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

[carlfense]

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

Can't blame you for that . . . if I had claimed that two out of the only three possible options are conspiracies (what sort or why isn't addressed . . . but what matters is that Obama is bad, right?) I'd probably want to back away as well.

 

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.

No arguments there. Looks suspiciously similar to my theory about conflicting intelligence.

 

I'm not claiming any conspiracy.

But you were claiming a conspiracy. You offered three options. Two of those were conspiracies. One of those wasn't a conspiracy but you still concluded that it must mean that Obama is bad.

 

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.

I bet that you do find that curious. In fact . . . I would have bet that you'd find it curious roughly 66% of the time.

[Ziggy]

Ziggy-

 

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

 

Conspiracies? Its now proven fact that multiple cables from Libya on the night of the attack went out. There was a near live feed during part of the attack being viewed by the state department. And last I checked it was our State department who ran the consulate, and who our ambassador works for. So if the CIA does not take information that the state department has then they f'ed up too. Some how we had a drone over head just a few hours after the attack started. Its pretty sad when a group of people on Husker fan site know its a terrorist attack before the CIA.

 

As a side note, which ever mod moved my topic into this one, I wish you wouldn't have. The new topic was to discuss both the Fort Hood incident, and the Libya consulate attack.

[Ziggy]

If you want a conspiracy I will give you one. There are rumors that the Ambassador was at the consulate for a meeting with the CIA and the Turkish government to supply weapons and supplies to Syrian rebels. Was the attack perpetrated by the Syrian Government when they found out about it. Did they possibly fund the terrorists? Is it possible that our government was warned about the attack if they continued supplying the rebels? Is our government covering this all up to prevent wide spread outrage that may lead to war with Syria, who is already on our radar for killing so many civilians.

 

I don't subscribe to it, but its possible some of it has some truth in it. Most conspiracies do.

[carlfense]

Conspiracies? Its now proven fact that multiple cables from Libya on the night of the attack went out. There was a near live feed during part of the attack being viewed by the state department. And last I checked it was our State department who ran the consulate, and who our ambassador works for. So if the CIA does not take information that the state department has then they f'ed up too. Some how we had a drone over head just a few hours after the attack started. Its pretty sad when a group of people on Husker fan site know its a terrorist attack before the CIA.

What are you implying and why?

[carlfense]

If you want a conspiracy I will give you one. There are rumors that the Ambassador was at the consulate for a meeting with the CIA and the Turkish government to supply weapons and supplies to Syrian rebels. Was the attack perpetrated by the Syrian Government when they found out about it. Did they possibly fund the terrorists? Is it possible that our government was warned about the attack if they continued supplying the rebels? Is our government covering this all up to prevent wide spread outrage that may lead to war with Syria, who is already on our radar for killing so many civilians.

 

I don't subscribe to it, but its possible some of it has some truth in it. Most conspiracies do.

[JJ Husker]

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

Can't blame you for that . . . if I had claimed that two out of the only three possible options are conspiracies (what sort or why isn't addressed . . . but what matters is that Obama is bad, right?) I'd probably want to back away as well.

 

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.

No arguments there. Looks suspiciously similar to my theory about conflicting intelligence.

 

I'm not claiming any conspiracy.

But you were claiming a conspiracy. You offered three options. Two of those were conspiracies. One of those wasn't a conspiracy but you still concluded that it must mean that Obama is bad.

 

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.

I bet that you do find that curious. In fact . . . I would have bet that you'd find it curious roughly 66% of the time.

Actually, I didn't want to get back into this because you have proven to be quite dense at being able to see or consider anything other than what you have your mind already locked on. In other words, not because of any problem you think I have in supporting my positions but because of your failure to be able to even marginally consider them. It's ok, I'm learning.

 

BTW- I don't really view any of my 3 options as being actual "conspiracy" theories. I have learned to not have any confidence in any of our elected politicians regardless of party. It would be a conspiracy if Obama had someone kill those Americans. But, just plain not knowing what you're doing or covering your own ass so that you have a chance to be re-elected or attempting to make your policies look better than they are, those aren't conspiracies. That's just Obama being Obama. Don't let it get to you. You can always ignore it or deny it or focus on little phrases and parse words to deflect it. Be proud and enjoy enabling your man Obama in his deception or incompetence. I'll let you choose which it is this time.

[AR Husker Fan]

Actually, I didn't want to get back into this because you have proven to be quite dense at being able to see or consider anything other than what you have your mind already locked on. In other words, not because of any problem you think I have in supporting my positions but because of your failure to be able to even marginally consider them. It's ok, I'm learning.

 

BTW- I don't really view any of my 3 options as being actual "conspiracy" theories. I have learned to not have any confidence in any of our elected politicians regardless of party. It would be a conspiracy if Obama had someone kill those Americans. But, just plain not knowing what you're doing or covering your own ass so that you have a chance to be re-elected or attempting to make your policies look better than they are, those aren't conspiracies. That's just Obama being Obama. Don't let it get to you. You can always ignore it or deny it or focus on little phrases and parse words to deflect it. Be proud and enjoy enabling your man Obama in his deception or incompetence. I'll let you choose which it is this time.

JJ, the rule about personal attacks extends to all forums. Calling someone "dense" is a personal attack. Do it again, and suspension or a ban follows. You could have phrased completely differently, such as, "You are unwilling to consider..." or something similar. If you can't do that, you need to find another place to post.

 

And this applies to everyone - the snide comments are personal attacks as much as name-calling. If we haven't make our point yet that it won't be tolerated, people are going to be banned.

[Ziggy]

Actually, I didn't want to get back into this because you have proven to be quite dense at being able to see or consider anything other than what you have your mind already locked on. In other words, not because of any problem you think I have in supporting my positions but because of your failure to be able to even marginally consider them. It's ok, I'm learning.

 

BTW- I don't really view any of my 3 options as being actual "conspiracy" theories. I have learned to not have any confidence in any of our elected politicians regardless of party. It would be a conspiracy if Obama had someone kill those Americans. But, just plain not knowing what you're doing or covering your own ass so that you have a chance to be re-elected or attempting to make your policies look better than they are, those aren't conspiracies. That's just Obama being Obama. Don't let it get to you. You can always ignore it or deny it or focus on little phrases and parse words to deflect it. Be proud and enjoy enabling your man Obama in his deception or incompetence. I'll let you choose which it is this time.

JJ, the rule about personal attacks extends to all forums. Calling someone "dense" is a personal attack. Do it again, and suspension or a ban follows. You could have phrased completely differently, such as, "You are unwilling to consider..." or something similar. If you can't do that, you need to find another place to post.

 

And this applies to everyone - the snide comments are personal attacks as much as name-calling. If we haven't make our point yet that it won't be tolerated, people are going to be banned.

 

I find Derp, or other words that are similar to be offensive and think when used toward a poster should be considered a personal attack. Especially if you are going to call "dense" a personal attack. That is like me saying your being "hard headed". Give me a break.

[AR Husker Fan]

I find Derp, or other words that are similar to be offensive and think when used toward a poster should be considered a personal attack. Especially if you are going to call "dense" a personal attack. That is like me saying your being "hard headed". Give me a break.

The term "derp" refers to the statement, not the poster. The term "hard headed" refers to someone who is intractable. The term "dense" refers to someone who is less than intelligent. That's personal, and leads to more such pejoratives, which leads to flame wars.

 

Regardless how you feel about it, that's the standard for Huskerboard. People will either meet that standard or be banned.

[JJ Husker]

Understood. I didn't intend it as a personal attack but I could have worded it in a less offensive manner.

 

And BTW, I meant hard-headed. Carlfense may be a lot of things but unintelligent is not one of them. I did not mean to imply that by using the word dense.

 

edit- I guess I learned something today. I looked up the definition of "dense" fully expecting it to be defined as compact, thick, impenetrable, etc. (which it was) but the second definition was in fact dull or stupid. So, I will apologize even though the 2nd def. is not what was intended.

[AR Husker Fan]

Thanks, JJ - very much appreciated.