JJ Husker Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Because we don't know what happened yet, that means "the powers that be may not fully understand the threats to Americans in places like the Mideast and Libya. It also requires us to accept the extreme coincidence that it happened on September 11th purely by chance. I don't think the administration is that naive, gullible, or clueless." Sorry. That conclusion is Conservative fantasy. Maybe you're right. Maybe we shouldn't expect, in the post 9-11-01 world, that terrorists would use an anniversary date like that to conduct an act of terror. Pure fantasy. Link to comment
knapplc Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Because we don't know what happened yet, that means "the powers that be may not fully understand the threats to Americans in places like the Mideast and Libya. It also requires us to accept the extreme coincidence that it happened on September 11th purely by chance. I don't think the administration is that naive, gullible, or clueless." Sorry. That conclusion is Conservative fantasy. Maybe you're right. Maybe we shouldn't expect, in the post 9-11-01, world that terrorists would use an anniversary date like that to conduct an act of terror. Pure fantasy. They didn't in 2002. They didn't in 2003. They didn't in 2004. They didn't in 2005. They didn't in 2006. They didn't in 2007. They didn't in 2008. They didn't in 2009. They didn't in 2010. They didn't in 2011. They did in 2012. Again, 20/20 hindsight tells us we should have been prepared. Too bad that crystal ball only looks in reverse. Link to comment
carlfense Posted October 17, 2012 Author Share Posted October 17, 2012 They didn't in 2002. They didn't in 2003. They didn't in 2004. They didn't in 2005. They didn't in 2006. They didn't in 2007. They didn't in 2008. They didn't in 2009. They didn't in 2010. They didn't in 2011. They did in 2012. Again, 20/20 hindsight tells us we should have been prepared. Too bad that crystal ball only looks in reverse. 2012 was obviously the year. Eleven years after 9/11 . . . ? Get it? When they didn't attack nine years after 9/11 we should have known that it had to be eleven. Process of elimination. Link to comment
JJ Husker Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 They didn't in 2002. They didn't in 2003. They didn't in 2004. They didn't in 2005. They didn't in 2006. They didn't in 2007. They didn't in 2008. They didn't in 2009. They didn't in 2010. They didn't in 2011. They did in 2012. Again, 20/20 hindsight tells us we should have been prepared. Too bad that crystal ball only looks in reverse. 2012 was obviously the year. Eleven years after 9/11 . . . ? Get it? When they didn't attack nine years after 9/11 we should have known that it had to be eleven. Process of elimination. I'm not saying we could've or should've prevented the attack or even expected one on that day. I am talking strictly about the spontaneous uprising story that came out of the administration. It shouldn't matter that it was eleven years later and nothing had occurred on the previous 10 anniversary dates. I'm not using hindsight. It doesn't take hindsight to realize on 9-12-12 that yesterday was the anniversary date of 9-11. Quit being so dense and/or changing the story to fit your argument and realize what I am saying. The spontaneous uprising story is ludicrous given the date it occurred on. And it took them two weeks to back off that story. I want to understand why. Not why the attack happened but rather why that was the explanation for it. You guys either don't get it, get it and don't want to admit it, or don't want to get it because it would force you to confront some of the pre-conceived notions you apparently have about people who are not fully in the Obama camp. Link to comment
sd'sker Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 They didn't in 2002. They didn't in 2003. They didn't in 2004. They didn't in 2005. They didn't in 2006. They didn't in 2007. They didn't in 2008. They didn't in 2009. They didn't in 2010. They didn't in 2011. They did in 2012. Again, 20/20 hindsight tells us we should have been prepared. Too bad that crystal ball only looks in reverse. 2012 was obviously the year. Eleven years after 9/11 . . . ? Get it? When they didn't attack nine years after 9/11 we should have known that it had to be eleven. Process of elimination. I'm not saying we could've or should've prevented the attack or even expected one on that day. I am talking strictly about the spontaneous uprising story that came out of the administration. It shouldn't matter that it was eleven years later and nothing had occurred on the previous 10 anniversary dates. I'm not using hindsight. It doesn't take hindsight to realize on 9-12-12 that yesterday was the anniversary date of 9-11. Quit being so dense and/or changing the story to fit your argument and realize what I am saying. The spontaneous uprising story is ludicrous given the date it occurred on. And it took them two weeks to back off that story. I want to understand why. Not why the attack happened but rather why that was the explanation for it. You guys either don't get it, get it and don't want to admit it, or don't want to get it because it would force you to confront some of the pre-conceived notions you apparently have about people who are not fully in the Obama camp. what if it was a case of bad intel? are you implying that the administration purposefully mislead the people for political gain and now have to admit the truth? what do they have to gain saying it was spontaneous rather than a terrorist attack. either way, lives were lost. this is a really weird issue to politicize, especially by conservatives. 1 Link to comment
carlfense Posted October 17, 2012 Author Share Posted October 17, 2012 I am talking strictly about the spontaneous uprising story that came out of the administration. . . . The spontaneous uprising story is ludicrous given the date it occurred on. And it took them two weeks to back off that story. What message in particular and who did it come from? Do you agree that there were spontaneous uprisings? (Not referring to the Benghazi consulate attack, here.) I want to understand why. Not why the attack happened but rather why that was the explanation for it. You guys either don't get it, get it and don't want to admit it, or don't want to get it because it would force you to confront some of the pre-conceived notions you apparently have about people who are not fully in the Obama camp. You don't want to understand why the attack happened but you do want to understand why it was explained a certain way? Why is that? Link to comment
JJ Husker Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 I am talking strictly about the spontaneous uprising story that came out of the administration. . . . The spontaneous uprising story is ludicrous given the date it occurred on. And it took them two weeks to back off that story. What message in particular and who did it come from? Do you agree that there were spontaneous uprisings? (Not referring to the Benghazi consulate attack, here.) I want to understand why. Not why the attack happened but rather why that was the explanation for it. You guys either don't get it, get it and don't want to admit it, or don't want to get it because it would force you to confront some of the pre-conceived notions you apparently have about people who are not fully in the Obama camp. You don't want to understand why the attack happened but you do want to understand why it was explained a certain way? Why is that? I already understand why the attack happened. I really hope nobody is wandering around confused about why or how we got attacked in a place like Libya. It is not a bit of a mystery in any way, shape, or form. But, I do want to know why it was explained as simply a spontaneous uprising given the date it occurred on and because some of the stories I have seen presented indicate that additional security was requested. It is not spontaneous if it is anticipated. Why do these extreme coincidences not have you wondering the same thing? Link to comment
knapplc Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 For the 4,287,223rd time, we get reports of impending violence against our assets all the time. So the fact that this one didn't get jumped on at once doesn't hint at some fundamental failure in our government. Having said that, JJ, I really want to know why the attack happened. Can you please explain that? Because explaining that would go a long way toward telling us who did the attacking, which we still don't know. Link to comment
sd'sker Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 I'm not saying we could've or should've prevented the attack or even expected one on that day. I am talking strictly about the spontaneous uprising story that came out of the administration. It shouldn't matter that it was eleven years later and nothing had occurred on the previous 10 anniversary dates. I'm not using hindsight. It doesn't take hindsight to realize on 9-12-12 that yesterday was the anniversary date of 9-11. Quit being so dense and/or changing the story to fit your argument and realize what I am saying. The spontaneous uprising story is ludicrous given the date it occurred on. And it took them two weeks to back off that story. I want to understand why. Not why the attack happened but rather why that was the explanation for it. You guys either don't get it, get it and don't want to admit it, or don't want to get it because it would force you to confront some of the pre-conceived notions you apparently have about people who are not fully in the Obama camp. what if it was a case of bad intel? are you implying that the administration purposefully mislead the people for political gain and now have to admit the truth? what do they have to gain saying it was spontaneous rather than a terrorist attack. either way, lives were lost. this is a really weird issue to politicize, especially by conservatives. well? also, you mention how no one should be wondering why we got attacked in a place like libya. yes we should. most of the middle east hates us, yet our diplomats are not attacked everyday over there. Link to comment
carlfense Posted October 17, 2012 Author Share Posted October 17, 2012 But, I do want to know why it was explained as simply a spontaneous uprising given the date it occurred on and because some of the stories I have seen presented indicate that additional security was requested. It is not spontaneous if it is anticipated. It is not spontaneous if it is anticipated. We definitely agree there. Are you talking about the Benghazi consulate attack in particular? If so, I also think that it wasn't a spontaneous uprising. Obama also agrees. What has you so concerned? Why do these extreme coincidences not have you wondering the same thing? What coincidences? I think we might be talking past each other. I genuinely have no idea what you're insinuating or why it's more important than the actual deaths of the four Americans. Link to comment
JJ Husker Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 I give up gentlemen. You can lead a horse to water but, you can't make it drink. Link to comment
knapplc Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Bogus. I asked a very pertinent question to which you said you had the answer. I want that answer. Failure to provide it will make me think you didn't have the answer in the first place. I know we don't want that, do we? Hmmm?????? Link to comment
JJ Husker Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Bogus. I asked a very pertinent question to which you said you had the answer. I want that answer. Failure to provide it will make me think you didn't have the answer in the first place. I know we don't want that, do we? Hmmm?????? I will answer your question knapp. Your question had nothing to do with me bailing out of this ridiculus discussion. You asked; "I really want to know why the attack happened. Can you please explain that?" My answer is that a whole bunch of people in that part of the world want to kill Americans and will attempt to accomplish that desire with little or no reason whatsoever. All they need is an opportunity. It also appears that they like performing these terrorist acts on certain dates or anniversaries or in conjunction with events that have some special meaning to them. There are also a good number of them that are quite willing to die in the act of killing their perceived enemies. Suicide bombers, flying planes into buildings, that sort of thing. I sense that you were looking for some more specific type of answer but that is all I have to offer. I am not surprised in the least that extremist muslims or any number of people whose thought process is similar would kill innocent people, particularly Americans, if only provided an opportunity. Now please don't tell me you're going to act like that situation is some hair-brained conspiracy theory also. I bailed on the discussion because I felt a couple people were being purposely dense on the matter. And, I was having to repeat myself because people (you included) were constantly turning it back into an argument I was not making. I really feel it is a valid concern as to why the administration referred to it as a spontaneous uprising when I see a lot of signs to indicate it was anything but spontaneous. I don't necessarily think it means Obama himself is responsible for lying about it or dropping the ball or covering anything up. But, how do we find out about these types of things if we don't wonder and ask. Remember, they work for and represent us. Link to comment
carlfense Posted October 17, 2012 Author Share Posted October 17, 2012 I really feel it is a valid concern as to why the administration referred to it as a spontaneous uprising when I see a lot of signs to indicate it was anything but spontaneous. If they had come out initially and reported that Benghazi was a spontaneous uprising . . . and continued that message until today I would join in your concerns. I don't get the level of concern when they have repeatedly called it terrorism. What do you expect? That they say the word terror more often? That they say it louder? To what end? Link to comment
JJ Husker Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 I really feel it is a valid concern as to why the administration referred to it as a spontaneous uprising when I see a lot of signs to indicate it was anything but spontaneous. If they had come out initially and reported that Benghazi was a spontaneous uprising . . . and continued that message until today I would join in your concerns. I don't get the level of concern when they have repeatedly called it terrorism. What do you expect? That they say the word terror more often? That they say it louder? To what end? No. You still don't get it. Calling it terrorism or using that word has nothing to do with it. They did come out initially and call it a spontaneous uprising and continued that message for two weeks. Yes, they also referred to it as an act of terror (unbeknownst to Romney apparently). Using the phrase "act of terror" or even calling it that directly does not trump or wipe away the fact that their story was a spontaneous uprising. It can still be an act of terror, whether or not it was planned, expected, or spontaneous. My concern is why did they ever refer to it as a spontaneous uprising and why did that message continue for two weeks. You say you would join in my concerns if they continued that message to this day. If you answer that question, you might begin to understand why it concerns me. Like I have already said way too many times, it leads one of 3 places; they were clueless about the importance of a date like 9-11, they didn't want to admit the truth, or they were trying to cover something up. I don't see any good options there. Link to comment
Recommended Posts