• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

New Disclosures on Benghazi - Part II

sunmaster14 said:
Just for the record, I never put anybody on ignore because I think everybody is capable of contributing. I am perfectly content to skip over stuff mentally that appears to be not worth reading. As far as responding goes, I feel an obligation to respond to arguments which are made in good faith to me and demonstrate a minimum level of critical reasoning and logical coherence.
Click to expand...

The sources and information I provided doesn't show any level of critical reasoning or logical coherence? They're factual. They refute and\or answer the questions you have, and I noticed you didn't address any of them.
 
plague311 said:
The sources and information I provided doesn't show any level of critical reasoning or logical coherence? They're factual. They refute and\or answer the questions you have, and I noticed you didn't address any of them.
Click to expand...

The claim was that sunmaster14 feels an obligation to respond, not that he will actually do so. Give him time to wade through all the thoroughly discredited Breitbart (or worse) "news" to find something to spin hard enough to claim he refuted you.
 
Last edited:
Thanks plague311. Early and long day today, and didn't have time last night to look up all the cites. That wasn't the tweet I was looking for, but when I did go looking for it I realized that sunmaster14 was an active participant in the thread it was in, and if he could ignore despicable lies like this from the Trump campaign advisor Roger Stone, what was the point in finding the exact, less despicable, tweet?

I also don't need to find all the cites for information release and primacy because your cite is much more specific and useful for this situation.

It's also worth pointing out that what the State Department is doing now is not the responsibility of Clinton, even though that should go without saying.
 
tyr_13 said:
Thanks plague311. Early and long day today, and didn't have time last night to look up all the cites. That wasn't the tweet I was looking for, but when I did go looking for it I realized that sunmaster14 was an active participant in the thread it was in, and if he could ignore despicable lies like this from the Trump campaign advisor Roger Stone, what was the point in finding the exact, less despicable, tweet?
Click to expand...

Your failure to find the tweet in question is noted. I see nothing wrong with the tweet plague311 cited. I assume you don't either.

I also don't need to find all the cites for information release and primacy because your cite is much more specific and useful for this situation.
Click to expand...

That cite is completely irrelevant for two reasons. One, it has to do with the military and not the State Department or CIA. Second, and far more importantly, it mostly speaks to benefits (financial mostly) and has little to do with the release of information. There is no logical reason why information about a person's death should be withheld from his mother, even if that person's wife wishes it to be so (which, as far as I know, hasn't even been alleged).

It's also worth pointing out that what the State Department is doing now is not the responsibility of Clinton, even though that should go without saying.
Click to expand...

Hillary was still in control of the State Department for one year and four months after Sean Smith's death. By the end her tenure, Patricia Smith was already seething about the way she had been treated. Furthermore, the State Department, since Hillary's departure, has clearly circled the wagons on her behalf in many ways (most explicitly in the stonewalling of FOIA requests), perhaps at the behest of Obama.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Your failure to find the tweet in question is noted. I see nothing wrong with the tweet plague311 cited. I assume you don't either.
Click to expand...

Of course you see nothing wrong with it. :rolleyes:

But I was wrong about the tweet, and I retract that claim. Sorry for the confusion.


It was in video. "It’s a very big subject for me. And border security’s very big. And when you have radical Islamic terrorists probably all over the place, we’re allowing them to come in by the thousands and thousands. And I think that’s what bothered Mr. Khan more than anything else."



That cite is completely irrelevant for two reasons. One, it has to do with the military and not the State Department or CIA. Second, and far more importantly, it mostly speaks to benefits (financial mostly) and has little to do with the release of information. There is no logical reason why information about a person's death should be withheld from his mother, even if that person's wife wishes it to be so (which, as far as I know, hasn't even been alleged).
Click to expand...


Oh for the love of...you can't possibly believe your argument here. I don't believe you believe what you're saying. There's no logical reason why the same rules for the military might apply for the CIA or State Department? That it mostly speaks of benefits means it doesn't apply to information, even though it says it does? You assume the wife doesn't want it that way?



Hillary was still in control of the State Department for one year and four months after Sean Smith's death. By the end her tenure, Patricia Smith was already seething about the way she had been treated. Furthermore, the State Department, since Hillary's departure, has clearly circled the wagons on her behalf in many ways (most explicitly in the stonewalling of FOIA requests), perhaps at the behest of Obama.
Click to expand...

It's a conspiracy!

What other possible explanations could there be for Smith to be seething about her treatment? I'd say politically motivated conservatives lying to her and encouraging her anger in order to attack Clinton is the best explanation. She's being exploited, and sadly, grief makes us all open to such attacks. Spend some more time on the paranormal and main board of the forum. She doesn't need to be lying or delusional to be wrong. It's not an attack on her to say she's wrong.

And that circles right back to the false equivalency between what Hillary is accused of doing, which isn't even evidenced, and Trumps own damn words. You're believing absurdities or promoting the belief of absurdities. Next will come the atrocities.
 
tyr_13 said:
Oh for the love of...you can't possibly believe your argument here. I don't believe you believe what you're saying. There's no logical reason why the same rules for the military might apply for the CIA or State Department? That it mostly speaks of benefits means it doesn't apply to information, even though it says it does? You assume the wife doesn't want it that way?
Click to expand...

I agree with you completely here.

I can't even...I don't....what? Why wouldn't they apply all the way around the board? Do I even need to point out the fact that sunmaster14 just waves this stuff away but provides absolutely nothing to show that there would be any other process?
 
Tero said:
Fox news is usually of no use to me for politics, though I look at it once in a while some international incident is going on. This time they have some relevant info on Benghazi. We did not need an embassy at that point, Tripoli covered the country as much as needed. A vacant embassy with minimal guards would have sufficed for at least a year.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/09/11/what-benghazi-attack-taught-me-about-hillary-clinton.html
Click to expand...

Which is why Stevens volunteered to go I believe.
 
Dog Town said:
Odd that(people are still blaming Bush) many take it for decades!:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It is funny how people attacking an embassy while you're president is different than you making a string of bad decisions and pointless wars as president.

It's almost like they're entirely different things on entirely different levels of magnitude and meaning.

Odd.
 
KatieG said:
Nothing new? Quelle surprise! :D
Click to expand...

I guess further confirmation that they lied to us is indeed nothing new, although the details cited above are indeed new and had to be wrenched out of the Government.

That ain't new either I reckon.
 
You must understand, young Hobbit, it takes a long time to say anything in Old Entish. And we never say anything unless it is worth taking a long time to say
 
giphy.gif
 
C_Felix said:
[qimg]https://media.giphy.com/media/RL0xU1daTlMoE/giphy.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...

The irony of pointing out that a Presidential Candidate may have lied with regards to Benghazi, in the fact of the current political climate, is breathtaking. Actually, factually, breath taking. Wow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom