New Disclosures on Benghazi

[The Big Dog]

I didn't say that both couldn't be involved (which is, again, what I've been trying to tell you). What I said is that it can't be both that Ansar al-Sharia are the ones who plotted and carried out the attacks, and that it was non-Libyan foreigners who plotted and carried out the attacks. Because Ansar al-Sharia are not non-Libyan foreigners.

But guess what scenario fits the description of multiple different groups, some foreign, some local, some terrorist, some militia, and some entirely civilian, participating in the attacks? If the attacks arose spontaneously that day in response to the Cairo protests earlier.

You know, like the CIA talking points memo drafted during the first week after the attacks said.

multiple different groups, some JIHADIST foreign, some JIHADIST local, some JIHADIST terrorist, some JIHADIST militia, and some entirely civilian looters.

Fixed that for you.

I did find it amusing that you suggest that Al Qua'ida terrorists from Yemen that just happened to be in Benghazi (on 9/11 of all days) and decided to "spontaneously" join a spontaneous attack on a US Diplomatic Facility.

Fantastic.

 

[A'isha]

multiple different groups, some JIHADIST foreign, some JIHADIST local, some JIHADIST terrorist, some JIHADIST militia, and some entirely civilian looters.

Yes, and? How does that back up your insistence that Ansar al-Sharia planned and carried out the attacks, and that non-Libyan foreigners planned and carried out the attacks?

I did find it amusing that you suggest that Al Qua'ida terrorists from Yemen that just happened to be in Benghazi (on 9/11 of all days) and decided to "spontaneously" join a spontaneous attack on a US Diplomatic Facility.

I didn't suggest that. The CNN article you yourself linked to suggested that.

 

[The Big Dog]

Yes, and? How does that back up your insistence that Ansar al-Sharia planned and carried out the attacks, and that non-Libyan foreigners planned and carried out the attacks?

So one or the other but not both, huh? So which do you think it was? Oh wait, you agree that both were "involved," which is somehow different than "carried out the attacks" (on the order of magnitude of the number of angels on a pinhead, I suppose).

I'm guessing that given the fact that Yemeni terrorists and Ansar al Sharia were identified in the compound, I'm going to go with both.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm guessing that given the fact that Yemeni terrorists and Ansar al Sharia were identified in the compound, I'm going to go with both.

And, as Telly observed a while back, this contradicts your earlier endorsement of the statement by the President of Libya that no Libyans were involved.

We all see through your duck and weave. You're not fooling anybody.

 

[The Big Dog]

And, as Telly observed a while back, this contradicts your earlier endorsement of the statement by the President of Libya that no Libyans were involved.

We all see through your duck and weave. You're not fooling anybody.

That is actually not what he said.

And you'll note that I IMMEDIATELY responded to him saying "No."

So you are really, REALLY bad at putting words in my mouth.

No one has ever claimed that "no Libyans" were involved and the mere suggestion of that is pants on head ridiculous.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

That is actually not what he said.

And you'll note that I IMMEDIATELY responded to him saying "No."

So you are really, REALLY bad at putting words in my mouth.

No one has ever claimed that "no Libyans" were involved and the mere suggestion of that is pants on head ridiculous.

And again your exchange with Telly indicated that you thought being affiliated with Al Qaida necessarily meant being non-Libyan. You were simply wrong.

Wait a second--so you disagree with the President of Libya?

Isn't that insulting him? Wasn't that what the scandal was for at least a while? (That is, before it became the shocking revelation that reasonable minds disagreed on their preliminary assessment of the attack.)

So these 100 terrorists killed in the attack, were these Libyans or not? Some Libyans and some Yemenis? Again, who has the bodies?


And I note your continued refusal to substantiate or retract your claim that there were 100 people killed in the Benghazi attack and your claim that the Obama administration overtly lied to deflect responsibility for these deaths.

Protip: guess which allegations made in this thread are pants on head ridiculous?

 

[The Big Dog]

spam snipped

I responded to your spammed comment TWICE.

/I can hardly believe I am responding to someone who has intentionally ignored the fact that i responded to him, twice, and the fact that the Al Qua'ida operatives identified in the grounds were from freaking YEMEN.

 

[The Big Dog]

In keeping with the spirit and purpose of the thread, the latest:

Fans of this thread know that we have been awaiting the State Department Congressional Subpoena response. They produced 97 pages of documents last night. I have not seen them yet, although the spokesman claims they have already been released publicly before.

I know what you are thinking, 97 pages does not seem like a hell of a lot of documents regarding the death of four Americans, and you'd be correct.

I guess the claim that they'd be the most transparant administration in history is Chicago Machinese for "least" transparant administration in history.

I am sure that we all join Sean Smth's mother in demanding accountability.

 

[DavidJames]

I know what you are thinking...

Actually, you have no clue what anyone else is thinking

97 pages does not seem like a hell of a lot of documents regarding the death of four Americans...

Not only can't you guess what others are thinking, you don't have a clue what's in the documents, but please, don't stop making **** up because the actual facts don't help you because you've still have failed to elevate your drivel above the level seen daily in the CT forums.

 

[A'isha]

16.5 attempting to mask his partisan conspiracy-mongering by blanketing it in faux sympathy for Smith's mother is kind of sickening.

 

[The Big Dog]

Actually, you have no clue what anyone else is thinkingNot only can't you guess what others are thinking, you don't have a clue what's in the documents, but please, don't stop making **** up because the actual facts don't help you because you've still have failed to elevate your drivel above the level seen daily in the CT forums.

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?

Thanks for posting.

16.5 attempting to mask his partisan conspiracy-mongering by blanketing it in faux sympathy for Smith's mother is kind of sickening.

Fallacy, ad hominem, and let me give you some "context": AntPogo is the same person who called Greg Hicks and idiot and was critical of the the CIA team that rallied from the Annex, two of whom who died.

Faux sympathy? Beyond the fact that is ridiculous, I guess it is better than your real sympathy for Ansar al Sharia, huh?

/a post talking about the United States Department of State production of documents in response to a Congressional Subpoena draws two response posts claiming that it is a "conspiracy." Seriously, this is the type of nonsense argument that I have seen repeatedly in this thread.

 

[elbe]

16.5 attempting to mask his partisan conspiracy-mongering by blanketing it in faux sympathy for Smith's mother is kind of sickening.

It is hard to believe someone is sympathetic when all they're doing is trying to drag the deceased through the mud just for political gamesmanship.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I responded to your spammed comment TWICE.

/I can hardly believe I am responding to someone who has intentionally ignored the fact that i responded to him, twice, and the fact that the Al Qua'ida operatives identified in the grounds were from freaking YEMEN.

Spam? Do you even know what that means? You apparently don't.

And I've responded to your response twice pointing out that you haven't explained away the fact that you did in fact assume that being associated with Al Qaida meant non-Libyan in your response to TellyK.

And I note yet again that you have still neither substantiated nor retracted two claims you've made in this thread: that 100 people were killed in the Benghazi attacks and that the Obama administration overtly lied to deflect responsibility for the deaths.

 

[The Big Dog]

It is hard to believe someone is sympathetic when all they're doing is trying to drag the deceased through the mud just for political gamesmanship.

Great point. I'm glad someone else found the attacks on Greg hicks and the deceased members of the CIA as reprehensible as I did.

Sean smith's mother and Ty Woods' father have both spoken out, I'm sure they don't think it is a conspiracy.

 

[A'isha]

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?

This "fallacy" has never once been used in this thread, since we've been repeatedly pointing out the errors in your arguments. Such as, yet again, in
JoeTheJuggler's post above, which you've done your best to avoid addressing every time.

AntPogo is the same person who called Greg Hicks and idiot

Not least because he was so engrossed in his TV watching on the night of September 11 while Stevens was in an extremely dangerous part of Libya that he missed two separate phone calls from Stevens that night and only knew the attacks had happened when other Embassy employees came to his house and told him!

and was critical of the the CIA team that rallied from the Annex, two of whom who died.

What, specifically, was I critical of again?

Faux sympathy? Beyond the fact that is ridiculous, I guess it is better than your real sympathy for Ansar al Sharia, huh?

What was that about ad hominems again?

 

[The Big Dog]

This "fallacy" has never once been used in this thread, since we've been repeatedly pointing out the errors in your arguments. Such as, yet again, in
JoeTheJuggler's post above, which you've done your best to avoid addressing?

I've responded to Joe's post about 100 dead terrorists twice. He's posted it about 20 times since.

Because to the hoard, this thread is all about 16.5.

Fortunately, I've been able to focus on the developing facts that Obama and his minions would prefer stay hidden.

16.5

 

[A'isha]

I've responded to Joe's post about 100 dead terrorists twice. He's posted it about 20 times since.

You may have responded to it, but you certainly didn't answer his question.

Because to the hoard, this thread is all about 16.5.

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

Fortunately, I've been able to focus on the developing facts that Obama and his minions would prefer stay hidden.

And in 58 pages, there hasn't been a single one of those "facts" presented in this thread.

 

[332nd]

I've responded to Joe's post about 100 dead terrorists twice. He's posted it about 20 times since.

Because to the hoard, this thread is all about 16.5.

Fortunately, I've been able to focus on the developing facts that Obama and his minions would prefer stay hidden.

16.5

ODS claims another victim.

 

[elbe]

Great point. I'm glad someone else found the attacks on Greg hicks and the deceased members of the CIA as reprehensible as I did.

Criticizing Hicks, regardless of legitimacy, is far from dragging any of the deceased through the mud.

Sean smith's mother and Ty Woods' father have both spoken out, I'm sure they don't think it is a conspiracy.

You know, like that.

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?

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

I've responded to Joe's post about 100 dead terrorists twice. He's posted it about 20 times since.

Because to the hoard, this thread is all about 16.5.

Fortunately, I've been able to focus on the developing facts that Obama and his minions would prefer stay hidden.

16.5

And what are those "facts"?