- Joined
- Feb 21, 2012
- Messages
- 37,348
- Reaction score
- 10,645
- Location
- US Southwest
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
I didn't "ignore it", you are ignoring that it was labeled as terror and at that point no one knew exactly who all was involved besides those who were attacking the compound.Every single eye witness to the events has testified in direct opposition to the stories that State and WH put out, and yet you continue to ignore them. You've got no standing.
i hear you
spent the afternoon watching faux news
they kept leaving the hearing
at one time insisted they would show more republican questioning ... but never returned to the live hearing
when even faux avoided showing the hearing, it was obvious there was nothing coming out to aid the network's anti-Obama propagnda
I didn't "ignore it", you are ignoring that it was labeled as terror and at that point no one knew exactly who all was involved besides those who were attacking the compound.
Hicks had no absolute knowledge of who the attackers were at "2am". Your claim was that everyone knew who attacked the compound, no one beyond those who did it knew.
Hicks had no absolute knowledge of who the attackers were at "2am". Your claim was that everyone knew who attacked the compound, no one beyond those who did it knew.
You are engaging in semantic argument and you don't realize it, you ignore the fact that your sources that you quote have obvious errors, you want "all information" and when the information was incorrect, you blame the WH and Cabinet for stating information supplied by the CIA.
Beyond this, it has zero bearing on anything, whether they called the attacks "terror" or "terrorism", it had no effect on the fact that Stevens was already dead. The semantic argument changes nothing, and now that a clearer view of the events has been formed, it still hasn't brought Stevens back to life.
so, what we are left with is a disgruntled employee who is unable to document anything that he is alleging against his co-workers
and that senior official brings us not one document to evidence his assertionsPathetic.
"Who he is: With a 22-year career at the State Department, Hicks has distinguished record of service in six overseas assignments in Bahrain, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Syria, and The Gambia. In the course of his service, he's received six Meritorious Service Increases, three individual Meritorious Honor Awards, and four individual Superior Honor Awards. At the time of the attack in Benghazi, Hicks was the number two U.S. official in Libya."
I'll repost the portion that is key, directly from your post:No, it wasn't labeled as terror, and I posted the transcript of the speech you are misquoting.
He mentions the 4 killed in the same breath describing "acts of terror". Romney failed with your same "point".No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.
Funny, I have arguing this exact point for a long while with M, and I'm ignoring it?Also, you are ignoring that his entire administration pushed the "reaction to a video" bs for two weeks after this speech. At least 7 people have testified that they new exactly what was happening when it was happening. The Deputy head of mission testified that he himself relayed it to the DoS real time. You, sir, are in denial.
A group claiming credit is not verification. You should be better than this.He and others on the ground -- including Amb. Stevens -- recognized the raid as a coordinated terrorist attack from the very beginning. Hicks testified that he personally told Sec. Clinton as much at 2 am on the night of the attack, along with her senior staff.....snip
You, like M, have issues telling the difference between "who" and "what"."WASHINGTON — The No. 2 diplomat in Libya during the Benghazi attack testified Wednesday that he and many others knew the Sept. 11 assault was terrorism from the moment it happened, and he was shocked when the Obama administration said otherwise.
"I was stunned," said Gregory Hicks, former deputy chief of mission in Libya. "My jaw dropped and I was embarrassed.""
Hicks had no absolute knowledge of who the attackers were at "2am". Your claim was that everyone knew who attacked the compound, no one beyond those who did it knew.
A group claiming credit is not verification. You should be better than this.
A group claiming credit is not verification. You should be better than this. And I will keep repeating this until it sinks in....and I predict this will take a long time.Oct. 24: Reuters reports the White House, Pentagon and other government agencies learned just two hours into the Benghazi attack that Ansar al-Sharia, an Islamic militant group, had “claimed credit” for it. The wire service report was based on three emails from the State Department’s Operations Center. One of the emails said, “Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli.” The article also noted, “Intelligence experts caution that initial reports from the scene of any attack or disaster are often inaccurate.” (It should be noted that Reuters first reported on Sept. 12 that unnamed U.S. officials believed that Ansar al-Sharia may have been involved.).....snip~
Plus like they said they had it on Twitter and Facebook. Also as it stands they know Stevens was even taken to a hospital that was under the Control of Ansar Al Sharia.
and that senior official brings us not one document to evidence his assertions
be assured. if he were actually demoted, there would be LOTS of paper work to document said demotion
but like you, he offers us nothing in support of the claims
I'll repost the portion that is key, directly from your post:He mentions the 4 killed in the same breath describing "acts of terror". Romney failed with your same "point".
Funny, I have arguing this exact point for a long while with M, and I'm ignoring it?
You are ignoring what is right in front of you.
Right at 4:21, just as in the transcript.video
and that senior official brings us not one document to evidence his assertions
be assured. if he were actually demoted, there would be LOTS of paper work to document said demotion
but like you, he offers us nothing in support of the claims
He mentions an "act of terror" in a general sense one time. He never once called the attack a "Terrorist Attack".
Wash rinse repeat..He mentions an "act of terror" in a general sense one time. He never once called the attack a "Terrorist Attack".
edit: Which was followed by official state department statement claiming it was a spontaneous reaction to a video.
Beyond this, it has zero bearing on anything, whether they called the attacks "terror" or "terrorism", it had no effect on the fact that Stevens was already dead. The semantic argument changes nothing, and now that a clearer view of the events has been formed, it still hasn't brought Stevens back to life.
A group claiming credit is not verification. You should be better than this. And I will keep repeating this until it sinks in....and I predict this will take a long time.
Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
Oct. 24: Reuters reports the White House, Pentagon and other government agencies learned just two hours into the Benghazi attack that Ansar al-Sharia, an Islamic militant group, had “claimed credit” for it. The wire service report was based on three emails from the State Department’s Operations Center. One of the emails said, “Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli.” The article also noted, “Intelligence experts caution that initial reports from the scene of any attack or disaster are often inaccurate.” (It should be noted that Reuters first reported on Sept. 12 that unnamed U.S. officials believed that Ansar al-Sharia may have been involved.).....snip~
Plus like they said they had it on Twitter and Facebook. Also as it stands they know Stevens was even taken to a hospital that was under the Control of Ansar Al Sharia.
A group claiming credit is not verification. You should be better than this. And I will keep repeating this until it sinks in....and I predict this will take a long time.
Right at 4:21, just as in the transcript.
Did you think this would change the losing Romney "point", that it would be different?
Because an "act of terror" is a completely different thing than "terrorism". :roll:
This is why no one cares about such hackery
Seems the FBI would disagree with your assessment....huh? Who would you say has more credibility, you or the FBI?
Sure it does. Terrorism is a Pre planned and a premeditated attack.
According to David Gomez, a former FBI counterterrorism official, Justice Department protocol automatically classifies bombings of this nature as terrorism cases, partly for jurisdictional purposes: Until deemed otherwise, the FBI (and not Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) handles bombings as terrorism investigations.
“There’s a number of different definitions for ‘terrorism.’ There’s the academic definition, and there are the legal definitions, and then there’s the one that’s used by the FBI, which kind of straddles both,” Gomez told ABC News. “The FBI uses a definition that talks about coercing the civilian population or the government … through violence. … It’s an attempt to change their minds about certain things.”
A former senior assistant special agent-in-charge for counter-terrorism and intelligence at the FBI’s Seattle Field Office, Gomez said the word “terrorism” carries political connotations about a perpetrator’s motive. Newtown, Conn., shooter Adam Lanza, for instance, was not a terrorist because he wasn’t trying to communicate a message to the public or the government.....snip~
What It Means to Call It ‘Terrorism’ - ABC News
Because an "act of terror" is a completely different thing than "terrorism". :roll:
This is why no one cares about such hackery
IT is a completely different thing, just as your anointed one explained later that day to 60 minutes.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?