Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 64 of 64

Thread: So about General Petraeus

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,157
    Quote Originally Posted by dahoeb
    Susan Rice blaming the video

    Susan Rice says that a protest got out of hand within the first 2 minutes, skip to the 5 minute mark for the money shot.

    She also says 2 of the 4 Americans that were killed were providing security, as their function. This also proved false, they were former Navy Seals who were assigned in a completely separate building, blocks away, who made their way there to assist.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kklWr1CnAXs]FOX News (GASP!) Time line[/URL]

    skip to the 5:03 mark, watch until 5:50.
    Start again at 6:10. Watch 7:41 , they dodge "T" word again.
    7:50 Obama blames it on the Mohammed video on Letterman, but he does go on to say that "extremists and some terrorists used it as an excuse to participate and hijack" (paraphrased).

    Susan Rice "no protests" But wait, there was no protests, according to politico reporting for ABC and Susan Rice. Or according to the final entries in Ambassador Steven's journal. Or according to your Huffpo.

    Your one CNN link about Petraeus' testimony doesn't come close to erasing all the BS Obama's staff has been feeding the public regarding this.

    Best case scenario, the administration is incompetent. They spun up some garbage without all the facts and let the message go out to the 300+ million Americans.

    Worst case scenario, they deliberately tried downplay and throw smoke screens over the event to avoid any election backlash.
    i don't really care about what the rage machine has fed you, but its pretty obvious when you look at the statements made in the weeks afterward what happened, and now we are only getting more and more confirmation of that from the other players who know. it was called both a terrorist attack and a violent riot in response to a video, because it was both. it was both all along. lets face it, the rage machine tried to make this an issue only because of the presidential race to try and paint obama as weak on defense.

    those of us outside the bubble, this is such a non-issue. but for you true believers, the more evidence that proves you wrong only proves you more right in your mind. there just isn't that much to get your panties in a bunch here. its a tragedy no doubt, and yes mistakes were made, as they always are in combat situations, yes there have been conflicting reports, as there always are in combat situations, hindsight is always 20/20, but there just isn't a vast conspiracy to surrender to the Muslims here, sorry.
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 12-13-2012 at 11:59 AM.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    637
    Quote Originally Posted by cockerpunk
    i don't really care about what the rage machine has fed you, but its pretty obvious when you look at the statements made in the weeks afterward what happened, and now we are only getting more and more confirmation of that from the other players who know. it was called both a terrorist attack and a violent riot in response to a video, because it was both. it was both all along. lets face it, the rage machine tried to make this an issue only because of the presidential race to try and paint obama as weak on defense.

    those of us outside the bubble, this is such a non-issue. but for you true believers, the more evidence that proves you wrong only proves you more right in your mind. there just isn't that much to get your panties in a bunch here. An American ambassador was killed and for weeks we weren't getting a straight story, yeah, nothing to get ticked about.... its a tragedy no doubt, and yes mistakes were made, as they always are in combat situations, yes there have been conflicting reports, as there always are in combat situations, hindsight is always 20/20, but there just isn't a vast conspiracy to surrender to the Muslims here, sorry.
    - There was no riot according to the State Dept.

    -ABC News reporting from the State Dept that there was no protest.

    - I just posted multiple videos of various Obama minions saying that it was a demonstration that either got out of control or was hijacked because of a distasteful, vile video. I've just posted video proof of this, but you clearly don't want to see it.


    - But staying on topic, I opened this little debate over one point, that Obama declared this a terrorist attack to the public within 24hrs. Your assertion is absolutely false and you've provide ZERO evidence to support your point. What Petraeus reported has NOTHING to do with what Obama & Co said to the public. Find a video of one of Obama's administration reps directly calling this a terrorist attack within 24hr (or 48hrs for that matter) of the attack. You won't. They blasted the horrible evil vile disgusting guy who made the video and had an almost sympathetic tone (that's my arguable opinion) to the imaginary protestors.

    I think this is just reflective of how incompetent our government is, more than anything else.

    Whats conspiratorial about my position? What does the "rage machine" have to do with my position?

    Anyways, there's no reason to even both debating this point with you since you refuse to have the objectiveness or intellectual honesty to acknowledge anything that contradicts what you believe. Wait, you did, "it's a conspiracy by the rage machine" or whatever.
    HARDY HAR HAR!

    And we're just gonna put a happy little bush in the corner right there, and it'll be our little secret. AND IF YOU TELL ANYONE! THAT, THAT BUSH IS THERE! I WILL COME TO YOUR HOUSE! AND I WILL CUT YOU!

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    West Michigan
    Posts
    9,333
    Anyways, there's no reason to even both debating this point with you since you refuse to have the objectiveness or intellectual honesty to acknowledge anything that contradicts what you believe. Wait, you did, "it's a conspiracy by the rage machine" or whatever.
    Its the classic adhominem attack. Rather than acknowledging the information you attack the source. Sometimes this is actually reasonable as the source should not be trusted. However as you watch a certain individual on this board do it for every bit of information that might possibly effect his world view or force him to think you learn that it is either a tool of cowardice, arrogance, or lack of intellectual honesty. It basically makes it impossible to have reasonable and respectful conversation.

    Its named as a logical fallacy for a reason.

    Good luck if you continue these conversations with said individual. I have simply decided the ignore feature exists for a reason.
    "Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. Its not" - Dr Suess

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    If you want peace, prepare for war.
    Posts
    1,449
    Quote Originally Posted by cockerpunk
    i don't really care about what the rage machine has fed you
    And we don't care what the LLM* has fed you. This was an attempt by the White House to make out like this was not a terrorist attack. The Patreus thing was an attempt to distract everyone so the attack could blow over. An attempt that seems to have worked. They had known about the Patreus scandal for more than 6 months and waited untill then to bring it up and persue it. If there was nothing to hide or cover up about the attack then they would have waited till he testified to go after Patreus. Instead they used it to distract the subject.












    *LLM = Lying Liberal Media

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •