing we all know, it's that human events unfold in history in the most rigorously logical manner, with clear, indisputable chains of causation . . .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

And you would defend them as well, even when the defense defies all logic.

---

No, actually I wouldn't.

(shrugs)

I just prefer waiting until more solid evidence is available before making judgments, and don't entirely fault people for somehow not having a 100% grasp on fast moving situations.

Personally I am more than a little confused why it makes any difference, what it was called, as long as the administration was working to catch those responsible.

Can you tell me why, in your words, it is so important to say the "right" thing here? What is the difference?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

No, actually I wouldn't.

(shrugs)

I just prefer waiting until more solid evidence is available before making judgments, and don't entirely fault people for somehow not having a 100% grasp on fast moving situations.

Personally I am more than a little confused why it makes any difference, what it was called, as long as the administration was working to catch those responsible.

Can you tell me why, in your words, it is so important to say the "right" thing here? What is the difference?

---

Most people call intentionally saying something that you know isn't true a lie.

SIX DAYS after the Ambassador was killed the White House was STILL saying publicly that it was just a random spontaneous act of violence protesting that stupid movie.

If you don't think it was a lie and you think they really believed that then you would have to believe that they are also monumentally incompetent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Most people call intentionally saying something that you know isn't true a lie.

SIX DAYS after the Ambassador was killed the White House was STILL saying publicly that it was just a random spontaneous act of violence protesting that stupid movie.

If you don't think it was a lie and you think they really believed that then you would have to believe that they are also monumentally incompetent.

---

How have you excluded the possibility that there are diplomatic or other considerations that might have effected the administrations pronouncements?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Most people call intentionally saying something that you know isn't true a lie.

---

Are lies or phrasing important to diplomats?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

How have you excluded the possibility that there are diplomatic or other considerations that might have effected the administrations pronouncements?

---

Oh, they were absolutely trying to cover their ass, Especially after the Libyan government went public and told the world they had warned the US State Department that there was bad shit being planned for 9/11.

How have you excluded the possibility that there are diplomatic or other considerations that might have effected the administrations pronouncements?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Oh, they were absolutely trying to cover their ass,

---

That is a very conclusive statement of fact.

Can you show me evidence of this fact?

(edit)

The fact in this case being to state that the motive in this case was to simply cover up incompetance, and no other factors were involved, by implication.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

How have you excluded the possibility that there are diplomatic or other considerations that might have effected the administrations pronouncements?



That is a very conclusive statement of fact.

Can you show me evidence of this fact?

---

:lmao

Watch out, at this rate of denial and blind defense of team blue you may actually turn blue.

http://www.davelgil.com/korea/smurf.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

SIX DAYS after the Ambassador was killed the White House was STILL saying publicly that it was just a random spontaneous act of violence protesting that stupid movie.

---

An FBI team was dispatched immediately after the attack, but held up after the beginning:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...377_story.html

They arrived there yesterday:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...8db_story.html


How long do you think it took to provide a preliminary report to the president from that team?

How have you excluded the possibility that there are diplomatic or other considerations that might have effected the administrations pronouncements?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Oh, they were absolutely trying to cover their ass,

---

That is a very conclusive statement of fact.

Can you show me evidence of this fact?

(edit)

The fact in this case being to state that the motive in this case was to simply cover up incompetance, and no other factors were involved, by implication.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

:lmao

Watch out, at this rate of denial and blind defense of team blue you may actually turn blue.

---

I haven't denied anything at all.

I have simply asked you for evidence to support your statement of fact.

Do you have any to support this claim of motivation?

Normally, when someone claims someone is doing something for a reason, acceptable evidence would be direct statements "I bought an ice cream cone, because I like ice cream", would be an example.

From your OWN LINK

Quote:

---

The bureau declined to comment. But U.S. intelligence officials said that, despite the delay in getting into Benghazi, agencies have been able to draw intelligence from an array of sources, including news footage of the attack, intercepted phone calls and e-mails, and information from human sources recruited by the CIA.

The officials said they have reached a tentative conclusion that the assault was carried out by a group aligned with al-Qaeda but not directed by the terrorist network’s core leadership. The officials stressed the preliminary nature of the assessments, noting that a massive analytic effort involving every agency in the intelligence community is still in its early stages.

---

That was published SEPTEMBER 14TH.

On September 16th the White House minions were still making the talk show rounds claiming that it was just a random act of violence triggered by riots over the movie.

How have you excluded the possibility that there are diplomatic or other considerations that might have effected the administrations pronouncements?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Oh, they were absolutely trying to cover their ass,

---

That is a very conclusive statement of fact.

Can you show me evidence of this fact?

(edit)

The fact in this case being to state that the motive in this case was to simply cover up incompetance, and no other factors were involved, by implication.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

:lmao

Watch out, at this rate of denial and blind defense of team blue you may actually turn blue.

---

I haven't denied anything at all.

I have simply asked you for evidence to support your statement of fact.

Do you have any to support this claim of motivation?

Normally, when someone claims someone is doing something for a reason, acceptable evidence would be direct statements "I bought an ice cream cone, because I like ice cream", would be an example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

From your OWN LINK
"The officials said they have reached a tentative conclusion"

---

You have presented evidence of analysts tentative conclusions.

Is that a direct statement that has a senior administration official saying directly that they were officially saying it wasn't a terrorist attack solely because they didn't want to appear incompetant?

Yes or no will do.

Cosmic Cowboy, you also did not answer the question posed to you here:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...4&postcount=26

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

It also suggests a strategy for bypassing that emotional part of the brain, and maybe getting better thinking from conservatives, who so obviously make decisions based on what seems to me to be nothing but pure emotion, as I have noted before.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RG

That is a very conclusive statement of fact.

Can you show me evidence of this fact?

---

Just sayin'

:lmao

Senior Administration officials were saying publicly as late as Sunday that there was no evidence that it was not just a random act of violence triggered by riots caused by the movie. You linked intelligence analysts stating days earlier that it appeared to be the work of Al Quaida. The administration officials were either lying or incompetent.

Take your pick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

So I guess the red teamers want the US govt to run off and start throwing around accusations before all of the intel is available... ooookkkkk

---

That would appear to be the preferred course of action.

Act first, think later.

The sole reason this course of action is preferred by the right and Bullshit Mountain, is that this course of action is the opposite of the one the Democratic president took.

Had the president come out and forcefully, immediately, claimed it was a terrorist attack, the fact tha the FBI team took days before they were allowed in and a more official report to be generated, the narrative would be that he should have waited for all the infromation to come in before saying something quite so incindiary.

The goal here is not to get at good policy, but good sound bites for the election.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Bush did X. Republicans said X was a great policy.
Obama did X. Republican said X was a horrible policy.

Stewart pretty much nailed Fox News talking heads doing and saying that pretty much exactly, and rather plainly.

http://entertainment.nbcnews.com/_ne...s-aka-fox-news

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Cosmic Cowboy, you also did not answer the question posed to you here:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...4&postcount=26

---

That didn't even deserve a response.

If the administration can't make some obvious preliminary conclusions from the known facts without getting a detailed FBI report weeks after the fact then they shouldn't be there.

you know they had to have a pretty damn good idea that this was an Al Quaida operation intentionally run on 9/11, especially since libyan intelligence warned them before it happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

Just sayin'

---

I can actually, and intend on doing just that. I have about three rather concrete examples in mind when I wrote that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

That didn't even deserve a response.

If the administration can't make some obvious preliminary conclusions from the known facts without getting a detailed FBI report weeks after the fact then they shouldn't be there.

you know they had to have a pretty damn good idea that this was an Al Quaida operation intentionally run on 9/11, especially since libyan intelligence warned them before it happened.

---

It does deserve a response. It is a fair question, politely asked, and very pertinant to the topic at hand.

If the FBI team got there yesterday, how long do you think it would take for their first report to hit the presidents desk?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

That would appear to be the preferred course of action.

Act first, think later.

The sole reason this course of action is preferred by the right and Bullshit Mountain, is that this course of action is the opposite of the one the Democratic president took.

Had the president come out and forcefully, immediately, claimed it was a terrorist attack, the fact tha the FBI team took days before they were allowed in and a more official report to be generated, the narrative would be that he should have waited for all the infromation to come in before saying something quite so incindiary.

The goal here is not to get at good policy, but good sound bites for the election.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Bush did X. Republicans said X was a great policy.
Obama did X. Republican said X was a horrible policy.

Stewart pretty much nailed Fox News talking heads doing and saying that pretty much exactly, and rather plainly.

http://entertainment.nbcnews.com/_ne...s-aka-fox-news

---

Oh, fuck you....I never called for a course of action or retaliation, but trying to deflect all the responsibility for the ambassadors death to that stupid movie was pretty damn transparent and lame. Poor fucker didn't even have a security detail when he was killed. And then they arrested the guy that made the movie? Whats up with that? You really don't think that's just more deflection?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

It does deserve a response. It is a fair question, politely asked, and very pertinant to the topic at hand.

If the FBI team got there yesterday, how long do you think it would take for their first report to hit the presidents desk?

---

Probably several weeks or even several months.

That's why your claim that the Administration can't do or say anything without the FBI's report is just ignorant as hell.

And if you say they can't then you don't put people out there stating as FACT that they have no evidence that the killing wasn't just a spontaneous event (knowing it's probably not true) triggered by that stupid film.

A simple "no comment until we get more facts" would have sufficed.

The Repug network is pushing the "ex-Gitmo" guy as alleged leader of the alleged terrorist attack. Obviously, they want to tatoo a dead ambassador to Obama.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

The Repug network is pushing the "ex-Gitmo" guy as alleged leader of the alleged terrorist attack. Obviously, they want to tatoo a dead ambassador to Obama.

---

The guy was released by Bush, dumbass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Probably several weeks or even several months.

That's why your claim that the Administration can't do anything without the FBI's report is just ignorant as hell.

---

So the very first report of any kind that might be given to the president concerning the death of an embassador, that analysts were concluding was likely a terrorist attack, would take weeks or months?

Does this estimation include preliminary informal reports as well?

If you were president, how long would you wait for information regarding this?

Would you want daily updates?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Probably several weeks or even several months.

That's why your claim that the Administration can't do or say anything without the FBI's report is just ignorant as hell.

And if you say they can't then you don't put people out there stating as FACT that they have no evidence that the killing wasn't just a spontaneous event (knowing it's probably not true) triggered by that stupid film.

A simple "no comment until we get more facts" would have sufficed.

---

uh they prefaced their statements with the knowledge they had available at that time... why don't you acknowledge that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

So the very first report of any kind that might be given to the president concerning the death of an embassador, that analysts were concluding was likely a terrorist attack, would take weeks or months?

Does this estimation include preliminary informal reports as well?

If you were president, how long would you wait for information regarding this?

Would you want daily updates?

---

Pffft.

Obama only goes to about half his national security briefings.

It's about getting re-elected, not running the country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Oh, fuck you....I never called for a course of action or retaliation, but trying to deflect all the responsibility for the ambassadors death to that stupid movie was pretty damn transparent and lame. Poor fucker didn't even have a security detail when he was killed. And then they arrested the guy that made the movie? Whats up with that? You really don't think that's just more deflection?

---

You have mis-read what I wrote.

By "action" I meant the action of blaming it on a terrorist attack, without having enough supporting evidence to more conclusively make a rather important assertion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

uh they prefaced their statements with the knowledge they had available at that time... why don't you acknowledge that?

---

:lmao

Because they CLEARLY had contradicting knowledge. Again, they lied.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

You have mis-read what I wrote.

By "action" I meant the action of blaming it on a terrorist attack, without having enough supporting evidence to more conclusively make a rather important assertion.

---

Reading comprehension issues?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Probably several weeks or even several months.

That's why your claim that the Administration can't do or say anything without the FBI's report is just ignorant as hell.

And if you say they can't then you don't put people out there stating as FACT that they have no evidence that the killing wasn't just a spontaneous event (knowing it's probably not true) triggered by that stupid film.

A simple "no comment until we get more facts" would have sufficed.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Pffft.

Obama only goes to about half his national security briefings.

It's about getting re-elected, not running the country.

---

So you avoided my questions again, and answered the questions you wanted to answer.

If someone avoids answering fair questions with honest answers does that indicate they are being honest with you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

I can actually, and intend on doing just that. I have about three rather concrete examples in mind when I wrote that.

---

I'm sure you do......now.

Random, when it comes to you, do any of us take you serious?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Random, when it comes to you, do any of us take you serious?

---

Probably infinitely more than take you seriously, tbh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Reading comprehension issues?

---

No, I understood that.

I also think that if that were the chosen course of action (declining comment), you would have manufactured a reason to criticise it.

But that is simply what I think. Don't ask me for evidence of it. :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

No, I understood that.

I also think that if that were the chosen course of action (declining comment), you would have manufactured a reason to criticise it.

But that is simply what I think. Don't ask me for evidence of it. :lol

---

:lol:toast

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

Probably infinitely more than take you seriously, tbh.

---

I know that people often don't take me serious. I just wonder if he knows he is in the same boat? He seems to get real pissy over it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Random, when it comes to you, do any of us take you serious?

---

I am done being a dick, as I have gotten it out of my system for the most part.

You can take me as seriously as you want. This is the internet, after all. SA210 doesn't seem to take me seriously, and comes off as a clown, because I have a tendency to ask rather pertinant questions that don't tend to get answers.

I will put the same question to you:

If someone avoids answering fair questions with direct answers does that indicate they are being honest with you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

So you avoided my questions again, and answered the questions you wanted to answer.

If someone avoids answering fair questions with honest answers does that indicate they are being honest with you?

---

LOL

I answered your question. I seriously doubt he is getting daily briefings from the FBI team in Libya when he doesn't even bother to get his daily national security briefings half the time. Oh thats right. He's so fucking smart he doesn't need to meet with his national security advisors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

I'm sure you do......now.

---

You have my word I had at least one rather concrete example in mind when I wrote that.

HOnestly, now that I have a new conceptial framework with with to view some of the conservative comments here, I am pretty sure others will pop up.

But, for now, I have to get going.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

I will put the same question to you:

If someone avoids answering fair questions with direct answers does that indicate they are being honest with you?

---

It doesn't indicate anything at all by itself. Too many possibilities including they may have the right response, but not be ready to back it up. Maybe they just want to fuck with you. You after all, get you panties in a bunch so easily.

Why do you ask for the banning of Cosmoron rather than just use the IGNORE option?

Do you not have free will?

If I were devious, I would exploit your short temper so often.

If someone avoids answering fair questions with [direct] answers does that indicate they are being honest with you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

LOL

I answered your question. I seriously doubt he is getting daily briefings from the FBI team in Libya when he doesn't even bother to get his daily national security briefings half the time. Oh thats right. He's so fucking smart he doesn't need to meet with his national security advisors.

---

Again, that isn't what I just asked.

I want to know, if you think that "If someone avoids answering fair questions with [direct] answers does that indicate they are being honest with you? "


It seems to me that the common sense answer is yes, but I wanted to see if you agreed with that statement. (i.e. If a person cannot answer questions directly, does that mean they are being evasive and/or dishonest?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

If I were devious, I would exploit your short temper so often.

---

You might try, but you aren't intelligent enough to pull it off. No offense.

Since you set out with intent, stalking and logging other users activities, maybe we like fucking with you back?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

If someone avoids answering fair questions with [direct] answers does that indicate they are being honest with you?




Again, that isn't what I just asked.

I want to know, if you think that "If someone avoids answering fair questions with [direct] answers does that indicate they are being honest with you? "


It seems to me that the common sense answer is yes, but I wanted to see if you agreed with that statement. (i.e. If a person cannot answer questions directly, does that mean they are being evasive and/or dishonest?)

---

I see nothing wrong with acknowledging the question was asked and replying that they aren't prepared to answer the question until they get more information.

That's not a lie.

Making up some bullshit story that they had no evidence that it wasn't just random spin off violence from protests about some stupid movie and LYING that they didn't have contradicting evidence is just that..a LIE.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

You might try, but you aren't intelligent enough to pull it off. No offense.

---

No, you entirely meant that offensive. That's OK though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

You have my word I had at least one rather concrete example in mind when I wrote that.

HOnestly, now that I have a new conceptial framework with with to view some of the conservative comments here, I am pretty sure others will pop up.

But, for now, I have to get going.

---

Trust me. I'm a doctor.:lol


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-jtgaKcGRLO.../Idiocracy.jpg

RandomChumpDumper...

I asked you a direct question!

Why do you ask for the banning of Cosmoron rather than just use the IGNORE option?

Why do you not answer?

So did they stick the moviemaker in Gitmo?

I'm sorry guys. Looks like I made Random cry, and he stormed off to his room.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Poor fucker didn't even have a security detail when he was killed. And then they arrested the guy that made the movie? Whats up with that? You really don't think that's just more deflection?

---

I thought he had at least two bodyguards with him? (The former seals)... not sure if that counts as a "detail" or not.

Hoist the Flag, Praise the Lord, Pass the Ammo: US Foreign Policy

The Saturday headline in the Wall Street Journal was: “Anti-U.S. Mobs on Rampage.”

The next day, a NATO airstrike killed eight women collecting firewood in the mountains of eastern Afghanistan, an event that garnered virtually zero mainstream U.S. headlines.

Somewhere in the gap between these two phenomena — the overheated news about our violent, irrational enemies in the Middle East and the silence surrounding our war and occupation of the region — lies American politics, values, the presidential race, the national identity. Beyond that gap lies the truth about who we are, and only when we have access to it does the future turn into creative possibility and peace become possible.

http://truth-out.org/buzzflash/comme...foreign-policy

"Why Do They Hate Us?" :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

I thought he had at least two bodyguards with him? (The former seals)... not sure if that counts as a "detail" or not.

---

Nope. The State Department admitted yesterday that Stevens had no security detail when he was attacked and the SEALs killed just jumped in to help.

partial quote:

Quote:

---

The two former Navy SEALs killed in last week's attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi were not part of Ambassador Chris Stevens' official security detail but took up arms in an effort to protect the facility when it was overrun by insurgents, U.S. officials tell the Washington Guardian.

The two former SEALS, Tyrone Woods, 41, and Glen Doherty, 42, were not employed by the State Department diplomatic security office and instead were what is known as personal service contractors who had other duties related to security, the officials said.

They stepped into action, however, when Stevens became separated from the small security detail normally assigned to protect him when he traveled from the more fortified embassy in Tripoli to Benghazi, the officials said.

---

http://www.washingtonguardian.com/revising-libya-story

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I know that people often don't take me serious. I just wonder if he knows he is in the same boat? He seems to get real pissy over it...

---

He's not in the same boat.

Good catch CC. I wonder what happened to that security detail? Hopefully there's some investigation into that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Good catch CC. I wonder what happened to that security detail? Hopefully there's some investigation into that.

---

Only if congress does it. Obama wants the whole thing blamed on that stupid movie and swept under the rug.

In the grand scheme of things we should just move on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Obama wants the whole thing blamed on that stupid movie and swept under the rug.

---

I guess your clairvoyance runs hot and cold:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...0&postcount=20

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

I guess your clairvoyance runs hot and cold:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...0&postcount=20

---

Just going by what he is saying.

same as ploto in the Romney thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

same as ploto in the Romney thread

---

Boy your reading comprehension DOES really suck.

dood, you're blind to yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

Trust me. I'm a doctor.:lol


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-jtgaKcGRLO.../Idiocracy.jpg

---

Fair enough.

I would simply point to a great deal of what Cosmic Cowboy, and many other conservatives say about things like welfare reform.

Almost invariably, some anecdote gets trotted out and shown around.

This is the visual/emotional side of the decision center in full play. The anecdote is meant to invoke this mental picture, and the moral judgement that goes with it.

I have, more than once, asked for actual data to judge the costs and benefits of entitlement programs or similar, and gotten no real response. This is the non-visual dispassionate calculus.

Go back and re-read the NPR piece. Tell me I am wrong on this.

The way conservatives almost universally talk about welfare and entitlements is all visual/emotionally based, with very little cost/benefit calculus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Fair enough.

I would simply point to a great deal of what Cosmic Cowboy, and many other conservatives say about things like welfare reform.

Almost invariably, some anecdote gets trotted out and shown around.

This is the visual/emotional side of the decision center in full play. The anecdote is meant to invoke this mental picture, and the moral judgement that goes with it.

I have, more than once, asked for actual data to judge the costs and benefits of entitlement programs or similar, and gotten no real response. This is the non-visual dispassionate calculus.

Go back and re-read the NPR piece. Tell me I am wrong on this.

The way conservatives almost universally talk about welfare and entitlements is all visual/emotionally based, with very little cost/benefit calculus.

---

Are you saying that not all people on welfare are blood sucking leaches?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

Are you saying that not all people on welfare are blood sucking leaches?

---

No, just 47% of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

No, just 47% of them.

---

I'm voting for Romney

For the record, I never claimed that. I suspect it's closer to 10%

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

For the record, I never claimed that. I suspect it's closer to 10%

---

I agree that Romney was wrong about that 47%. :wow

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

I agree that Romney was wrong about that 47%. :wow

---

I will agree that the 47% that don't pay federal income taxes are not all deadbeats, but I can also understand where he was coming from. From and election/vote gathering standpoint, a pledge to lower taxes is pretty irrelevant to someone that already doesn't pay taxes. Couple that with the democratic lies that Romney/Ryan will cut seniors medicare and it even plays as a negative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Fair enough.

I would simply point to a great deal of what Cosmic Cowboy, and many other conservatives say about things like welfare reform.

Almost invariably, some anecdote gets trotted out and shown around.

This is the visual/emotional side of the decision center in full play. The anecdote is meant to invoke this mental picture, and the moral judgement that goes with it.

I have, more than once, asked for actual data to judge the costs and benefits of entitlement programs or similar, and gotten no real response. This is the non-visual dispassionate calculus.

Go back and re-read the NPR piece. Tell me I am wrong on this.

The way conservatives almost universally talk about welfare and entitlements is all visual/emotionally based, with very little cost/benefit calculus.

---

In the absence of hard data, and be fair, the administration is doing a horrible job on the cost/benefit front, anecdotes gain credibility.

like that guy has no ass to cover

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

like that guy has no ass to cover

---

The only ass that's being covered is Obama's by Ann Curry.

Quote:

---

ANN CURRY:
Would you call the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi an act of terrorism?

LIBYAN PRESIDENT MOHAMED MAGARIAF:
I have no doubt about that. And-- it's a preplanned act of terrorism directed against American citizens//

ANN CURRY:
What is your evidence that it was a preplanned act of terrorism?

LIBYAN PRESIDENT MOHAMED MAGARIAF:
Number one is choosing the date, 11th of September, has all the significance. // If we take the facts about-- the way it was executed, we can see-- that there is enough proof that it is a preplanned act of terrorism.

ANN CURRY:
President Obama, is not calling it a terrorist attack. He stopped short of calling it a terrorist attack.

LIBYAN PRESIDENT MOHAMED MAGARIAF:
This is how I am calling it as a Libyan, responsible, or a Libyan official. But it is for President Obama, Secretary Clinton to describe the way they-- they-- they like and they feel right. I mean, you have your terminology. And we have our terminology. It's an act of terror.

ANN CURRY:
Describe the attack, based on your investigation?

LIBYAN PRESIDENT MOHAMED MAGARIAF:
It's too early for me to give the details, my new details about this. But //it was launched in-- with a high degree of accuracy, which means that the perpetrators must have //some kind of exercise //on how to hit and how to launch-- these-- acts.

ANN CURRY:
You're confirming that RPGs were used in the initial attack?

LIBYAN PRESIDENT MOHAMED MAGARIAF:
Attack. And // mortars--

ANN CURRY:
Mortars were used in the subsequent attack--

LIBYAN PRESIDENT MOHAMED MAGARIAF:
--safe house, yes.

ANN CURRY:
And do you know now many mortars were used?

LIBYAN PRESIDENT MOHAMED MAGARIAF:
About five I think.

ANN CURRY:
And you're saying that these were fired with such accuracy that this could not have been done by someone who did not have experience?

LIBYAN PRESIDENT MOHAMED MAGARIAF:
Experience and knew what he was doing.

ANN CURRY:
And this is what is helping convince you that this was a preplanned attack not--

LIBYAN PRESIDENT MOHAMED MAGARIAF:
Not doubt--

ANN CURRY:
--a reaction to a controversial movie?

LIBYAN PRESIDENT MOHAMED MAGARIAF:
Yes. I have no doubt about this.

---

no shit. this should have been a slam dunk for Repub party. Obama and even Hilary fucked this one up bigtime.

but luckily for Hussein, Romney saved the Democratic presidency once again :lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

I will agree that the 47% that don't pay federal income taxes are not all deadbeats, but I can also understand where he was coming from. From and election/vote gathering standpoint, a pledge to lower taxes is pretty irrelevant to someone that already doesn't pay taxes.

---

Maybe, but a pledge to not increase taxes or remove loopholes is very relevant to a not-insignificant portion of that 47%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

The only ass that's being covered is Obama's by Ann Curry.

---

Please explain how she was covering Obama's ass with that comment. Or feel free to copy from whatever blog convinced you this was something to be outraged over.

Has Obama or anyone from the various departments made a statement as to responsibility?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

Has Obama or anyone from the various departments made a statement as to responsibility?

---

He don't need to. He just lets his best PR Representative do the job. Mitt Romney :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurminator

Please explain how she was covering Obama's ass with that comment. Or feel free to copy from whatever blog convinced you this was something to be outraged over.

---

His admin has been pushing the narrative that the attack was because of the movie. He even said it again in his UN speech.

She seems to be pushing that narrative as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

His admin has been pushing the narrative that the attack was because of the movie. He even said it again in his UN speech.

She seems to be pushing that narrative as well.

---

How is she "pushing" it by attributing that narrative to the Obama Administration?

"President Obama is not calling it a terrorist attack" is factual statement, is it not? She's basically setting him up to explain, in this interview, why he disagrees. That's how interviews work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurminator

How is she "pushing" it by attributing that narrative to the Obama Administration?

"President Obama is not calling it a terrorist attack" is factual statement, is it not? She's basically setting him up to explain, in this interview, why he disagrees. That's how interviews work.

---

Perhaps "pushing" is the wrong word, but she seems very skeptical during the interview and seems baffled that this man would disagree with Obama. The tone of the interview doesn't come across by reading only the transcript. Anyway, it's pretty obvious that this was a terrorist attack on the US. Or, as Obama likes to call it, a bump in the road.

Oops...Hillary is going off the Obama script again...

Quote:

---

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton indicated for the first time on Wednesday that there was an explicit link between the Qaeda franchise in North Africa and the attack at the American diplomatic mission in Libya that killed four Americans, including the ambassador, J. Christopher Stevens.

She also said American intelligence and law enforcement agencies were working not only with Libya but also with other nations in the region to investigate the attack in Benghazi on Sept. 11. That indicated that the attack’s planning and execution might not have been the local, spontaneous eruption of violence that the administration had initially described.

Mrs. Clinton made her remarks at a special United Nations meeting on the political and security crisis in the swath of North Africa known as the Maghreb and the Sahel, a crisis that is particularly affecting northern Mali, which has been overrun by Islamic extremists since a military coup divided that country earlier this year.

---

full story:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/27/wo...a.html?_r=1&hp