• Announcements

    • UnderDawg

      A Few Simple Rules   05/22/2017

      Sailing Anarchy is a very lightly moderated site. This is by design, to afford a more free atmosphere for discussion. There are plenty of sailing forums you can go to where swearing isn't allowed, confrontation is squelched and, and you can have a moderator finger-wag at you for your attitude. SA tries to avoid that and allow for more adult behavior without moderators editing your posts and whacking knuckles with rulers. We don't have a long list of published "thou shalt nots" either, and this is by design. Too many absolute rules paints us into too many corners. So check the Terms of Service - there IS language there about certain types of behavior that is not permitted. We interpret that lightly and permit a lot of latitude, but we DO reserve the right to take action when something is too extreme to tolerate (too racist, graphic, violent, misogynistic, etc.). Yes, that is subjective, but it allows us discretion. Avoiding a laundry list of rules allows for freedom; don't abuse it. However there ARE a few basic rules that will earn you a suspension, and apparently a brief refresher is in order. 1) Allegations of pedophilia - there is no tolerance for this. So if you make allegations, jokes, innuendo or suggestions about child molestation, child pornography, abuse or inappropriate behavior with minors etc. about someone on this board you will get a time out. This is pretty much automatic; this behavior can have real world effect and is not acceptable. Obviously the subject is not banned when discussion of it is apropos, e.g. talking about an item in the news for instance. But allegations or references directed at or about another poster is verboten. 2) Outing people - providing real world identifiable information about users on the forums who prefer to remain anonymous. Yes, some of us post with our real names - not a problem to use them. However many do NOT, and if you find out someone's name keep it to yourself, first or last. This also goes for other identifying information too - employer information etc. You don't need too many pieces of data to figure out who someone really is these days. Depending on severity you might get anything from a scolding to a suspension - so don't do it. I know it can be confusing sometimes for newcomers, as SA has been around almost twenty years and there are some people that throw their real names around and their current Display Name may not match the name they have out in the public. But if in doubt, you don't want to accidentally out some one so use caution, even if it's a personal friend of yours in real life. 3) Posting While Suspended - If you've earned a timeout (these are fairly rare and hard to get), please observe the suspension. If you create a new account (a "Sock Puppet") and return to the forums to post with it before your suspension is up you WILL get more time added to your original suspension and lose your Socks. This behavior may result a permanent ban, since it shows you have zero respect for the few rules we have and the moderating team that is tasked with supporting them. Check the Terms of Service you agreed to; they apply to the individual agreeing, not the account you created, so don't try to Sea Lawyer us if you get caught. Just don't do it. Those are the three that will almost certainly get you into some trouble. IF YOU SEE SOMEONE DO ONE OF THESE THINGS, please do the following: Refrain from quoting the offending text, it makes the thread cleanup a pain in the rear Press the Report button; it is by far the best way to notify Admins as we will get e-mails. Calling out for Admins in the middle of threads, sending us PM's, etc. - there is no guarantee we will get those in a timely fashion. There are multiple Moderators in multiple time zones around the world, and anyone one of us can handle the Report and all of us will be notified about it. But if you PM one Mod directly and he's off line, the problem will get dealt with much more slowly. Other behaviors that you might want to think twice before doing include: Intentionally disrupting threads and discussions repeatedly. Off topic/content free trolling in threads to disrupt dialog Stalking users around the forums with the intent to disrupt content and discussion Repeated posting of overly graphic or scatological porn content. There are plenty web sites for you to get your freak on, don't do it here. And a brief note to Newbies... No, we will not ban people or censor them for dropping F-bombs on you, using foul language, etc. so please don't report it when one of our members gives you a greeting you may find shocking. We do our best not to censor content here and playing swearword police is not in our job descriptions. Sailing Anarchy is more like a bar than a classroom, so handle it like you would meeting someone a little coarse - don't look for the teacher. Thanks.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Dog

The strange case of the Benghazi survivors…

854 posts in this topic

Six months later and we have not heard from a single one of the 30 Benghazi survivors or even know who they are. Isn't that a bit odd?

 

"Why have we not heard from any of the Benghazi survivors? I can't tell you the answer to that," Kerry told Fox News last week. "I can tell you that I have visited with one of the survivors ... who is a remarkably courageous person, who is doing very, very well."

 

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/032613-649433-are-30-benghazi-survivors-being-held-to-keep-them-quiet-.htm#ixzz2Ojluusqc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, not odd at all.

Completely expected if they were, as alleged, stuffing men and weapons on boats to Syria as fast as they could.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Six months later and we have not heard from a single one of the 30 Benghazi survivors or even know who they are. Isn't that a bit odd?

 

"Why have we not heard from any of the Benghazi survivors? I can't tell you the answer to that," Kerry told Fox News last week. "I can tell you that I have visited with one of the survivors ... who is a remarkably courageous person, who is doing very, very well."

 

http://news.investor...m#ixzz2Ojluusqc

 

Must be buried next to Vince Foster, to keep them quiet.

 

Did you here some elements of the Tea Party are now boycotting Fox News for being "too liberal"? One major complaint is they don't spend nearly enough time on Benghazi coverage.

 

Sadly though, most of them are turning to Breitbart and Drudge to fill the hole in their hearts, rather than news from which they might learn something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One speculation that I read was that the witnesses would confirm that the leaders of the attack were dressed in Afghan clothes. This would imply an orchestrated Al Qaeda attack ie “An act of war” against the USA. An act of war against the USA could be politically problematic in the middle of an election campaign and might explain the coordinated effort by the administration to portray the attack as a mob of disgruntled movie critics gone wild.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'd certainly like it more if our enemies started wearing SOME sort of uniform for a change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'd certainly like it more if our enemies started wearing SOME sort of uniform for a change.

What, a logo isn't enough for ya?

 

DNC_logo.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'd certainly like it more if our enemies started wearing SOME sort of uniform for a change.

What, a logo isn't enough for ya?

 

DNC_logo.jpg

Read.... Republicans are bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'd certainly like it more if our enemies started wearing SOME sort of uniform for a change.

What, a logo isn't enough for ya?

 

DNC_logo.jpg

Read.... Republicans are bad.

IMAGINE!

 

 

We had hearings on Benghazi. They turned up nothing useful. The election is over.

 

ODS is bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'd certainly like it more if our enemies started wearing SOME sort of uniform for a change.

What, a logo isn't enough for ya?

 

DNC_logo.jpg

Read.... Republicans are bad.

IMAGINE!

 

 

We had hearings on Benghazi. They turned up nothing useful. The election is over.

 

ODS is bad.

You don't find it odd that we haven't heard from or even know who the survivors are?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One speculation that I read was that the witnesses would confirm that the leaders of the attack were dressed in Afghan clothes. This would imply an orchestrated Al Qaeda attack ie “An act of war” against the USA. An act of war against the USA could be politically problematic in the middle of an election campaign and might explain the coordinated effort by the administration to portray the attack as a mob of disgruntled movie critics gone wild.

 

Except that Al Qaeda is not just the afghani's, it's a loose collection of groups around the planet. But, let's not let facts get in the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One speculation that I read was that the witnesses would confirm that the leaders of the attack were dressed in Afghan clothes. This would imply an orchestrated Al Qaeda attack ie “An act of war” against the USA. An act of war against the USA could be politically problematic in the middle of an election campaign and might explain the coordinated effort by the administration to portray the attack as a mob of disgruntled movie critics gone wild.

 

Except that Al Qaeda is not just the afghani's, it's a loose collection of groups around the planet. But, let's not let facts get in the way.

Nothing in that "speculation" was presented as fact....But, lets not let the facts get in the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'd certainly like it more if our enemies started wearing SOME sort of uniform for a change.

What, a logo isn't enough for ya?

 

DNC_logo.jpg

Read.... Republicans are bad.

IMAGINE!

 

 

We had hearings on Benghazi. They turned up nothing useful. The election is over.

 

ODS is bad.

You don't find it odd that we haven't heard from or even know who the survivors are?

Not particularly. If there were an issue to be found, it would have come out at the hearings. It's not like the hearings were run by a bunch of liberal fascists trying to protect the Kenyan. If they found anything approaching the size of a crumb, it would have been the news of the day. They didn't, and it wasn't. They were left holding their respective johnsons and looking rather silly. Reaching tinfoil hat territory with this stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What, a logo isn't enough for ya?

 

DNC_logo.jpg

Read.... Republicans are bad.

IMAGINE!

 

 

We had hearings on Benghazi. They turned up nothing useful. The election is over.

 

ODS is bad.

You don't find it odd that we haven't heard from or even know who the survivors are?

Not particularly. If there were an issue to be found, it would have come out at the hearings. It's not like the hearings were run by a bunch of liberal fascists trying to protect the Kenyan. If they found anything approaching the size of a crumb, it would have been the news of the day. They didn't, and it wasn't. They were left holding their respective johnsons and looking rather silly. Reaching tinfoil hat territory with this stuff.

Ok...Strikes me as odd...I guess time will tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of speculation, the Al Qaedis are training the drug cartels along the Mexican border. A buddy of mine who is a fan of AM radio told me that he has seen the YouTube videos. I asked him if they had uniforms or signs or something, like "Al Qaeda Cartel Training Camp 1 mile" or similar.

 

Also, the government has 50,000 special forces stationed in GA waiting to take our guns.

 

And Obama is the anti-Christ and I am a French model.

 

BonJour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard the survivors got sent to the same island all the 9-11 fake attack survivors and TWA-shooting-down missile operators all live on ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

IMAGINE!

 

 

We had hearings on Benghazi. They turned up nothing useful. The election is over.

 

ODS is bad.

You don't find it odd that we haven't heard from or even know who the survivors are?

Not particularly. If there were an issue to be found, it would have come out at the hearings. It's not like the hearings were run by a bunch of liberal fascists trying to protect the Kenyan. If they found anything approaching the size of a crumb, it would have been the news of the day. They didn't, and it wasn't. They were left holding their respective johnsons and looking rather silly. Reaching tinfoil hat territory with this stuff.

Ok...Strikes me as odd...I guess time will tell.

 

The CIA usually releases everything 50 years after the fact. Some interesting Johnson tapes recently came out. Seems he had Nixon's phone tapped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't find it odd that we haven't heard from or even know who the survivors are?

Not particularly. If there were an issue to be found, it would have come out at the hearings. It's not like the hearings were run by a bunch of liberal fascists trying to protect the Kenyan. If they found anything approaching the size of a crumb, it would have been the news of the day. They didn't, and it wasn't. They were left holding their respective johnsons and looking rather silly. Reaching tinfoil hat territory with this stuff.

Ok...Strikes me as odd...I guess time will tell.

 

The CIA usually releases everything 50 years after the fact. Some interesting Johnson tapes recently came out. Seems he had Nixon's phone tapped.

 

Except for information regarding the attack on Bin Laden where they were helping the movie makers less than 50 days after the fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying there anything to this claim....but its worth looking into. The people deserve to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying there anything to this claim....but its worth looking into. The people deserve to know.

 

Those assholes always get away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Six months later and we have not heard from a single one of the 30 Benghazi survivors or even know who they are. Isn't that a bit odd?

 

"Why have we not heard from any of the Benghazi survivors? I can't tell you the answer to that," Kerry told Fox News last week. "I can tell you that I have visited with one of the survivors ... who is a remarkably courageous person, who is doing very, very well."

 

http://news.investor...m#ixzz2Ojluusqc

 

Must be buried next to Vince Foster, to keep them quiet.

 

Did you here some elements of the Tea Party are now boycotting Fox News for being "too liberal"? One major complaint is they don't spend nearly enough time on Benghazi coverage.

 

Sadly though, most of them are turning to Breitbart and Drudge to fill the hole in their hearts, rather than news from which they might learn something.

 

The Tea Party also believes we must trust the President.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Odds are they are all CIA. That facility wasn't a diplomatic mission, it was a CIA outpost. You won't hear from the survivors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Odds are they are all CIA. That facility wasn't a diplomatic mission, it was a CIA outpost. You won't hear from the survivors.

Apparently some were CIA, we know some State Dept people came over from the diplomatic mission and the article indicates some were government contractors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Odds are they are all CIA. That facility wasn't a diplomatic mission, it was a CIA outpost. You won't hear from the survivors.

Apparently some were CIA, we know some State Dept people came over from the diplomatic mission and the article indicates some were government contractors.

So if they were CIA, why would we expect their identities to be made public? Did their spouses speak out against Bush/Cheney? Did they park in the parking lot at Langley?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Odds are they are all CIA. That facility wasn't a diplomatic mission, it was a CIA outpost. You won't hear from the survivors.

Apparently some were CIA, we know some State Dept people came over from the diplomatic mission and the article indicates some were government contractors.

So if they were CIA, why would we expect their identities to be made public? Did their spouses speak out against Bush/Cheney? Did they park in the parking lot at Langley?

We know you consider this is to be an inconvenient unworthy topic. We got that the first time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We know you consider this is to be an inconvenient unworthy topic. We got that the first time.

It's not a matter of inconvenience or worthiness. If they were CIA, there's not going to be a disclosure of names, unless there is some shady political crap going on. Should we revisit everything that has already been investigated? The 10/08 crash? The 9/11/01 attacks?

 

Why would we expect to see names publicized, if they were CIA?

 

 

 

edit: some goofball pinched off something with a scent, of which you caught a whiff and are attracted. again. I am going to find great amusement, and rub your nose in it. again. It's what we do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We know you consider this is to be an inconvenient unworthy topic. We got that the first time.

It's not a matter of inconvenience or worthiness. If they were CIA, there's not going to be a disclosure of names, unless there is some shady political crap going on. Should we revisit everything that has already been investigated? The 10/08 crash? The 9/11/01 attacks?

 

Why would we expect to see names publicized, if they were CIA?

 

 

 

edit: some goofball pinched off something with a scent, of which you caught a whiff and are attracted. again. I am going to find great amusement, and rub your nose in it. again. It's what we do.

 

Oh God, not poopy pants - again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We know you consider this is to be an inconvenient unworthy topic. We got that the first time.

It's not a matter of inconvenience or worthiness. If they were CIA, there's not going to be a disclosure of names, unless there is some shady political crap going on. Should we revisit everything that has already been investigated? The 10/08 crash? The 9/11/01 attacks?

 

Why would we expect to see names publicized, if they were CIA?

 

 

 

edit: some goofball pinched off something with a scent, of which you caught a whiff and are attracted. again. I am going to find great amusement, and rub your nose in it. again. It's what we do.

How did you conclude that they were all CIA? Some probably were but what about the ones who fled from the diplomatic mission? And what of the reports that some were government contractors?

Spare us your childish bluster and get back to us with some facts we can discuss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Six months later and we have not heard from a single one of the 30 Benghazi survivors or even know who they are. Isn't that a bit odd?

 

"Why have we not heard from any of the Benghazi survivors? I can't tell you the answer to that," Kerry told Fox News last week. "I can tell you that I have visited with one of the survivors ... who is a remarkably courageous person, who is doing very, very well."

 

http://news.investor...m#ixzz2Ojluusqc

 

That's odd, haven't heard much from Bin Ladin's wives either.... :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We know you consider this is to be an inconvenient unworthy topic. We got that the first time.

It's not a matter of inconvenience or worthiness. If they were CIA, there's not going to be a disclosure of names, unless there is some shady political crap going on. Should we revisit everything that has already been investigated? The 10/08 crash? The 9/11/01 attacks?

 

Why would we expect to see names publicized, if they were CIA?

 

 

 

edit: some goofball pinched off something with a scent, of which you caught a whiff and are attracted. again. I am going to find great amusement, and rub your nose in it. again. It's what we do.

How did you conclude that they were all CIA? Some probably were but what about the ones who fled from the diplomatic mission? And what of the reports that some were government contractors?

Spare us your childish bluster and get back to us with some facts we can discuss.

 

Psst. It's your thread. You provide the facts. I didn't conclude anything, except that you got pantsed by a goofball story (again). Keep falling for gibberish from whackos, and you'll keep getting your nose rubbed in it. Don't get mad at me. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Six months later and we have not heard from a single one of the 30 Benghazi survivors or even know who they are. Isn't that a bit odd?

 

"Why have we not heard from any of the Benghazi survivors? I can't tell you the answer to that," Kerry told Fox News last week. "I can tell you that I have visited with one of the survivors ... who is a remarkably courageous person, who is doing very, very well."

 

http://news.investor...m#ixzz2Ojluusqc

 

That's odd, haven't heard much from Bin Ladin's wives either.... :ph34r:

 

Gitmo: The ultimate cone of silence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We know you consider this is to be an inconvenient unworthy topic. We got that the first time.

It's not a matter of inconvenience or worthiness. If they were CIA, there's not going to be a disclosure of names, unless there is some shady political crap going on. Should we revisit everything that has already been investigated? The 10/08 crash? The 9/11/01 attacks?

 

Why would we expect to see names publicized, if they were CIA?

 

 

 

edit: some goofball pinched off something with a scent, of which you caught a whiff and are attracted. again. I am going to find great amusement, and rub your nose in it. again. It's what we do.

How did you conclude that they were all CIA? Some probably were but what about the ones who fled from the diplomatic mission? And what of the reports that some were government contractors?

Spare us your childish bluster and get back to us with some facts we can discuss.

 

Psst. It's your thread. You provide the facts. I didn't conclude anything, except that you got pantsed by a goofball story (again). Keep falling for gibberish from whackos, and you'll keep getting your nose rubbed in it. Don't get mad at me. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

I did provide the facts as we know them and offered them for discussion which you engaged in. Your explanation was that they are all CIA which if true would make perfect sense. All I asked was for you to support the “facts” you contributed.

 

No need to get your panties in a twist…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We know you consider this is to be an inconvenient unworthy topic. We got that the first time.

It's not a matter of inconvenience or worthiness. If they were CIA, there's not going to be a disclosure of names, unless there is some shady political crap going on. Should we revisit everything that has already been investigated? The 10/08 crash? The 9/11/01 attacks?

 

Why would we expect to see names publicized, if they were CIA?

 

 

 

edit: some goofball pinched off something with a scent, of which you caught a whiff and are attracted. again. I am going to find great amusement, and rub your nose in it. again. It's what we do.

How did you conclude that they were all CIA? Some probably were but what about the ones who fled from the diplomatic mission? And what of the reports that some were government contractors?

Spare us your childish bluster and get back to us with some facts we can discuss.

 

Psst. It's your thread. You provide the facts. I didn't conclude anything, except that you got pantsed by a goofball story (again). Keep falling for gibberish from whackos, and you'll keep getting your nose rubbed in it. Don't get mad at me. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

I did provide the facts as we know them and offered them for discussion which you engaged in. Your explanation was that they are all CIA which if true would make perfect sense. All I asked was for you to support the “facts” you contributed.

 

No need to get your panties in a twist…

Since Sol said 'if', he was only putting forth a hypothetical. Of course he can now claim he didn't actuallly say anything and that your acceptance of his hypothetical for discussion was pure fiction on your part and demands that you prove the hypothetical he initiated.

 

He thinks that's smart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We know you consider this is to be an inconvenient unworthy topic. We got that the first time.

It's not a matter of inconvenience or worthiness. If they were CIA, there's not going to be a disclosure of names, unless there is some shady political crap going on. Should we revisit everything that has already been investigated? The 10/08 crash? The 9/11/01 attacks?

 

Why would we expect to see names publicized, if they were CIA?

 

 

 

edit: some goofball pinched off something with a scent, of which you caught a whiff and are attracted. again. I am going to find great amusement, and rub your nose in it. again. It's what we do.

How did you conclude that they were all CIA? Some probably were but what about the ones who fled from the diplomatic mission? And what of the reports that some were government contractors?

Spare us your childish bluster and get back to us with some facts we can discuss.

 

Psst. It's your thread. You provide the facts. I didn't conclude anything, except that you got pantsed by a goofball story (again). Keep falling for gibberish from whackos, and you'll keep getting your nose rubbed in it. Don't get mad at me. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

I did provide the facts as we know them and offered them for discussion which you engaged in. Your explanation was that they are all CIA which if true would make perfect sense. All I asked was for you to support the “facts” you contributed.

 

No need to get your panties in a twist…

Pssst. I didn't bring up the CIA. Perhaps you should address the poster who did, rather than trying to work the perception over the reality straussian mind trick. My panties are far from in a twist...wherever they may be. I love rubbing your nose in it when you fall for some nutter's story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a matter of inconvenience or worthiness. If they were CIA, there's not going to be a disclosure of names, unless there is some shady political crap going on. Should we revisit everything that has already been investigated? The 10/08 crash? The 9/11/01 attacks?

 

Why would we expect to see names publicized, if they were CIA?

 

 

 

edit: some goofball pinched off something with a scent, of which you caught a whiff and are attracted. again. I am going to find great amusement, and rub your nose in it. again. It's what we do.

How did you conclude that they were all CIA? Some probably were but what about the ones who fled from the diplomatic mission? And what of the reports that some were government contractors?

Spare us your childish bluster and get back to us with some facts we can discuss.

 

Psst. It's your thread. You provide the facts. I didn't conclude anything, except that you got pantsed by a goofball story (again). Keep falling for gibberish from whackos, and you'll keep getting your nose rubbed in it. Don't get mad at me. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

I did provide the facts as we know them and offered them for discussion which you engaged in. Your explanation was that they are all CIA which if true would make perfect sense. All I asked was for you to support the “facts” you contributed.

 

No need to get your panties in a twist…

Pssst. I didn't bring up the CIA. Perhaps you should address the poster who did, rather than trying to work the perception over the reality straussian mind trick. My panties are far from in a twist...wherever they may be. I love rubbing your nose in it when you fall for some nutter's story.

You were not the first but you did advance the CIA angle and then failed miserably to defend it. As for rubbing noses in it (or attempting to)...Yeah...we know "It's what you do".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You were not the first but you did advance the CIA angle and then failed miserably to defend it. As for rubbing noses in it (or attempting to)...Yeah...we know "It's what you do".

Ah yes, the straussian angle. I need not defend anything, and am not defending anything; I am making fun of you chasing your tail again. You started a silly thread about why we don't know about the survivors, when the answer is that in all likelihood, we would never hear about them if they were CIA, something undoubtedly looked into by a congressional committee trying desperately to find anything to throw to the ODS community. You have not demonstrated that we should have heard anything about survivors. You have only succeeded in being duped into slinging a turd that the congressional committee that reviewed the evidence was unwilling to sling themselves. The joke is on you. Again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You were not the first but you did advance the CIA angle and then failed miserably to defend it. As for rubbing noses in it (or attempting to)...Yeah...we know "It's what you do".

I need not defend anything, and am not defending anything.

 

So you're just trolling then, as always. You're not here for discussion, you're here for the opportunity to belittle, to ridicule. Odd way to get your jollies.

 

The joke is on you Sol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still want to hear more about Dog's "dressed like Afghans and thus Al Qaeda and thus act of war" angle:

 

One speculation that I read was that the witnesses would confirm that the leaders of the attack were dressed in Afghan clothes. This would imply an orchestrated Al Qaeda attack ie “An act of war” against the USA. An act of war against the USA could be politically problematic in the middle of an election campaign and might explain the coordinated effort by the administration to portray the attack as a mob of disgruntled movie critics gone wild.

As the citation was likely too embarrassing to provide, allow me to be of assistance and provide additional color:

 

"Well it was night so, you know, pretty damn dark out so we had a heckuva time telling whether the dress-looking things worn by wide swaths of that part of the world that the terrorists were wearing were the specific kind worn in Afghanistan, but fortunately they were observed to be playing that Dead Goat Polo game that Afghans love so much so we knew they were Al Qaeda (which is 100% Afghan, by the by). And then as everyone knows that would be an Act of War by Al Qaeda in Afghanistan so Obama would have to quit dithering and invade Afghanistan which would be politically problematic."

 

Just wait until Issa get wind of this. The hearings will crank right back up again. Obama should just resign now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You were not the first but you did advance the CIA angle and then failed miserably to defend it. As for rubbing noses in it (or attempting to)...Yeah...we know "It's what you do".

I need not defend anything, and am not defending anything.

 

So you're just trolling then, as always. You're not here for discussion, you're here for the opportunity to belittle, to ridicule. Odd way to get your jollies.

 

The joke is on you Sol.

At least he was honest enough to admit it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You were not the first but you did advance the CIA angle and then failed miserably to defend it. As for rubbing noses in it (or attempting to)...Yeah...we know "It's what you do".

I need not defend anything, and am not defending anything.

 

So you're just trolling then, as always. You're not here for discussion, you're here for the opportunity to belittle, to ridicule. Odd way to get your jollies.

 

The joke is on you Sol.

At least he was honest enough to admit it.

 

I wouldn't call it an honest admission. Inadvertent is probably apt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still want to hear more about Dog's "dressed like Afghans and thus Al Qaeda and thus act of war" angle:

 

 

One speculation that I read was that the witnesses would confirm that the leaders of the attack were dressed in Afghan clothes. This would imply an orchestrated Al Qaeda attack ie “An act of war” against the USA. An act of war against the USA could be politically problematic in the middle of an election campaign and might explain the coordinated effort by the administration to portray the attack as a mob of disgruntled movie critics gone wild.

 

As the citation was likely too embarrassing to provide, allow me to be of assistance and provide additional color:

 

"Well it was night so, you know, pretty damn dark out so we had a heckuva time telling whether the dress-looking things worn by wide swaths of that part of the world that the terrorists were wearing were the specific kind worn in Afghanistan, but fortunately they were observed to be playing that Dead Goat Polo game that Afghans love so much so we knew they were Al Qaeda (which is 100% Afghan, by the by). And then as everyone knows that would be an Act of War by Al Qaeda in Afghanistan so Obama would have to quit dithering and invade Afghanistan would would be politically problematic."

 

Just wait until Issa get wind of this. The hearings will crank right back up again. Obama should just resign now.

As I said earlier, this explanation is speculative, I am certainly open to others. The "they were CIA" explanation seems to have fallen flat. Sol’s position that there is nothing unusual about knowing nothing about the survivors of an attack on the USA after six months, is patently absurd. I find the story intriguing so if you’ve got something lets hear it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still want to hear more about Dog's "dressed like Afghans and thus Al Qaeda and thus act of war" angle:

 

 

One speculation that I read was that the witnesses would confirm that the leaders of the attack were dressed in Afghan clothes. This would imply an orchestrated Al Qaeda attack ie “An act of war” against the USA. An act of war against the USA could be politically problematic in the middle of an election campaign and might explain the coordinated effort by the administration to portray the attack as a mob of disgruntled movie critics gone wild.

 

As the citation was likely too embarrassing to provide, allow me to be of assistance and provide additional color:

 

"Well it was night so, you know, pretty damn dark out so we had a heckuva time telling whether the dress-looking things worn by wide swaths of that part of the world that the terrorists were wearing were the specific kind worn in Afghanistan, but fortunately they were observed to be playing that Dead Goat Polo game that Afghans love so much so we knew they were Al Qaeda (which is 100% Afghan, by the by). And then as everyone knows that would be an Act of War by Al Qaeda in Afghanistan so Obama would have to quit dithering and invade Afghanistan would would be politically problematic."

 

Just wait until Issa get wind of this. The hearings will crank right back up again. Obama should just resign now.

As I said earlier, this explanation is speculative, I am certainly open to others. The "they were CIA" explanation seems to have fallen flat. Sol’s position that there is nothing unusual about knowing nothing about the survivors of an attack on the USA after six months, is patently absurd. I find the story intriguing so if you’ve got something lets hear it.

Make up whatever straw man you wish. Please don't attach my name to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still want to hear more about Dog's "dressed like Afghans and thus Al Qaeda and thus act of war" angle:

 

 

One speculation that I read was that the witnesses would confirm that the leaders of the attack were dressed in Afghan clothes. This would imply an orchestrated Al Qaeda attack ie “An act of war” against the USA. An act of war against the USA could be politically problematic in the middle of an election campaign and might explain the coordinated effort by the administration to portray the attack as a mob of disgruntled movie critics gone wild.

 

As the citation was likely too embarrassing to provide, allow me to be of assistance and provide additional color:

 

"Well it was night so, you know, pretty damn dark out so we had a heckuva time telling whether the dress-looking things worn by wide swaths of that part of the world that the terrorists were wearing were the specific kind worn in Afghanistan, but fortunately they were observed to be playing that Dead Goat Polo game that Afghans love so much so we knew they were Al Qaeda (which is 100% Afghan, by the by). And then as everyone knows that would be an Act of War by Al Qaeda in Afghanistan so Obama would have to quit dithering and invade Afghanistan would would be politically problematic."

 

Just wait until Issa get wind of this. The hearings will crank right back up again. Obama should just resign now.

As I said earlier, this explanation is speculative, I am certainly open to others. The "they were CIA" explanation seems to have fallen flat. Sol’s position that there is nothing unusual about knowing nothing about the survivors of an attack on the USA after six months, is patently absurd. I find the story intriguing so if you’ve got something lets hear it.

Make up whatever straw man you wish. Please don't attach my name to it.

Whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Under the Dick Tater Ship of Obama Bin Biden common folk must remain common and not ask any questions of substance. You are not worthy to comment or question the actions of the political elite. Got that. Good now run along nothing to see here just ask the junior narcissist in charge of propaganda Jay fucking I'm lying out of my punk ass every time my lips move Carney.

 

What a fucking shell game of an administration. Sleight of hand kabuki theater at its best. Criminal in reality. The willing suspension of disbelief is the only thing holding most of his supporters together because it sure isn't the facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sheeple3.jpg

 

 

Even from this angle the Glenn Beck Rally attendence estimates seem high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sheeple3.jpg

 

 

Even from this angle the Glenn Beck Rally attendence estimates seem high.

 

Looks more like state of the union address... :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One speculation that I read was that the witnesses would confirm that the leaders of the attack were dressed in Afghan clothes. This would imply an orchestrated Al Qaeda attack ie “An act of war” against the USA. An act of war against the USA could be politically problematic in the middle of an election campaign and might explain the coordinated effort by the administration to portray the attack as a mob of disgruntled movie critics gone wild.

I think it was a Jedi mind trick.

 

tinfoil-hat.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.... the witnesses would confirm that the leaders of the attack were dressed in Afghan clothes.

I saw her sneaking around in my back yard the other day. Call DHS...ben-alper-mom-wrapped-in-afghan_1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.... the witnesses would confirm that the leaders of the attack were dressed in Afghan clothes.

I saw her sneaking around in my back yard the other day. Call DHS...ben-alper-mom-wrapped-in-afghan_1.jpg

 

Call me. She's beautiful. If she's not your wife, I mean.

 

(Hi Jean! {my gf who's tracking me whilst in CA})

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems no one can explain why we know nothing about the survivors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems the survivors don't want to talk about their experience because they are not attention whores. How INCONVIENIENT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still want to hear more about Dog's "dressed like Afghans and thus Al Qaeda and thus act of war" angle:

 

 

One speculation that I read was that the witnesses would confirm that the leaders of the attack were dressed in Afghan clothes. This would imply an orchestrated Al Qaeda attack ie “An act of war” against the USA. An act of war against the USA could be politically problematic in the middle of an election campaign and might explain the coordinated effort by the administration to portray the attack as a mob of disgruntled movie critics gone wild.

 

As the citation was likely too embarrassing to provide, allow me to be of assistance and provide additional color:

 

"Well it was night so, you know, pretty damn dark out so we had a heckuva time telling whether the dress-looking things worn by wide swaths of that part of the world that the terrorists were wearing were the specific kind worn in Afghanistan, but fortunately they were observed to be playing that Dead Goat Polo game that Afghans love so much so we knew they were Al Qaeda (which is 100% Afghan, by the by). And then as everyone knows that would be an Act of War by Al Qaeda in Afghanistan so Obama would have to quit dithering and invade Afghanistan would would be politically problematic."

 

Just wait until Issa get wind of this. The hearings will crank right back up again. Obama should just resign now.

As I said earlier, this explanation is speculative, I am certainly open to others. The "they were CIA" explanation seems to have fallen flat. Sol’s position that there is nothing unusual about knowing nothing about the survivors of an attack on the USA after six months, is patently absurd. I find the story intriguing so if you’ve got something lets hear it.

Well I have no idea, but given that we can always assume that this regime is hiding something we have clear "absence of evidence = evidence of absence" case so I think we should just continue to make up wild theories that don't come close to passing even cursory logical examination until we do know something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems the survivors don't want to talk about their experience because they are not attention whores. How INCONVIENIENT

Possible I guess but very unlikely.

 

I still want to hear more about Dog's "dressed like Afghans and thus Al Qaeda and thus act of war" angle:

 

 

One speculation that I read was that the witnesses would confirm that the leaders of the attack were dressed in Afghan clothes. This would imply an orchestrated Al Qaeda attack ie “An act of war” against the USA. An act of war against the USA could be politically problematic in the middle of an election campaign and might explain the coordinated effort by the administration to portray the attack as a mob of disgruntled movie critics gone wild.

 

As the citation was likely too embarrassing to provide, allow me to be of assistance and provide additional color:

 

"Well it was night so, you know, pretty damn dark out so we had a heckuva time telling whether the dress-looking things worn by wide swaths of that part of the world that the terrorists were wearing were the specific kind worn in Afghanistan, but fortunately they were observed to be playing that Dead Goat Polo game that Afghans love so much so we knew they were Al Qaeda (which is 100% Afghan, by the by). And then as everyone knows that would be an Act of War by Al Qaeda in Afghanistan so Obama would have to quit dithering and invade Afghanistan would would be politically problematic."

 

Just wait until Issa get wind of this. The hearings will crank right back up again. Obama should just resign now.

As I said earlier, this explanation is speculative, I am certainly open to others. The "they were CIA" explanation seems to have fallen flat. Sol’s position that there is nothing unusual about knowing nothing about the survivors of an attack on the USA after six months, is patently absurd. I find the story intriguing so if you’ve got something lets hear it.

Well I have no idea, but given that we can always assume that this regime is hiding something we have clear "absence of evidence = evidence of absence" case so I think we should just continue to make up wild theories that don't come close to passing even cursory logical examination until we do know something.

Yes...until we know. It's been 6 months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said earlier, this explanation is speculative, I am certainly open to others. The "they were CIA" explanation seems to have fallen flat. Sol’s position that there is nothing unusual about knowing nothing about the survivors of an attack on the USA after six months, is patently absurd. I find the story intriguing so if you’ve got something lets hear it.

Well I have no idea, but given that we can always assume that this regime is hiding something we have clear "absence of evidence = evidence of absence" case so I think we should just continue to make up wild theories that don't come close to passing even cursory logical examination until we do know something.

Yes...until we know. It's been 6 months.

I take some solace in the fact that the Loyal Opposition appears to have let it drop. I have to believe that were there even the slightest political advantage to be gained by pursuing this line of questioning they'd be all over it.

 

But then I suppose I'm doing some absence/evidence reasoning there too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it's more like bipartisan Gator dipshit.... :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would the House and Senate Foreign Affairs Committees have survivors testify behind closed doors, instead of in public?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would the House and Senate Foreign Affairs Committees have survivors testify behind closed doors, instead of in public?

 

The Senate is controlled by Democrats and the House is controlled by RINOs. Obviously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

because they're democRATS?

 

no because they represent you...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

because they're democRATS?

 

They don't want movies made of the fiasco? But killing OBL gets instant access.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

can you say propaganda?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems the survivors don't want to talk about their experience because they are not attention whores. How INCONVIENIENT

Possible I guess but very unlikely.

 

Why would you say that? I don't know if you've ever been through anything traumatic, or something like combat, but it's not something that folks like to talk about-- especially if they know people like you will be ready to pounce on anything they say for a political point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Socrates response Mr Hitch. You post gay porn as a form of argument. Why do do that?

 

You're kind of obsessed with the gay porn I posted years ago. Why don't you just come out of the closet? There must be other gay muslims. You could form a support group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems the survivors don't want to talk about their experience because they are not attention whores. How INCONVIENIENT

Possible I guess but very unlikely.

 

Why would you say that? I don't know if you've ever been through anything traumatic, or something like combat, but it's not something that folks like to talk about-- especially if they know people like you will be ready to pounce on anything they say for a political point.

Seems unlikely to me because there are 30 people who would all have to be similarly inclined. Not to mention possible financial gain that could follow from telling their story. Somehow I doubt if "people like me" play into it at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems the survivors don't want to talk about their experience because they are not attention whores. How INCONVIENIENT

Possible I guess but very unlikely.

 

Why would you say that? I don't know if you've ever been through anything traumatic, or something like combat, but it's not something that folks like to talk about-- especially if they know people like you will be ready to pounce on anything they say for a political point.

Seems unlikely to me because there are 30 people who would all have to be similarly inclined. Not to mention possible financial gain that could follow from telling their story. Somehow I doubt if "people like me" play into it at all.

 

Your underestimating their level of professionalism as well as not wanting anything they say to be manipulated. But who knows-- maybe some of them will talk at some point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your underestimating their level of professionalism as well as not wanting anything they say to be manipulated. But who knows-- maybe some of them will talk at some point.

Perhaps they will again, at a forum more public than a closed door committee hearing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone PROVE the Gay Whales were not behind this?

Can you account for EVERY single gay whale at this time?

How can you say they didn't do it without every single gay whale coming on Oprah to gush about the trauma they didn't experience?

 

NUKE THE GAY WHALES!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems the survivors don't want to talk about their experience because they are not attention whores. How INCONVIENIENT

Possible I guess but very unlikely.

 

Why would you say that? I don't know if you've ever been through anything traumatic, or something like combat, but it's not something that folks like to talk about-- especially if they know people like you will be ready to pounce on anything they say for a political point.

Seems unlikely to me because there are 30 people who would all have to be similarly inclined. Not to mention possible financial gain that could follow from telling their story. Somehow I doubt if "people like me" play into it at all.

 

I can neither confirm or deny that I have no idea if dead men desire money, Dog.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems the survivors don't want to talk about their experience because they are not attention whores. How INCONVIENIENT

Possible I guess but very unlikely.

 

Why would you say that? I don't know if you've ever been through anything traumatic, or something like combat, but it's not something that folks like to talk about-- especially if they know people like you will be ready to pounce on anything they say for a political point.

Seems unlikely to me because there are 30 people who would all have to be similarly inclined. Not to mention possible financial gain that could follow from telling their story. Somehow I doubt if "people like me" play into it at all.

 

I can neither confirm or deny that I have no idea if dead men have any desire for money or not, Dog.....

No worries Mark...The threads not about dead men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So much for the Free Thinkers on this thread... They like people telling them what to think I suppose, maybe they're pre-occupie... Obama's not doing well in the polls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One speculation that I read was that the witnesses would confirm that the leaders of the attack were dressed in Afghan clothes. This would imply an orchestrated Al Qaeda attack ie “An act of war” against the USA. An act of war against the USA could be politically problematic in the middle of an election campaign and might explain the coordinated effort by the administration to portray the attack as a mob of disgruntled movie critics gone wild.

 

Except that Al Qaeda is not just the afghani's, it's a loose collection of groups around the planet. But, let's not let facts get in the way.

Nothing in that "speculation" was presented as fact....But, lets not let the facts get in the way.

 

One speculation is that the poster known by the screen name of "Dog" is a confirmed child molester.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we KNOW for a fact that 9-11 "victims" from the fake Pentagon missile attack were not sent to Libya to be killed for real there?

Do we KNOW the fake birth certificate forms used by Obama were not burned in the attack? Can you PROVE this did not happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you prove that you are not a moron?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the logic of "Benghazi survivors not all over Oprah and CNN whinging on about their near death trauma" HAS to be some kind of conspiracy until PROVEN otherwise has overwhelmed my low IQ brain :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the logic of "Benghazi survivors not all over Oprah and CNN whinging on about their near death trauma" HAS to be some kind of conspiracy until PROVEN otherwise has overwhelmed my low IQ brain :rolleyes:

That logic is very entertaining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“CBS News has learned that multiple new whistleblowers are privately speaking to investigators with the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee regarding the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attacks on the U.S. compounds in Benghazi, Libya.

The nature of the communications with the whistleblowers and their identities are not being made public at this time. But in response, the Oversight Committee yesterday sent letters to the three federal agencies involved: the CIA, the Defense Department and the State Department.

The letters make the case for the whistleblowers to be able to share sensitive or classified information with their own attorneys, and ask for each agency's official description of the legal steps that process must follow. The letters also state that additional witnesses may be "compelled by subpoena to give testimony."

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57580105/house-investigators-talking-to-new-benghazi-whistleblowers/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they are not publicly identified with pictures, names and addresses, then there is a definite conspiracy afoot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry folks but it's been classified for 50 years due to national security issues....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't hear these whistles.

They may well be at a frequency higher than your paygrade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Monday. He doesn't bluff.

 

 

Monday.

 

I think Beck's problem he's been uping the "crazy ante' so long, he's running out of rooom. It sounds like he's getting closer and closer to full blown lunatic. A real life Howard Beale. I give him one more season before he's sitting at a news desk in a soaking wet raincoat, with a fucking gun to his head. Not to say that the ratings wouldn't soar. Hell... I'd be setting the DVR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wjt8o7.jpg

 

This was the beginning of the end, or the high-water mark for him. His last rally. The one where he asked everybody to not bring signs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites