Benghazi-gate About To Explode

[ConanTheBarber]

its one thing to try to cast reasonable doubt in order to get off the hook. But if you actually BELIEVE the you-tube video, with less than 100 hits at the time, had anything to do with it then you are beyond reason.

Before Benghazi occurred, there were many stories about protests around the Islamic world provoked by that film.
This makes me think that:
1) You are wrong about there having been fewer than 100 Youtube hits, or
2) There were sources other than Youtube making the film available, or
3) Enraged Muslims weren't reacting to actual viewings of the film but to rumours of what it contained and how it reflected on Islam.
Can you help me choose between these three?

The one thing that is certain is that there were many protests going on occasioned by the film. That is just not in doubt.

 

[Eric_8]

Wait, are we still trying to float the argument that the video played a big role in the events in Benghazi?

IF it did (which it didn't), wouldn't that be even more damning to Islam than an attack orchestrated by Al-Qaeda?

 

[Fuzzy_]

its one thing to try to cast reasonable doubt in order to get off the hook. But if you actually BELIEVE the you-tube video, with less than 100 hits at the time, had anything to do with it then you are beyond reason.

Wait, don't squirm away just yet. Republicans chose to obsess over the anti-Muslim movie/trailer, so let's be consistent and stick with it.

The release of the movie trailer, which was available from many sources (including Youtube [Hence the label]), upset millions of Muslims around the Middle East. This resulted in many large protests and deaths. The White House asked Google to remove the video due to the deliberately inflammatory content and the violence that it promoted. Riots, protests, arson, and assaults occurred just before the attack on the Benghazi Embassy.

Understandably, The White House suspected that the violence at the American Embassy was the result of a protest from the offensive video. Many Islamic countries also requested that Youtube remove the video. However, it was only removed only a few months ago due to a copyright technicality.

Here is a link to only one of the trailer versions on Youtube. You can't see the video itself due to the technicality.

Last year, Ahmed Abu Khattala was charged with playing a leading role in the Benghazi Embassy attack. A few days ago, he was captured by US special forces. Now, the right is in a tizzy trying develop new talking points. What is truly disgusting is the obvious dismay from the right that the person who is truly responsible is being brought to justice -- and it's not Obama or Hillary.

Now, it's the GOP crying, "what difference does it make?" as they drum up new talking points. McCain is criticizing the Administration for not reading Khattala his Miranda rights, for example.

To summarize:

• The White House had a very good reason to ask Youtube to remove the video to prevent further bloodshed.
• Protests against the video resulted in hundreds of injuries in several cities throughout the world.
• Khattala was formally charged with his Banghazi attack involvement last year.
• Khattala was apprehended a few days ago.

Wait, are we still trying to float the argument that the video played a big role in the events in Benghazi?

IF it did (which it didn't), wouldn't that be even more damning to Islam than an attack orchestrated by Al-Qaeda?

Not really. The video was intentionally made to spark violence. It's well known that Muslims may tend to be sensitive about depictions of The Prophet being shown -- let alone depictions that show him in a very negative light (something to do with a fondness for goats). It's an extremely inflammatory trailer and movie. It got the job done, and hundreds of people were injured in worldwide protests.

Considering that Christians have invaded countries and started wars in the name of God, why would any religious protest seem surprising? From the Requerimiento:

I certify to you that, with the help of God, we shall powerfully enter in your country and shall make war against you ... and shall subject you to the yoke and obedience of the Church ... and shall do you all mischief that we can, as to vassals who do not obey and refuse to receive their lord and resist and contradict him.

 

[Eric_8]

Wait, don't squirm away just yet. Republicans chose to obsess over the anti-Muslim movie/trailer, so let's be consistent and stick with it.

The release of the movie trailer, which was available from many sources (including Youtube [Hence the label]), upset millions of Muslims around the Middle East. This resulted in many large protests and deaths. The White House asked Google to remove the video due to the deliberately inflammatory content and the violence that it promoted. Riots, protests, arson, and assaults occurred just before the attack on the Benghazi Embassy.

Understandably, The White House suspected that the violence at the American Embassy was the result of a protest from the offensive video. Many Islamic countries also requested that Youtube remove the video. However, it was only removed only a few months ago due to a copyright technicality.

Here is a link to only one of the trailer versions on Youtube. You can't see the video itself due to the technicality.

Last year, Ahmed Abu Khattala was charged with playing a leading role in the Benghazi Embassy attack. A few days ago, he was captured by US special forces. Now, the right is in a tizzy trying develop new talking points. What is truly disgusting is the obvious dismay from the right that the person who is truly responsible is being brought to justice -- and it's not Obama or Hillary.

Now, it's the GOP crying, "what difference does it make?" as they drum up new talking points. McCain is criticizing the Administration for not reading Khattala his Miranda rights, for example.

To summarize:

• The White House had a very good reason to ask Youtube to remove the video to prevent further bloodshed.
• Protests against the video resulted in hundreds of injuries in several cities throughout the world.
• Khattala was formally charged with his Banghazi attack involvement last year.
• Khattala was apprehended a few days ago.

Not really. The video was intentionally made to spark violence. It's well known that Muslims may tend to be sensitive about depictions of The Prophet being shown -- let alone depictions that show him in a very negative light (something to do with a fondness for goats). It's an extremely inflammatory trailer and movie. It got the job done, and hundreds of people were injured in worldwide protests.

Considering that Christians have invaded countries and started wars in the name of God, why would any religious protest seem surprising? From the Requerimiento:

I certify to you that, with the help of God, we shall powerfully enter in your country and shall make war against you ... and shall subject you to the yoke and obedience of the Church ... and shall do you all mischief that we can, as to vassals who do not obey and refuse to receive their lord and resist and contradict him.

Hey, as long as we're clear that you're holding Islam to pre-Dark Age standards, I can live with that exceedingly weak defense.

 

[Fuzzy_]

Hey, as long as we're clear that you're holding Islam to pre-Dark Age standards, I can live with that exceedingly weak defense.

Was America conquered by Spain before the Dark Ages?

Would you like to discuss contemporary Christian violence? Should we start with WWII and work our way up? If that is too far back for you, maybe we can start with the IRA bombings and work upward? Keep in mind that Fuzzy is only discussing deaths, not sexual molestation.

Fuzzy doesn't need a 'defense', thanks. If you can prove Fuzzy wrong, have at it.

 

[StormfrontFL]

Hey, as long as we're clear that you're holding Islam to pre-Dark Age standards, I can live with that exceedingly weak defense.

Did you just come out from under your rock? It's no secret that in parts of the world Muslims are still living in essentially the 9th century. Christianity isn't so evolved in all areas either or haven't you heard of exorcisms and snake handling among other things? Observant Jews still refuse to eat pork just as their ancestors did in the 1st century. Today we realize that the prohibition with eating pork likely had to do with the inability to keep folks from getting sick due to the inability to keep pork fresh so why do today's Jews still follow that edict? Could it be because they adhere to the teachings of their religion?
Just as in all religions some are more evolved but each has it's holdouts who cling to the old ways.

 

[Eric_8]

Was America conquered by Spain before the Dark Ages?

Would you like to discuss contemporary Christian violence? Should we start with WWII and work our way up? If that is too far back for you, maybe we can start with the IRA bombings and work upward? Keep in mind that Fuzzy is only discussing deaths, not sexual molestation.

Fuzzy doesn't need a 'defense', thanks. If you can prove Fuzzy wrong, have at it.

Lol are you seriously going to call WWII (I assume the Nazis) an example of Christian violence?

 

[Eric_8]

Did you just come out from under your rock? It's no secret that in parts of the world Muslims are still living in essentially the 9th century. Christianity isn't so evolved in all areas either or haven't you heard of exorcisms and snake handling among other things? Observant Jews still refuse to eat pork just as their ancestors did in the 1st century. Today we realize that the prohibition with eating pork likely had to do with the inability to keep folks from getting sick due to the inability to keep pork fresh so why do today's Jews still follow that edict? Could it be because they adhere to the teachings of their religion?
Just as in all religions some are more evolved but each has it's holdouts who cling to the old ways.

To tie into your "why the GOP sucks" argument, in what other religion do the extremists wield such exceptional, devastating power?

For my money, I'll take the non-pork eating Jews as my neighbor over the "will literally kill if you even think about depicting my god" Islamists...besides, I've never been a fan of pork myself.

Anyhoo, end of this argument. I'm not saying all non-Islam religions are cutting edge, but I'd be hard pressed to have anyone argue their extremists aren't the most dangerous.

Note: don't be a schmuck, Storm. Save the troll implications for someone who is and/or might actually be offended by them.

 

[Popyuu]

Did you just come out from under your rock? It's no secret that in parts of the world Muslims are still living in essentially the 9th century. Christianity isn't so evolved in all areas either or haven't you heard of exorcisms and snake handling among other things? Observant Jews still refuse to eat pork just as their ancestors did in the 1st century. Today we realize that the prohibition with eating pork likely had to do with the inability to keep folks from getting sick due to the inability to keep pork fresh so why do today's Jews still follow that edict? Could it be because they adhere to the teachings of their religion?
Just as in all religions some are more evolved but each has it's holdouts who cling to the old ways.

Yup, i'm pretty sure middle america and parts of the south can vouch for the validity in your statements.

 

[Fuzzy_]

Lol are you seriously going to call WWII (I assume the Nazis) an example of Christian violence?

Fuzzy was referring to contemporary history. Today, it's commonly regarded as WWII, onward (postwar).

Contemporary history - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[balsary]

Funny coming from you considering your history of lumping anyone who doesn't agree with you 100% into the "enemy" camp. I disagreed with you about one issue in the gun control thread and out came your accusations of me being all for total confiscation of handguns.

For someone whom I consider intelligent you come across as rather stupid to take a statement made to one individual as a condemnation of all. Does one need to always use the word some in order for you to not assume a statement applies to all? If so then please use your oh so righteous ire to tell the conservatives to do the same.

Oh and how many times does one need to see that no matter what erroneous statement is made by a conservative/neocon/TeaPartier another one can usually be counted on to jump in high fiving them for making that statement? The usual argument is that they are just playing devil's advocate but they always tend to defend their "teammate". If the rational conservatives don't like being thought of as just another lunatic then why do they remain silent and allow the fringe to represent them?

Balsary if you want to keep tracking every post by Eric to call him out on his errors then maybe you should do the same with your own posts.

Oh, and why not ask why a lot of liberal people stopped posting here. Could it be that they got fed up with constantly seeing posts full of lies or errors that have already been proven false? Maybe they could no longer stomach trying to present facts to those who have no desire to see anything that contradicts their beliefs?

What's funny is that this comment:

H0ney doesn't represent all neocons.

Has turned into your reply above. What exactly does any of that have to do with your stereotyping of neocons?

 

[dandelion]

Lol are you seriously going to call WWII (I assume the Nazis) an example of Christian violence?

i assume we are referring to the slaughter of several million jews because they were jews. You may have a point that it was not the leaders of the chrisitan church in germany demanding the deaths of the jews (though I have no information either way whether they did or didnt), but I do think the people demanding those deaths would also have predominantly described themselves as Christians. As such this was an example of Christians perfectly happy to slaughter jews.

Maybe it would be more accurate to say it was members of the Nazi religious order who persecuted the Jewish religious order. Do faiths have to worship an immortal supreme being or does a human one count?

Maybe the interesting thing about the Nazi example is that I dont think the nazi leaders necessarily believed their own propaganda about Jews. It was merely a convenient group to use to create a movement.

 

[h0neymustard]

Lol are you seriously going to call WWII (I assume the Nazis) an example of Christian violence?

Insanity on their part.

If anything, it'd be the blind fanatical support of the state (a common left-wing theme) that led to the massacre of the Jews.

 

[Fuzzy_]

Lol are you seriously going to call WWII (I assume the Nazis) an example of Christian violence?

Insanity on their part.

If anything, it'd be the blind fanatical support of the state (a common left-wing theme) that led to the massacre of the Jews.

Since Fuzzy never mentioned anything about Nazis, it's a non-event. Capitalizing from non-events is something that the far right is prone to do (Benghazi-gate, IRS-gate, etc.).

If you're going to believe the lies, the truth isn't going to convince you.

Indeed.

 

[deleted213967]

Insanity on their part.

If anything, it'd be the blind fanatical support of the state (a common left-wing theme) that led to the massacre of the Jews.

Indeed, some people on the Far Left seem to forget what "Nazi" stands for...

 

[Fuzzy_]

Fuzzy considers Woodward to be a moderate -- or at least a fairly impartial journalist. This is what makes this video clip so interesting. In it, Woodward mocks Laura Ingram for continuing to politicize the Benghazi attack as she expresses her bogus, disproportionate concern.

Fox Panelist Mocks Laura Ingraham: Benghazi 'Will Never go Away' with you

Indeed, some people on the Far Left seem to forget what "Nazi" stands for...

Master baiters everywhere.

 

[slurper_la]

Move To Declassify Latest Benghazi Report Undercuts Conspiracy Claims Yet Again
Move To Declassify Latest Benghazi Report Undercuts Conspiracy Claims Yet Again

 

[hsarge]

What we are finding out is that the CIA was using the Benghazi consulate area to interrogate prisoners and to negotiate the transfer of captured qadaffi weapons from Sunni radicals in Libya to Sunni fighters in Syria fighting against Assad. We also know that these Sunni Libyans turned on the CIA. The ambassador thought he had the trust of a Libyan tribal group to act as his protection to resume those negotiations. When the radicals showed up, the protection disappeared. The ambassador would not accept military help because of his tribal association would not cooperate with them.

It should be quite evident now with the rise of ISIS that a radical Sunni jihad is underway in the entire Arab world. It is active in Syria , Iraq , Libya. It has been imprisoned in Egypt but for how long. I have no status report on Algeria and Tunisia. But the much heralded 'Arab Spring' has turned into a jihadi nightmare, providing Sunni militants with money and weapons beyond their wildest dreams.

 

[tripod]

What we are finding out is that the CIA was using the Benghazi consulate area to interrogate prisoners and to negotiate the transfer of captured qadaffi weapons from Sunni radicals in Libya to Sunni fighters in Syria fighting against Assad. We also know that these Sunni Libyans turned on the CIA. The ambassador thought he had the trust of a Libyan tribal group to act as his protection to resume those negotiations. When the radicals showed up, the protection disappeared. The ambassador would not accept military help because of his tribal association would not cooperate with them.

It should be quite evident now with the rise of ISIS that a radical Sunni jihad is underway in the entire Arab world. It is active in Syria , Iraq , Libya. It has been imprisoned in Egypt but for how long. I have no status report on Algeria and Tunisia. But the much heralded 'Arab Spring' has turned into a jihadi nightmare, providing Sunni militants with money and weapons beyond their wildest dreams.

Nailed it.

Obama could easily be impeached for this very reason but I doubt we will hear a peep about this from his opposition which infers a collusion between the two parties in arming Al Qaeda.

It's my personal opinion that those who armed Al Qaeda SHOULD ALL BE EXECUTED FOR ESPIONAGE & TREASON. Wouldn't that pretty much empty out Washington DC?

 

[rogerg]

Nailed it.

Obama could easily be impeached for this very reason but I doubt we will hear a peep about this from his opposition which infers a collusion between the two parties in arming Al Qaeda.

It's my personal opinion that those who armed Al Qaeda SHOULD ALL BE EXECUTED FOR ESPIONAGE & TREASON. Wouldn't that pretty much empty out Washington DC?

What's even crazier is the person who first broke this story was GLENN BECK!!!!! He reported this 1 1/2 years ago and and of course, everyone ignored him because he a "fucking evil bat shit crazy conservative". So let's be clear. In Benghazi, Obama was arming ISIS. No doubt McCain, Lindsey Graham, and John Boehner's finger prints are all over this as well.