• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bowling Green Massacre

All this simple slip up stuff.

I don't understand how one can accidently say, "there was a massacre in this city and it wasn't reported"

when what was meant to be said was, "two men were arrested for trying to sell arms to Iraq and that was reported"

Anyone?
Anyone?
 
For those of you willing to believe she misspoke, try to remember that she and Newt were playing Tag Team Lie-o-Mania on Fox, explaining that facts aren't important, what people believe is what matters.

She's either a victim of that - read something on VDare or Liberty Treehouse and chose to believe it. Or she's the perpetrator of it, just trying to sell the public on some inconvenient untruth, 'cuz it's like what she does, man!

Either way, she's unhinged. Lookit that coat she bought for the inauguration!!
 
Babbylonian said:
I don't understand this line of thought at all. She lied. In fact, she told multiple lies. If you want a reason for why she did it, it's because she and the rest of the campaign lied over and over again for months and it ended up working for them since her sleazy, insane boss is now President of the United States. Why would she stop lying now, and what good reason is there to give her the benefit of any doubt at all?
Click to expand...

This (and many posts like it) sounds so much like what Republicans said about Hillary an Benghazi.
 
Meadmaker said:
This (and many posts like it) sounds so much like what Republicans said about Hillary an Benghazi.
Click to expand...

with the difference that even after 7 Bengahzi probes, no serious fault on Clinton's part could be found.

Proving that Conway and other people in the Trump circle lie takes 2min and no taxpayer money.
 
Cainkane1 said:
Ok, the Bowling Green Massacre was a hoax but Muslims have massacred or tried to massacre large numbers of Americans and citizens of other countries. There will be another massacre masterminded by Muslims and it will be anything but a hoax.
Click to expand...
There will, of that I'm sure. And there will also be other massacres of Muslims, as we have seen in Quebec. Therefore commentators have a responsibility to speak the truth, because words have consequences in such dangerous times.
 
Stacko said:
It gets weirder.
Click to expand...
:boggled:
blutoski said:
In a "two wrongs make a right" sort of way, she turns out to be correct that they "were radicalized" in the USA.

It's just that the radicalizing element was the FBI.
Click to expand...
Yes indeed.

I had read before about these FBI "stings" that manufacture terrorists where there were none before. This seems to be the case here too: they helped their FBI informant in shipping the (faux) weapons but had no own contacts in Iraq, and the only further evidence is the conversations that informant recorded.

As to prior terrorism in Iraq: Alwan, who was the first target of the FBI, had been detained in Kirkuk and released by the Kurdish authorities. Furthermore, his fingerprints were found on a cordless phone after sifting through 170 boxes of IED debris. From this ABC article, it's not clear what part of that evidence was known at the time the FBI started their sting operation. There is no evidence from Iraq of Hammadi's involvement with terrorism, who was brought to the party by Alwan. Interestingly, Alwan got the lighter sentence because he cooperated.

I really don't feel like digging deeper into this rabbit's hole. :(
 
Babbylonian said:
She walked back part of her falsehood. Where's the "Oops, Obama didn't ban anything" mea culpa?
Click to expand...

And when is she going to apologize for helping elect Donald Trump? For this thread, I'm mostly focused on the "massacre" part, but if you want to call her a "stupid, evil ****," I'll sign the appropriate paperwork confirming my agreement.

... she thought she might get away with it, and she figured that even if she didn't the Trump base would believe her even after the facts were in.
Click to expand...

Uh-huh. Your analysis, such as it is, suffers from the same deficiency as this Conway appearance: incompetence. This is small beer. Let's move on. Don't let the controversies distract you from the scandals.
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
Let's try it like this.

I heard her quote before I heard about the uproar regarding a non-existent massacre. I knew exactly what she was referring to. (Although I....errr....got the state wrong. I thought it was in Bowling Green Ohio. That's why I thought it was near Detroit. I remember hearing about it on local news, though.) I knew that I hadn't forgotten about any massacre that had occurred in Kentucky, or even in Ohio. I assumed that she was not giving a precise description of executive actions that had been taken.

In other words, I didn't feel misled. I knew it was a pair of would-be terrorists who were planning to do something bad. After reading the articles today, it turns out they had already done some bad things, and were planning on doing more, and they hadn't quite settled on just exactly which bad things to do.

After reading the uproar, I still don't feel misled. Yeah, yeah, yeah, it was this instead of that and this detail isn't exactly like that and.....whatever. As she said it, I assumed some details would be wrong, and they were.

But, her political opponents by all means ought to seize on it and play it for all it's worth. Congressional investigation maybe? Maybe seven of them? That was the score on Benghazi, I think. Keep repeating it until people believe that KellyAnne Conway went onto news shows and fabricated a story about a massacre in Kentucky, hoping to fool people with a fake news story about an unreported massacre. People in America these days might just be stupid enough to believe it. It wouldn't be the first time.

Because, the alternative would be to believe that she's a fairly ordinary person, who drew parallels between two situations, exaggerated their similarities, downplayed their differences, and did a bit of cherry picking to support her case beyond what a fair reading of all the facts would be. That interpretation would be impossible, right? She must be a lying propagandist trying to mislead stupid people.
Click to expand...

You knew she was lying so didnt feel misled. What did you feel then? Did you feel that maybe shehe thought you were a massive idiot that would believe her? What about all the folks who didn't know she wasis lying and were misled?

Meadmaker said:
If you were to describe Guy Fawkes as the person behind the parliament massacre, would you be being imprecise, or would you be lying?

These guys were linked to killing Americans, were convicted of plotting to kill more Americans, and had discussed the possibility, on tape, of killing an awful lot of Americans in America.

One of the problems with the whole dialog is it becomes a question of whether someone did or did not make up something, and she skates on the real point of what was said. There are terrorists in America. We know that. Does it make their policy a good idea? When a couple of terrorists were caught in America, President Obama made temporary changes in immigration policy. Does that make Trump's policies a good idea. Instead, people say, "She made up stuff about a massacre in Bowling Green!"

Well, how does that play. Within the echo chamber, it plays great. Yeah! Yeah! She's a witch! Burn her! Among die-hard Trump supporters (or at least Democrat haters) nothing would matter. But now, how about those "swing voters" whose opinion actually matters and? It starts with Conway saying "Bowling Green Massacre." Then, a bunch of Trump haters say, "Ha. Ha. She's stupid. There was no massacre." Then, a bunch of swing voters say, "Wait a minute...you can't just make up a massacre and pretend there was one.", and they end up reading an article that says that there was no massacre, but there were two guys who killed a few people and hadn't made up their minds about who else to kill.

When those people start reading headlines, they might be inclined to forgive Conway some exaggeration, because it seems like the other side is saying it wasn't really important because they didn't succeed in killing enough people for it to be a "massacre", and besides, the Americans they killed weren't even in America at the time.
Click to expand...

The things they were convicted of didn't kill any Americans. The massacre they are accused of never happened. The Americans they apparently killed happened to be invading their country at the time.

Cainkane1 said:
Ok, the Bowling Green Massacre was a hoax but Muslims have massacred or tried to massacre large numbers of Americans and citizens of other countries. There will be another massacre masterminded by Muslims and it will be anything but a hoax.
Click to expand...

Lets hope they get Trump and his gang when its happens then. I mean if its inevitable they might as well do some good.


Meadmaker said:
Now this, on the other hand, is something I find completely plausible.

Her statements were obviously not accurate, and they were biased to exaggerate everything in favor of her political position. That isn't something I admire. On the other hand, it isn't the same thing as just making stuff up.
Click to expand...

Not caring if what you say is true is probably worse than making stuff up.

Mojo said:
Fawkes actually did conspire to blow up parliament.
Click to expand...

And Trump apparently conspired to blow up Canary Wharf. He doesnt mind terrorists as long as they are white.
 
I have read the whole thread and what's available in wiki or various other source, and It blows my mind that any can defend that. You have got to be so deep in partisan politic and adamantly refuse to admit any error to be able to even begin to defend that.
 
Meadmaker said:
That isn't something I admire. On the other hand, it isn't the same thing as just making stuff up.
Click to expand...

That's hardly a meaningful distinction considering that she has continually shown that the actual truth or accuracy of her claims isn't the what's important rather it's the fact that they can have impact on the public.

Here's an example where she justifies the inaccurate reporting of the investigation into Clinton's email:

Williams: "As a lawyer, you would concede indictment is not only a term of art, it's a term of law and that's a big difference to use the expression likely indictment when all the reporting is to the contrary."

Conway: "Fine. It just doesn't change what's in voters' minds right now and you see in the your own polling, you see in the other polling, Brian, which is—even though the polls were tightening before last Friday's explosive announcement by Mr. Comey you see that voters are putting it in this large cauldron of impressions and images and individuals and issues from which they eventually make a choice."
Click to expand...
 
Aepervius said:
I have read the whole thread and what's available in wiki or various other source, and It blows my mind that any can defend that. You have got to be so deep in partisan politic and adamantly refuse to admit any error to be able to even begin to defend that.
Click to expand...

I would put forth that from that simple statement, one could with a high probability discern your political leanings.

“We see the world, not as it is, but as we are──or, as we are conditioned to see it.”
― Stephen R. Covey,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom