New Disclosures on Benghazi

Status
Not open for further replies.
16.5 said:
Lets take a quick look at the status of the terror investigation.

Here is a fairly straightforward summary of the developments from Fox News:

At least two of the key suspects in the Benghazi terror attack were at one point working with Al Qaeda senior leadership, sources familiar with the investigation tell Fox News.

The sources said one of the suspects was believed to be a courier for the Al Qaeda network, and the other a bodyguard in Afghanistan prior to the 2001 terror attacks.

TRIGGER WARNING: FOX News.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm just not catching it, but what is this "suppose" to be saying. I see the words "I believe" around 4-5 times in this article. It definitely doesn't appear to be supported all that well. I keep on trying to find other sources for the quotes but everything just links back to that Fox News article.
 
plague311 said:
Maybe I'm just not catching it, but what is this "suppose" to be saying. I see the words "I believe" around 4-5 times in this article. It definitely doesn't appear to be supported all that well. I keep on trying to find other sources for the quotes but everything just links back to that Fox News article.
Click to expand...

The article appears to be an exclusive (which is why I humorously referred to a trigger warning, as i have witnessed almost Pavlovian reactions to Fox News reports, even fair and balanced ones like this).

Further the sourcing appears to be Rogers based on intelligence briefings provided to Congress. The 'believe" comments appear to be him being circumspect.

I am sure that avid readers of the thread will not find the broad details surprising, as they are consistent with what the State Department told the Libyans on 9/12 and what the FBI was saying at that same time period (and which unfortunately got scrubbed from the Administrations talking points, which i have covered in detail)
 
16.5 said:
The article appears to be an exclusive (which is why I humorously referred to a trigger warning, as i have witnessed almost Pavlovian reactions to Fox News reports, even fair and balanced ones like this).

Further the sourcing appears to be Rogers based on intelligence briefings provided to Congress. The 'believe" comments appear to be him being circumspect.

I am sure that avid readers of the thread will not find the broad details surprising, as they are consistent with what the State Department told the Libyans on 9/12 and what the FBI was saying at that same time period (and which unfortunately got scrubbed from the Administrations talking points, which i have covered in detail)
Click to expand...

I am almost qualified to be an avid reader, but I still don't understand what the alleged wrongdoing is. Can you explain in simple terms exactly what you think was done wrong, and why it's important?
 
Unabogie said:
I am almost qualified to be an avid reader, but I still don't understand what the alleged wrongdoing is. Can you explain in simple terms exactly what you think was done wrong, and why it's important?
Click to expand...

No. Read the thread.

(protip: try not to accuse people of JAQ'ing off and then come in here with feigned innocence that you are interested in a response. Oh but perhaps you are just asking questions. Unabogie?)

Thanks for posting
 
16.5 said:
No. Read the thread.

(protip: try not to accuse people of JAQ'ing off and then come in here with feigned innocence that you are interested in a response. Oh but perhaps you are just asking questions. Unabogie?)

Thanks for posting
Click to expand...

No, just one question. What exactly is the allegation? I see lots and lots of posts to right wing blogs (which honestly I won't bother reading) so I'm asking you for the Readers Digest version. For someone as steeped in the case as you, it should be easy.
 
16.5 said:
No. Read the thread.

(protip: try not to accuse people of JAQ'ing off and then come in here with feigned innocence that you are interested in a response. Oh but perhaps you are just asking questions. Unabogie?)

Thanks for posting
Click to expand...

I read the entire thing from top to bottom. I still don't get the point, I really don't get what this has to do with anything at all. Is it just to show that the original story that was told isn't completely factually accurate? Doesn't that happen with every thing like this that happens? I just don't get it, so called it feigned whateverthehell you want, but it's not. I just seriously don't see what's happening here.
 
Unabogie said:
No, just one question. What exactly is the allegation? I see lots and lots of posts to right wing blogs (which honestly I won't bother reading) so I'm asking you for the Readers Digest version. For someone as steeped in the case as you, it should be easy.
Click to expand...

"I see lots and lots of posts to right wing blogs."

Really? In this thread? From me, Unabogie? In fact I have intentionally avoided doing that unless the information was not available from some other source, and I try to highlight it when I do.

Fascinating.
 
Why do conspiracy theorists who doubt the "official story" never seem to be able to lay out what they think actually happened instead?
 
16.5 said:
Thought I'd bump this post regarding why Benghazi matters.

Good stuff.
Click to expand...

plague311 said:
I read the entire thing from top to bottom. I still don't get the point, I really don't get what this has to do with anything at all. Is it just to show that the original story that was told isn't completely factually accurate? Doesn't that happen with every thing like this that happens? I just don't get it, so called it feigned whateverthehell you want, but it's not. I just seriously don't see what's happening here.
Click to expand...

I bumped this post because it contains an excellent summary of "Why Benghazi Matters."
 
Unabogie said:
I am almost qualified to be an avid reader, but I still don't understand what the alleged wrongdoing is. Can you explain in simple terms exactly what you think was done wrong, and why it's important?
Click to expand...

16.5 said:
No.
Click to expand...

One of the first truly honest responses we've seen for quite some time.

Given that you continue to refuse to succinctly and clearly state your position, I feel compelled to retain my own interpretation: specifically, that Republicans are scared they can't win against Hillary in 2016, and this thread is a collection of links from various opinion blaggers in an attempt to spread FUD and convey the message "Hillary Bad Because Terrorists Attacked Us At Benghazi".
 
remirol said:
One of the first truly honest responses we've seen for quite some time.

Given that you continue to refuse to succinctly and clearly state your position, I feel compelled to retain my own interpretation: specifically, that Republicans are scared they can't win against Hillary in 2016, and this thread is a collection of links from various opinion blaggers in an attempt to spread FUD and convey the message "Hillary Bad Because Terrorists Attacked Us At Benghazi".
Click to expand...

This might be the most dishonest argument I have ever seen.
 
16.5 said:
No. Read the thread.

(protip: try not to accuse people of JAQ'ing off and then come in here with feigned innocence that you are interested in a response. Oh but perhaps you are just asking questions. Unabogie?)

Thanks for posting
Click to expand...
Many of us have read the thread. Honestly, you really are JAQ'ing off. Not only that, you are ignoring the answers you don't like, cherry picking the bits you do and generally posting no differently those those on the JFK and 9/11 threads.

At some point you may actually have some genuine evidence to support wrong doing. Rest assured if that happens, I will pay attention. Until then, this avid reader will sign off this thread.
 
DavidJames said:
I believe the "investigation" has run it's course. Considering Republicans are willing to lie falsify information and generally make **** up to tarnish this administration, it's clear there is no smoke here, much less fire.

I think the investigation has all the merits of the ones demanding by some to investigate the deaths of Ron Brown and Vince Foster.
Click to expand...

DavidJames said:
Many of us have read the thread. Honestly, you really are JAQ'ing off. Not only that, you are ignoring the answers you don't like, cherry picking the bits you do and generally posting no differently those those on the JFK and 9/11 threads.

At some point you may actually have some genuine evidence to support wrong doing. Rest assured if that happens, I will pay attention. Until then, this avid reader will sign off this thread.
Click to expand...

Your open minded insights will be missed David James.
 
In keeping with the spirit and purpose of the thread, the latest:

Well after some rather purple prose, and a rather dramatic exit, it is high time to get back to discussing New Disclosures on Benghazi:

UN adds Benghazi suspect to al Qaeda sanctions list


SECURITY COUNCIL Al-Qaida SANCTIONS COMMITTEE Adds MUHAMMAD JAMAL and the MUHAMMAD JAMAL Network to its sanctions list.

Trained in Afghanistan in the late 1980s with Al-Qaida to make bombs. Former top military commander of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad. Conducted MJN’s terrorist activities with support from Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP)

Of note: "Reported to be involved in the attack on the United States Mission in Benghazi, Libya, on 11 Sep. 2012."

As avid readers EXPECT, a link:

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2013/sc11154.doc.htm

FULL DISCLOSURES: I MAKE NO REPRESENTATIONS REGARDING WHETHER THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL IS OR IS NOT A RIGHT WING BLOG.
 
Question: if this was all knowledge that Hillary and her cronies had at the time the Benghazi assault was actually going down (and the immediate aftermath), why are your last few links all about things that are only being revealed now, more than a year after the Benghazi assault?
 
ANTPogo said:
Question: if this was all knowledge that Hillary and her cronies had at the time the Benghazi assault was actually going down (and the immediate aftermath), why are your last few links all about things that are only being revealed now, more than a year after the Benghazi assault?
Click to expand...

Just Asking Questions ANT? Ha! Just joshing, avid readers of this thread know that i am naturally good humored!

16.5 said:
The article appears to be an exclusive (which is why I humorously referred to a trigger warning, as i have witnessed almost Pavlovian reactions to Fox News reports, even fair and balanced ones like this).

Further the sourcing appears to be Rogers based on intelligence briefings provided to Congress. The 'believe" comments appear to be him being circumspect.

I am sure that avid readers of the thread will not find the broad details surprising, as they are consistent with what the State Department told the Libyans on 9/12 and what the FBI was saying at that same time period (and which unfortunately got scrubbed from the Administrations talking points, which i have covered in detail)
Click to expand...

got me why the Administration has been screwing around about stuff they knew the morning of 9/12/2012. Hell the US hasn't even put the Benghazi reference on their Jamal info page.

Any other questions?
 
ANTPogo said:
Ah, the conspiracy theorist's standard "it was covered up!"
Click to expand...

Hahaha!!! That is HILARIOUS! I see you are good humored too!

ANT: Why is this just coming out now?
16.5: It is not, we've known it for a long time.
ANT: Aha, it was a cover-up!
Audience: Laughter!
16.5: "Are you 'avin' a laugh?,"
Audience: Silence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom