New Disclosures on Benghazi

[balrog666]

Same old, same old, the shills dissemble for the Ohole administration and conflate previous anti-terrorist programs with giving government data to Ohole's campaign. Yeah, that works ... in the world of oblivious retards

 

[elbe]

Same old, same old, the shills dissemble for the Ohole administration and conflate previous anti-terrorist programs with giving government data to Ohole's campaign. Yeah, that works ... in the world of oblivious retards

I assume you have some material facts and not just partison noise, yes?

 

[The Big Dog]

Strangely, I seem to recall some similar claims by some truthers, these appeals to emotion, but I'm sure that's just a coincidence, right?

Looks at sig, looks at Elbe's post. Shakes head

ODS claims another victim.

Personal attack, next!

You're the only one posting in it on the CT side any more.

Looks at sig, looks at your post, shakes head.

Folks, calling a Congressional Subpoena and an ongoing investigation a "conspiracy" is not even a weak dodge, it is pathetic partisan whining. I'd suggest that you refocus, particularly as I am posting the developments like a real critical thinker, and there is literally no way that thread jacking nor whining nor any other attempt to disrupt this thread about this important issue is going to succeed.

Take a gander at the rules, and lets focus on the facts, and not 16.5.

 

[DDWW]

Folks, calling a Congressional Subpoena and an ongoing investigation a "conspiracy" is not even a weak dodge, it is pathetic partisan whining. I'd suggest that you refocus, particularly as I am posting the developments like a real critical thinker, and there is literally no way that thread jacking nor whining nor any other attempt to disrupt this thread about this important issue is going to succeed.

Take a gander at the rules, and lets focus on the facts, and not 16.5.

Thanks! I appreciate it.

 

[332nd]

Personal attack, next!

No. Its a fact, & just what I quoted shows it to be true.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Folks, calling a Congressional Subpoena and an ongoing investigation a "conspiracy" is not even a weak dodge, it is pathetic partisan whining.

So if a Congressperson subpoenaed a 9/11 Truther, you would say that 9/11 conspiracy theories are not conspiracy theories?

Take a gander at the rules, and lets focus on the facts, and not 16.5.

You mean facts like that you can't present a single piece of evidence that the people who created the talking points knew that they were wrong?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Lolz. I go to all the trouble of putting the explanation of the fallacy in my sig, and you go ahead and use the same fallacy, with a whiff of ad hominem?

The Fallacy of Pseudo-refuting Descriptions

The art of labeling an argument in a dismissive fashion being used as an argument in and of itself. Ex: Labeling facts as a conspiracy theory

First, that's not an actual fallacy.

Second, no one has done what you defined to be a fallacy anyway.

I've repeatedly made the case that this thread ought be in the CT section because you're alleging a conspiracy of one sort or another and this is not likely to generate any discussion on policy or politics. Instead it will be typical CT stuff: leading questions, insinuations, trying to nail down exactly what claim is being alleged*, and flat out falsehoods.

What "facts" do you think have been labeled "as a conspiracy theory"?

I've pointed out that your claim of 100 deaths would entail a massive conspiracy among all the mainstream media--and everyone else except for the one dodgy source you've found-- to keep quiet about it and continue reporting that only 4 people were killed, even though those entities don't tend to cooperate with one another and are all motivated to break any such a story. I've labeled it a conspiracy theory because the claim requires a this massive conspiracy if it were true. That is, it's really a theory of the existence of a conspiracy.

*Or struggling to get you to substantiate or retract obviously false allegations when you have clearly made them, as in your claim that 100 people were killed in the Benghazi attack and your claim that the Obama administration overtly lied to deflect responsibility for the deaths.

As for the former claim, if it were true, can you even imagine how very different this discussion would be? We'd be talking about the process of identifying and analyzing these 100 bodies. (Or maybe discussing arguments and/or degree of cooperation between the U.S. and Libya in matters of what was done with the bodies.) Once we had some names, we would then track those individuals' activity among other terrorists.

 

[The Big Dog]

You mean facts like that you can't present a single piece of evidence that the people who created the talking points knew that they were wrong?

There is, of course the theory, that the people who drafted the talking points were merely grossly incompetent, I'll grant you that.

The problem is that rice went beyond them, they were completely useless, the admin did not abandon them when it was beyond a doubt that they were wrong, the admin didn't admit they wrong until it was political convenient, the admin lied outrageously when they said they made minor changes, and now they are promoting the incompetents who worked on them!

 

[The Big Dog]

First, that's not an actual fallacy.

Second, no one has done what you defined to be a fallacy anyway.

I've repeatedly made the case that this thread ought be in the CT section because you're alleging a conspiracy of one sort or another and this is not likely to generate any discussion on policy or politics. Instead it will be typical CT stuff: leading questions, insinuations, trying to nail down exactly what claim is being alleged*, and flat out falsehoods.

What "facts" do you think have been labeled "as a conspiracy theory"?

I've pointed out that your claim of 100 deaths would entail a massive conspiracy among all the mainstream media--and everyone else except for the one dodgy source you've found-- to keep quiet about it and continue reporting that only 4 people were killed, even though those entities don't tend to cooperate with one another and are all motivated to break any such a story. I've labeled it a conspiracy theory because the claim requires a this massive conspiracy if it were true. That is, it's really a theory of the existence of a conspiracy.

*Or struggling to get you to substantiate or retract obviously false allegations when you have clearly made them, as in your claim that 100 people were killed in the Benghazi attack and your claim that the Obama administration overtly lied to deflect responsibility for the deaths.

As for the former claim, if it were true, can you even imagine how very different this discussion would be? We'd be talking about the process of identifying and analyzing these 100 bodies. (Or maybe discussing arguments and/or degree of cooperation between the U.S. and Libya in matters of what was done with the bodies.) Once we had some names, we would then track those individuals' activity among other terrorists.

You were told that the 100 dead was sourced from a book, and was the Attackers/terrorists. The thought that they would be identifying Muslim bodies in lawless benghazi is absolutely ludicrous.

If you have a better source for he number of dead attackers, by all means go for it! If you only have arguments from incredulity, save the posts, because I am for one have noted that you have posted the same thing 20 times.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You were told that the 100 dead was sourced from a book, and was the Attackers/terrorists.

And you were told that this source, which itself provided no source for that information, disagrees with all the other sources.

So again, will you substantiate this claim or retract it? Your one source in the face of contradiction by all other sources including all the most credible ones doesn't substantiate your claim. In fact, the claim calls into question the credibility of that one source.

The thought that they would be identifying Muslim bodies in lawless benghazi is absolutely ludicrous.

No, it's not. I guarantee you if we'd managed to kill terrorists, the U.S. would be keen on recovering and trying to identify those bodies.

If you have a better source for he number of dead attackers, by all means go for it!

I do, and I've provided links to them to you several times now. Your claim that no other sources exists is simply false.

If you only have arguments from incredulity, save the posts, because I am for one have noted that you have posted the same thing 20 times.

I only have an argument from incredulity as long as you're willing to ignore the evidence I've presented and the actual arguments I've presented. I've said the same thing 20 times because you have still failed to substantiate or retract these two obviously false claims.

I also note that you have ducked my questions in response to your claim that this thread is dedicated to new information or developments in the Benghazi attack: what new developments led you to make the claim that 100 people were killed? What new developments led you to make the claim that the Obama administration overtly lied to deflect responsibility for the deaths?

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

There is, of course the theory, that the people who drafted the talking points were merely grossly incompetent, I'll grant you that.

Or there is the theory that they were operating on limited information from intelligence agencies, and some of that information may have been inaccurate.

The problem is that rice went beyond them,

She did? And how does that demonstrate that there was some sort of conspiracy?

they were completely useless,

Which implies a conspiracy how? The Bush Administration's contention that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attack was completely useless (and wrong, but was still being claimed 18 months later). Do you believe that the Bush Administration was engaged in a cover-up of the 9/11 attack?

the admin did not abandon them when it was beyond a doubt that they were wrong, the admin didn't admit they wrong until it was political convenient, the admin lied outrageously when they said they made minor changes,

They didn't? How then was Romney able to bring up the subject in the debates?

Still waiting for 16.5 to present at least one FACT to support his contention that there was some sort of cover-up or that for some as yet unknown reason the Obama Administration wanted the ambassador killed or whatever it is that 16.5 is arguing.

 

[The Big Dog]

And you were told that this source, which itself provided no source for that information, disagrees with all the other sources.

So again, will you substantiate this claim or retract it?

...


I also note that you have ducked my questions in response to your claim that this thread is dedicated to new information or developments in the Benghazi attack: what new developments led you to make the claim that 100 people were killed? What new developments led you to make the claim that the Obama administration overtly lied to deflect responsibility for the deaths?

I have substantiated it. You have not, because you have not provided a source for the number of terrorists killed.

Of course as everyone who has followed this thread knows, the ONLY reason I cited that was point out how USELESS the tu quoque spam of certain members was, because they were claiming that a certain number of people had been killed during the Bush administration, and fraudulently inflated that number by counting the terrorists that were killed. Seriously, that is how ludicrous that spam was, and thank god the proponent of the nonsense got the hint and took off for greener pastures after embarrassing himself by referring to the Benghazi attacks investigation as a joke.

 

[A'isha]

I have substantiated it. You have not, because you have not provided a source for the number of terrorists killed.

You're the one who claimed to know the number of terrorists killed. It's not his number to provide and support with evidence, it's yours

And the fact that you not only can't do that, but still continue to claim the "100 terrorists killed" number is accurate despite your inability to explain why only one unsourced sentence in a single book overrides everything else speaks volumes.

This is why we call your statements a conspiracy theory: they're unsourced, unsupported, ludicrous, and yet repeated blithely by you simply because you want to believe them.

Seriously, that is how ludicrous that spam was, and thank god the proponent of the nonsense got the hint and took off for greener pastures after embarrassing himself by referring to the Benghazi attacks investigation as a joke.

Issa's "investigation" is nothing more than a joke, and a poor one at that.

 

[elbe]

Looks at sig, looks at Elbe's post. Shakes head

What about the "makes up fallacy" fallacy?

Seriously, you can't even identify where the scandal is. You keep jumping around hoping something will gain traction. You keep alleging wrong doing by the administration but you really, really can't demonstrate it beyond a reasonable doubt. You just keep JAQing off.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I have substantiated it.

No you didn't. You said where you got that claim from, but you've failed to substantiate it.

You have not, because you have not provided a source for the number of terrorists killed.

I have in fact done so a couple of times now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack#Fatalities_and_injuries

http://www.libyaherald.com/2012/09/15/no-libyans-died-in-benghazi-attack/


There were no reports of terrorists killed. None. You're looking for a statement on a number that doesn't exist because none of the stories show that terrorists were killed in the attack.

I've also pointed to the fact that for all the mainstream media to agree on only 4 deaths when in fact there were 100 (or over 100), would require a massive and unmotivated conspiracy.

But as ANTPogo says, this is your claim. It's up to you to substantiate it. It's not my burden to debunk it, even though I have.

Of course as everyone who has followed this thread knows, the ONLY reason I cited that was point out how USELESS the tu quoque spam of certain members was, because they were claiming that a certain number of people had been killed during the Bush administration, and fraudulently inflated that number by counting the terrorists that were killed.

Yes, you were trying to say that the reason for treating this attack on a U.S. diplomatic facility as somehow scandalous or exceptional was the assertion that it was one of the biggest ever in number of deaths. But it wasn't.

We've explained several times that pointing to the other attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities is not a tu quoque because none of us are arguing that any of these attacks were right or justified. We're trying to figure out what you think is so scandalous or exceptional about this attack.

Personally, I suspect you were utterly ignorant of the fact that attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities happen with some frequency. I think you thought the attack itself was very unusual and implied some failing on the part of the Obama administration. That is, the fact the attack occurred itself was enough for you to conclude that the Obama administration had done something wrong.

You've offered two explicit claims as to there being something scandalous or exceptional about this attack, but both remain unsubstantiated. If either were true, I might agree with you that there is something remarkable or exceptional about this attack compared to all the others that merits special investigation.

But in fact both of these claims--that 100 people were killed and that the Obama administration overtly lied to deflect responsibility for the deaths--remain unsubstantiated. Based on all the available evidence, I think they're both false claims. But again, it's not up to me to prove they're false. These are pretty egregious claims. It's up to you to substantiate them.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

What about the "makes up fallacy" fallacy?

Nice. I never meta fallacy like that!

 

[The Big Dog]

You're the one who claimed to know the number of terrorists killed. It's not his number to provide and support with evidence, it's yours

And the fact that you not only can't do that, but still continue to claim the "100 terrorists killed" number is accurate despite your inability to explain why only one unsourced sentence in a single book overrides everything else speaks volumes.

It is not his job to supply evidence, but everything else contradicts it.

Take ant's word for it!

The number I gave was good enough for Wikipedia, and although not perfect it is the best I've seen.

By the way: I don't really care how many terrorists died, as it was less than all. Please come up with another number, the whole purpose of this exercise was to show how ridiculous the b-b but bush tu quoque was, as I've mentioned before, repeatedly.

What a silly thing to obsess about. Give me a better number, anything, and we will put this silly sideshow to bed.

 

[Shalamar]

It is not his job to supply evidence, but everything else contradicts it.

Take ant's word for it!

The number I gave was good enough for Wikipedia, and although not perfect it is the best I've seen.

By the way: I don't really care how many terrorists died, as it was less than all. Please come up with another number, the whole purpose of this exercise was to show how ridiculous the b-b but bush tu quoque was, as I've mentioned before, repeatedly.

What a silly thing to obsess about. Give me a better number, anything, and we will put this silly sideshow to bed.

So you cannot back your claim? Ok then.

 

[A'isha]

It is not his job to supply evidence, but everything else contradicts it.

Yes. As he pointed out, he went above and beyond, since it was entirely your claim to support, not his to debunk.

Take ant's word for it!

For what?

The number I gave was good enough for Wikipedia,

You mean the freely-editable-by-anyone Wikipedia?

 

[The Big Dog]

No you didn't. You said where you got that claim from, but you've failed to substantiate it.



I have in fact done so a couple of times now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack#Fatalities_and_injuries

http://www.libyaherald.com/2012/09/15/no-libyans-died-in-benghazi-attack/

Ok, lets hit your links, champ!

From the first one: Most news accounts do not mention the number of attackers killed. "Benghazi: The Definitive Report" claims that just under 100 attackers were killed.

And the next one:

"There have been widespread reports over the past three days that up to ten Libyans died fighting against the militants in the attack late on Tuesday evening and as many as 18 were wounded. "

Fighting against the militants.... hmmm, how many "militants" then, Joe. Reads rest of article. Hmmm, Joe, it doesn't say.

So your first says 100, the second doesn't say at all. Wow Joe! Awesome work.

Game over, thanks to Joe we have established that about 100 militants were killed.

Thanks JOE!!!