Jump to content


The strange case of the Benghazi survivors…


  • Please log in to reply
853 replies to this topic

#1 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,562 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 11:15 AM

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

#2 Battlecheese

Battlecheese

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,805 posts
  • Interests:Sailing, music, physics.

Posted 27 March 2013 - 12:06 PM

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.

#3 B.J. Porter

B.J. Porter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,994 posts
  • Location:On my boat, somewhere...
  • Interests:Hallberg-Rassy 53 "Evenstar"

Posted 27 March 2013 - 12:44 PM

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.

#4 d'ranger

d'ranger

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,321 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 03:13 PM

I blame it on the Libyaeral Media.

#5 Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,453 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 27 March 2013 - 03:47 PM

Posted Image

#6 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,562 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 03:51 PM

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.

#7 Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,453 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 27 March 2013 - 03:55 PM

One speculation


IMAGINE!

#8 Mike G

Mike G

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,300 posts
  • Location:Ventura County, CA

Posted 27 March 2013 - 03:56 PM

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

#9 Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,453 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 27 March 2013 - 04:00 PM

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?

Posted Image

#10 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,562 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 04:16 PM


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?

Posted Image

Read.... Republicans are bad.

#11 Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,453 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 27 March 2013 - 04:24 PM



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?

Posted Image

Read.... Republicans are bad.

IMAGINE!


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

ODS is bad.

#12 d'ranger

d'ranger

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,321 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 04:25 PM

Making Mountains from Molehills is hard work.

#13 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,562 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 04:28 PM




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?

Posted Image

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?

#14 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,542 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 27 March 2013 - 04:37 PM

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.

#15 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,562 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 04:40 PM


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.

#16 Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,453 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 27 March 2013 - 04:46 PM





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?

Posted Image

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.

#17 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,562 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 04:51 PM






What, a logo isn't enough for ya?

Posted Image

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.

#18 d'ranger

d'ranger

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,321 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 05:01 PM

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.

#19 kent_island_sailor

kent_island_sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,414 posts
  • Location:Kent Island!

Posted 27 March 2013 - 05:12 PM

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 ;)

#20 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,382 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 05:30 PM






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.

#21 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,185 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 05:46 PM




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.

#22 Mike G

Mike G

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,300 posts
  • Location:Ventura County, CA

Posted 27 March 2013 - 05:52 PM

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

#23 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,382 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 06:21 PM

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


Those assholes always get away.

#24 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,382 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 06:26 PM


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.



#25 opa1

opa1

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 595 posts
  • Location:Palm Beach Gardens, Florida
  • Interests:Golf, Sailing

Posted 27 March 2013 - 07:10 PM

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.

#26 Remodel

Remodel

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,432 posts
  • Location:None
  • Interests:Sailboat racing and long distance cruising

Posted 27 March 2013 - 07:27 PM

https://www.youtube....EJzaSzD-bA#t=1s

#27 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,562 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 08:56 PM

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.

#28 Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,453 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 27 March 2013 - 09:01 PM


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?

#29 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,562 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 10:28 PM



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.

#30 Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,453 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 27 March 2013 - 10:39 PM

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.

#31 squirel

squirel

    Anarchist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,692 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 11:22 PM


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.

#32 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,562 posts

Posted 28 March 2013 - 01:53 AM


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.

#33 tuk tuk joe

tuk tuk joe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,007 posts

Posted 28 March 2013 - 02:34 AM

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:

#34 Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,453 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 28 March 2013 - 02:56 AM



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.

#35 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,382 posts

Posted 28 March 2013 - 03:03 AM


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.

#36 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,562 posts

Posted 28 March 2013 - 10:50 AM




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…

#37 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,185 posts

Posted 28 March 2013 - 11:26 AM





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.

#38 Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,453 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 28 March 2013 - 12:06 PM





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.

#39 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,562 posts

Posted 28 March 2013 - 12:35 PM





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".

#40 Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,453 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 28 March 2013 - 01:15 PM

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.

#41 GRUMPY

GRUMPY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,075 posts
  • Location:Balikpapan, Indonesia
  • Interests:Hobie Miracle 20

Posted 28 March 2013 - 01:31 PM


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.

#42 Bull Gator

Bull Gator

    Anarchist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,280 posts

Posted 28 March 2013 - 01:34 PM

Wow that was a pretty brutal schooling of Dog. He's got to be feeling that one...

#43 JMD

JMD

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,382 posts

Posted 28 March 2013 - 01:47 PM

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.

#44 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,562 posts

Posted 28 March 2013 - 01:52 PM



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.

#45 GRUMPY

GRUMPY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,075 posts
  • Location:Balikpapan, Indonesia
  • Interests:Hobie Miracle 20

Posted 28 March 2013 - 01:58 PM




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

#46 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,562 posts

Posted 28 March 2013 - 02:01 PM

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.

#47 Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,453 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 28 March 2013 - 02:44 PM


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.

#48 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,562 posts

Posted 28 March 2013 - 02:50 PM



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.

#49 Turd Sandwich

Turd Sandwich

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 823 posts
  • Location:Douche Bag

Posted 28 March 2013 - 04:09 PM

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.


#50 Turd Sandwich

Turd Sandwich

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 823 posts
  • Location:Douche Bag

Posted 28 March 2013 - 04:30 PM

Posted Image

#51 Turd Sandwich

Turd Sandwich

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 823 posts
  • Location:Douche Bag

Posted 28 March 2013 - 04:32 PM

Posted Image

#52 Turd Sandwich

Turd Sandwich

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 823 posts
  • Location:Douche Bag

Posted 28 March 2013 - 04:33 PM

Posted Image

#53 Turd Sandwich

Turd Sandwich

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 823 posts
  • Location:Douche Bag

Posted 28 March 2013 - 04:39 PM

Posted Image
The ones fron Gaytors neighborhood couldn't leave him out

#54 A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,473 posts
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 29 March 2013 - 02:22 PM

Posted Image


Hey - the one in front with grass in her mouth is CUTE!

#55 benwynn

benwynn

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,018 posts

Posted 30 March 2013 - 01:03 AM

Posted Image


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

#56 tuk tuk joe

tuk tuk joe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,007 posts

Posted 30 March 2013 - 03:47 AM


Posted Image


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


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

#57 mr_fabulous

mr_fabulous

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,984 posts

Posted 30 March 2013 - 03:52 AM

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.

Posted Image

#58 mr_fabulous

mr_fabulous

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,984 posts

Posted 30 March 2013 - 03:56 AM

.... 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...Posted Image

#59 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,491 posts

Posted 30 March 2013 - 04:08 AM


.... 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...Posted Image


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

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

#60 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,562 posts

Posted 30 March 2013 - 11:16 AM

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

#61 Bull Gator

Bull Gator

    Anarchist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,280 posts

Posted 30 March 2013 - 12:33 PM

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

#62 JMD

JMD

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,382 posts

Posted 30 March 2013 - 12:58 PM


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.

#63 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,562 posts

Posted 30 March 2013 - 01:10 PM

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.

#64 JMD

JMD

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,382 posts

Posted 30 March 2013 - 01:21 PM



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.

#65 Bull Gator

Bull Gator

    Anarchist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,280 posts

Posted 30 March 2013 - 01:21 PM

They nust be democRATS

#66 tuk tuk joe

tuk tuk joe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,007 posts

Posted 30 March 2013 - 02:39 PM

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

#67 Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,453 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 30 March 2013 - 10:24 PM

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

#68 Bull Gator

Bull Gator

    Anarchist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,280 posts

Posted 30 March 2013 - 11:02 PM

because they're democRATS?

#69 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,269 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 31 March 2013 - 01:06 AM

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.

#70 tuk tuk joe

tuk tuk joe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,007 posts

Posted 31 March 2013 - 02:44 AM

because they're democRATS?


no because they represent you...

#71 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,185 posts

Posted 01 April 2013 - 11:45 AM

because they're democRATS?


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

#72 tuk tuk joe

tuk tuk joe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,007 posts

Posted 01 April 2013 - 11:51 AM

can you say propaganda?

#73 Clove Hitch

Clove Hitch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,961 posts
  • Location:around and about
  • Interests:Garnacha. Gunk-holing.

Posted 01 April 2013 - 02:26 PM


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.

#74 Clove Hitch

Clove Hitch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,961 posts
  • Location:around and about
  • Interests:Garnacha. Gunk-holing.

Posted 01 April 2013 - 02:31 PM

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.

#75 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,562 posts

Posted 01 April 2013 - 02:37 PM



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.

#76 Clove Hitch

Clove Hitch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,961 posts
  • Location:around and about
  • Interests:Garnacha. Gunk-holing.

Posted 01 April 2013 - 02:40 PM




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.

#77 Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,453 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 02 April 2013 - 02:06 PM

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.

#78 kent_island_sailor

kent_island_sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,414 posts
  • Location:Kent Island!

Posted 02 April 2013 - 02:19 PM

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!

#79 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,382 posts

Posted 02 April 2013 - 06:36 PM




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.....

#80 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,562 posts

Posted 02 April 2013 - 06:39 PM





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.

#81 kmccabe

kmccabe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,980 posts
  • Location:Belly of the Beast.

Posted 02 April 2013 - 07:42 PM

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.

#82 President Eisenhowler

President Eisenhowler

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,477 posts

Posted 02 April 2013 - 08:15 PM



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.

#83 kmccabe

kmccabe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,980 posts
  • Location:Belly of the Beast.

Posted 02 April 2013 - 08:18 PM

LOL hmm...

#84 kent_island_sailor

kent_island_sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,414 posts
  • Location:Kent Island!

Posted 03 April 2013 - 06:16 PM

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?

#85 tuk tuk joe

tuk tuk joe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,007 posts

Posted 04 April 2013 - 09:35 AM

Can you prove that you are not a moron?

#86 kent_island_sailor

kent_island_sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,414 posts
  • Location:Kent Island!

Posted 04 April 2013 - 01:00 PM

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:

#87 Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,453 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 04 April 2013 - 01:27 PM

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.

#88 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,562 posts

Posted 18 April 2013 - 07:59 PM

“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.c...whistleblowers/

#89 Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,453 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 18 April 2013 - 08:03 PM

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



#90 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,382 posts

Posted 18 April 2013 - 09:02 PM

I can't hear these whistles.

#91 tuk tuk joe

tuk tuk joe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,007 posts

Posted 19 April 2013 - 02:10 AM

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

#92 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,185 posts

Posted 19 April 2013 - 03:42 AM

I can't hear these whistles.

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

#93 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,269 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 20 April 2013 - 06:00 AM

Monday. He doesn't bluff.

 

 

Monday.



#94 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,382 posts

Posted 20 April 2013 - 09:17 PM

  The Blaze is a very independent news source.  



#95 Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,453 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 22 April 2013 - 12:36 AM

Imagine!

#96 benwynn

benwynn

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,018 posts

Posted 22 April 2013 - 03:52 AM

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.



#97 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,382 posts

Posted 22 April 2013 - 04:16 AM

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.  



#98 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,269 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 22 April 2013 - 06:55 AM



#99 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,562 posts

Posted 22 April 2013 - 05:39 PM



#100 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,269 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 22 April 2013 - 05:57 PM







0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users