9/11/2001 vs. 9/11/2012

[carlfense]

Let me help Carl out, he has already said it. I knew we had this discussion before. Notice the timestamps.

2nd attempt to get back on track. There are some reports out that the protests were relatively small, and that the attacks may have been premeditated and part of an Al Qaeda attack. Obviously the Libyan government wants to push this idea to take off some of the heat, and the Obama administration wants to say it was spontaneous to keep away from it being a terrorist attack on US soil. The reason they don't want this to be a Al Qaeda attack is because then it would be the first successful terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11. Also a video supposedly shows post attack footage that shows the Ambassador alive and being taken to a local hospital before he died at the hospital.

I think it probably varied from city to city and country to country. The Benghazi attack, no matter what is said by the Obama administration, was not a spontaneous riot protesting that video. That doesn't mean that all other riots were premeditated attacks as well.

Thanks for the assist!

[carlfense]

 

 

Again, why does this matter? People are dead, right? Why are we all arguing over a message that we all agree was inconsistent? Why?

This will be my last post on the spontaneous uprising / act of terror subject.

 

It matters to some people because some people think that possibly the message put out by the administration was intentionally misleading. IF they were hiding some inaction on somebody's part or trying to change the nature of the attack to something more politically palatable, then it matters. However, as knapp has pointed out, this subject is NOT as important as the fact that four Americans are dead. Also, it is not as important as finding who perpetrated these acts. Sorry but sometimes, many times, we don't pick the most important thing to talk about here.

 

As for why we are arguing, carl meet mirror, mirror meet carl. I realize you are virtually incapable of conceding any point or portion of a point you have previously supported. I don't think one time in this discussion that you have admitted that at least some people in the administration were telling a different story than it was an act of terror. You've come close in admitting the message was "muddled and mishandled" but you have yet to admit that their primary stance was a spontaneous uprising. Come on humor me. Say it once; "Yes, it was referred to as a spontaneous uprising". While you attempt to spit those words out, you could also admit that many people do not share your belief that acts of terrorism cannot be spontaneous. You don't have to admit we're right (hell, we might not be) but you can surely admit that some of us actually think that even if you feel we're wrong about it.

 

I'm really hoping you can bring yourself to admit these two things. It's not even admitting you're wrong, it's simply acknowledging that there may be a viewpoint other than your own. My fingers are crossed. I think you can do it.

Is that all it takes? Yes. Some in the administration have referred to it as a spontaneous uprising. (Edit: Ziggy could have saved us all some time if he had posted this 1 minute earlier: http://www.huskerboa...ost__p__1039445)

 

Sure. People can say that words mean whatever they want. That doesn't mean that words do mean whatever they want . . . but hey . . . people believe in some crazy things.

 

Now, will you please say that Obama's initial statement referred to it as an act of terror and in no way mentioned a spontaneous uprising or a video?

[Ziggy]

And the President and his administration are basically lying to us when they say it was spontaneous and not a premeditated terrorist attack.

That I'd agree with. It seems obvious to me that it was premeditated and if Obama's administration continues saying otherwise they are lying. They deserve every bit of criticism that they receive regarding that issue.

[carlfense]

And the President and his administration are basically lying to us when they say it was spontaneous and not a premeditated terrorist attack.

That I'd agree with. It seems obvious to me that it was premeditated and if Obama's administration continues saying otherwise they are lying. They deserve every bit of criticism that they receive regarding that issue.

Still agree. If they call it a spontaneous and not premeditated terrorist attack today they're lying. Apparently my initial instincts about the attack were spot on.

 

(Also, I don't think that I'd seen the Rose Garden speech at that time.)

[JJ Husker]

Carl- see post #45 this thread for the first of the multiple times I have acknowledged Obama used the phrase "act of terror" regarding this attack.

 

And, just for fun, revisit your post #44, which indicates that you denied the administration referring to it as a spontaneous event.

[JJ Husker]

This joint might need a special forum where pwople can argue the real meanings of word vs the ways they are widely used.. Here's an example; I don't necessarily think "act of terror equates to "terrorism". My rational; the recent theatre massacre in Colorado. That was most certainly an act of terror. Committed by a deranged person who I have not heard called a terrorist nor do I believe him to be a terrorist. Thus "act of terror" does not equal terroism or terrorist activity.

[carlfense]

Carl- see post #45 this thread for the first of the multiple times I have acknowledged Obama used the phrase "act of terror" regarding this attack.

 

And, just for fun, revisit your post #44, which indicates that you denied the administration referring to it as a spontaneous event.

Am I looking at the wrong post #44? Here it is:

 

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?

They didn't come out initially and call it a spontaneous uprising. Obama's speech says nothing about spontaneous. (Please feel free to fact check that. I've read it a couple times but I might have missed it.)

 

They haven't continued the spontaneous uprising message until today. Isn't everyone calling it a terrorist attack?

 

Please advise.

[carlfense]

Also: JJ - still waiting for you to admit that President Obama did not claim that the Benghazi attack was either spontaneous nor a result of the video in his Rose Garden speech immediately after the attack.

 

I'll even put it at the bottom of this post so that you can just copy and paste it.

 

 

"President Obama did not claim that the Benghazi attack was spontaneous or a result of the video in his Rose Garden speech immediately after the attack."

[JJ Husker]

Also: JJ - still waiting for you to admit that President Obama did not claim that the Benghazi attack was either spontaneous nor a result of the video in his Rose Garden speech immediately after the attack.

 

I'll even put it at the bottom of this post so that you can just copy and paste it.

 

 

"President Obama did not claim that the Benghazi attack was spontaneous or a result of the video in his Rose Garden speech immediately after the attack."

Carl- I think you might be confusing me with some others who were embroiled in the same discussion at the same time. I have never once argued that Obama did claim that in his Rose Garden speech the day after the attack. Furthermore, I never once stated that his act of terror phrase was general and did not apply to the attack he was obviously talking about. I realize many with similar political leanings to me are trying to say that it was only a general statement. Please don't assume that I must believe that as well simply because I am arguing on a similar issue. And, just for you, here it is; "President Obama did not claim that the Benghazi attack was spontaneous or a result of the video in his Rose Garden speech immediately after the attack." (I even copied and pasted as instructed).

 

However, I have claimed and supported my claims with the fact that Obama's administration (maybe not him personally but people who I feel it is rationale to assume put out the same message as the administration and Obama himself believe) did say it was not pre-planned and that it apparently was the result of a spontaneous event, and those messages began coming out of the administration as early as September 14th (possibly sooner, I have not looked for a sooner instance) again on September 16th and continued it until their story was finally changed almost two weeks later. If the White House spokesman, Jay Carney, or our ambassador to the UN Susan Rice do not speak for the President, I've got an idea where the federal government can save even a little more money.

 

I have the feeling (actually I know) that we are arguing about a semantics issue that you will not concede. #1- by the word "initially" you are sticking strictly to Obama's Rose Garden comments the day after whereas I think 3 days after and continuing for 2 weeks is also "initially". #2- You are interpreting the "act of terror" phrase in a manner that precludes you from being able to admit that the administration story was really a spontaneous event. I understand that you don't think the event can be both but it is quite apparent that I and others on this board, as well as the administration, do not have the same hangups on the terminology used. I really can't help it that you don't believe a spontaneous event can also be an act of terror and so choose to use your interpretation quirk to ignore what their story actually was.

[carlfense]

I have the feeling (actually I know) that we are arguing about a semantics issue that you will not concede. #1- by the word "initially" you are sticking strictly to Obama's Rose Garden comments the day after whereas I think 3 days after and continuing for 2 weeks is also "initially".

What is your definition of initial?

 

#2- You are interpreting the "act of terror" phrase in a manner that precludes you from being able to admit that the administration story was really a spontaneous event.

Let's leave the "acts of terror" phrase alone for the moment.

 

Which facts show that Obama/White House administration's initial reaction was a spontaneous event? (Is that what you're saying?) I've already said several times (some over a month ago) that some in the administration called it a spontaneous event. If that is how you define "being unable to admit". . . I can see how your definitions of "spontaneous" and "initial" are so flexible. Your honesty about wanting to see the blame fall on Obama also probably hints at why those definitions are being . . . flexed.

 

I haven't see any reference (either directly or implied) showing that the Benghazi attack was initially characterized as a spontaneous event. If you'd like to provide them, great.

[JJ Husker]

I have the feeling (actually I know) that we are arguing about a semantics issue that you will not concede. #1- by the word "initially" you are sticking strictly to Obama's Rose Garden comments the day after whereas I think 3 days after and continuing for 2 weeks is also "initially".

What is your definition of initial?

 

#2- You are interpreting the "act of terror" phrase in a manner that precludes you from being able to admit that the administration story was really a spontaneous event.

Let's leave the "acts of terror" phrase alone for the moment.

 

Which facts show that Obama/White House administration's initial reaction was a spontaneous event? (Is that what you're saying?) I've already said several times (some over a month ago) that some in the administration called it a spontaneous event. If that is how you define "being unable to admit". . . I can see how your definitions of "spontaneous" and "initial" are so flexible. Your honesty about wanting to see the blame fall on Obama also probably hints at why those definitions are being . . . flexed.

 

I haven't see any reference (either directly or implied) showing that the Benghazi attack was initially characterized as a spontaneous event. If you'd like to provide them, great.

 

If "initially" is the day after or 3 days after, it doesn't matter for the point I am trying to make. Precisely defining "initially" is apparently part of your point, not mine. In fact, if the time frame that they referred to it as a spontaneous uprising, were only the first couple of days, I could accept it and write it off as simply being confused for a little while. But, it is my belief that every day that passes after the event, they should be getting closer to what actually happened. If we use your storyline; Obama had it perfect the very next day, then his administration strayed for 2 weeks, then they came back to an organized terrorist attack. You can choose to believe that if you wish. I am done wasting my time trying to explain it to one person when I think most other people at least sort of get it. Really- I'm done.

[carlfense]

But, it is my belief that every day that passes after the event, they should be getting closer to what actually happened.

We can certainly agree on that.

 

If we use your storyline; Obama had it perfect the very next day, then his administration strayed for 2 weeks, then they came back to an organized terrorist attack.

That's not my storyline . . . that's roughly what the available facts (including the facts that you've provided) suggest.

 

You can choose to believe that if you wish.

Choose to believe the facts? Yeah . . . I'll do that.

[Ziggy]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/23/libya-attack-white-house-benghazi_n_2007497.html?ncid=webmail1

 

It is starting to get a little heavy. If you remember the administration called the attack at Fort Hood as workplace violence and is still classified as such. And now after the Benghazi attack for 2 weeks, the administration tried to at the very least confuse the American people about what exactly happened on the night of 9/11/12. No matter what was said in the Rose garden, he and his team continued to push the idea that a spontaneous attack was the culprit, and very few people can truly say that they believed at the time that the administrations views were any different. In fact the very people on this board trying to defend the presidents remarks are on record of admitting that the administrations views were contradictory to what it appeared had actually happened in Libya.

[carlfense]

Ziggy-

 

The CIA thought that it was spontaneous. Give up the conspiracies.

[JJ Husker]

Ziggy-

 

The CIA thought that it was spontaneous. Give up the conspiracies.

I don't want to get back into this but, for your reading pleasure;

 

A third email, also marked SBU and sent at 6:07 p.m. Washington time, carried the subject line: "Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack."

 

The message reported: "Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli."

 

While some information identifying recipients of this message was redacted from copies of the messages obtained by Reuters, a government source said that one of the addresses to which the message was sent was the White House Situation Room, the president's secure command post.

 

Other addressees included intelligence and military units as well as one used by the FBI command center, the source said.

 

 

BTW- 6:07 PM Washington time is only about 2 1/2 hours after the attack ocurred.

I'm not claiming any conspiracy. I just find it curious that the official administration releases about this event was a spontaneous event. Maybe they were just that confused and receiving conflicting information and they chose to go with the least likely scenario. Or, maybe they placed more trust in the CIA information. Who knows what the hell goes on in the White House situation room. I'm sure lots of information gets muddled in there. Apparently the CIA was telling them it was spontaneous, this other credible source was saying otherwise and actually had information about a terror group claiming responsibility, Obama says "act of terror" in the Rose Garden, and the White House spokesman and our ambassador to the UN are saying spontaneous. Yeah, we should probably have gobs of faith in this bunch. Something about monkeys and a football comes to mind.