U.S. Ambassador to Libya Killed in Rocket Attack (2 Viewers)

[Sand]

Huzzah. We captured a guy who had been out in the open for two years and had given interviews to CNN, Fox, and the NYT. Quite a coup for the admin here.

Nice timing, too. As if the plan was to counterbalance the release of five terrorists with this one capture. Nah, couldn't be that obvious, could it?

Strike up the wingnut noise machine. From the look of things Sand got the memo.

So you're disputing that this guy gave interviews or that the timing was right after we released five confirmed terrorists? This seems pretty cut and dry.

 

[tommyGunZ]

• "There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents."

(The name of the movie is "Innocence of Muslims". What's funny is that Egyptian muslims have been killing Egyptian Christians.)

• "In this modern world with modern technologies, for us to respond in that way to hateful speech empowers any individual who engages in such speech to create chaos around the world."

(Basile created "chaos"? You agree with that?)

• "We do not expect other nations to agree with us on every issue, nor do we assume that the violence of the past weeks or the hateful speech by some individuals represent the views of the overwhelming majority of Muslims, any more than the views of the people who produced this video represents those of Americans."

I don't think most Americans think the koran is "real". Neither does Basile.

• "The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt -- it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted, “Muslims, Christians, we are one.”

Did this actually happen?

• "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."

Who "slandered" whom? Basile slandered Mohammed? And we're saying Mohammed is an actual "prophet"? Most Americans don't believe any of that.

>>> Obsession begets obsession.

Yes, I agree with all of those statements made by Obama. And I'm an atheist. Just because I don't believe in Islam or Christianity or Hinduism doesn't mean that I think intentionally over the top videos designed to offend and inflame are admirable.

I think you're being intentionally obtuse here. The idea that the video isn't blasphemous is silly. As is the idea that this video did not spur chaos in multiple places around the world.

 

[tommyboy]

• "There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents."

(The name of the movie is "Innocence of Muslims". What's funny is that Egyptian muslims have been killing Egyptian Christians.)

• "In this modern world with modern technologies, for us to respond in that way to hateful speech empowers any individual who engages in such speech to create chaos around the world."

(Basile created "chaos"? You agree with that?)

• "We do not expect other nations to agree with us on every issue, nor do we assume that the violence of the past weeks or the hateful speech by some individuals represent the views of the overwhelming majority of Muslims, any more than the views of the people who produced this video represents those of Americans."

I don't think most Americans think the koran is "real". Neither does Basile.

• "The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt -- it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted, “Muslims, Christians, we are one.”

Did this actually happen?

• "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."

Who "slandered" whom? Basile slandered Mohammed? And we're saying Mohammed is an actual "prophet"? Most Americans don't believe any of that.

>>> Obsession begets obsession.

Yes, I agree with all of those statements made by Obama. And I'm an atheist. Just because I don't believe in Islam or Christianity or Hinduism doesn't mean that I think intentionally over the top videos designed to offend and inflame are admirable.

I think you're being intentionally obtuse here. The idea that the video isn't blasphemous is silly. As is the idea that this video did not spur chaos in multiple places around the world.

its irrelevant if the video is blasphemous, for two reasons:

one: Blasphemy is legally protected speech in America due to this thing called the 1st Amendment.

two: Benghazi was never about "the video". Never. The faster you come to accept that truth, the better.

 

[tommyGunZ]

• "There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents."

(The name of the movie is "Innocence of Muslims". What's funny is that Egyptian muslims have been killing Egyptian Christians.)

• "In this modern world with modern technologies, for us to respond in that way to hateful speech empowers any individual who engages in such speech to create chaos around the world."

(Basile created "chaos"? You agree with that?)

• "We do not expect other nations to agree with us on every issue, nor do we assume that the violence of the past weeks or the hateful speech by some individuals represent the views of the overwhelming majority of Muslims, any more than the views of the people who produced this video represents those of Americans."

I don't think most Americans think the koran is "real". Neither does Basile.

• "The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt -- it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted, “Muslims, Christians, we are one.”

Did this actually happen?

• "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."

Who "slandered" whom? Basile slandered Mohammed? And we're saying Mohammed is an actual "prophet"? Most Americans don't believe any of that.

>>> Obsession begets obsession.

Yes, I agree with all of those statements made by Obama. And I'm an atheist. Just because I don't believe in Islam or Christianity or Hinduism doesn't mean that I think intentionally over the top videos designed to offend and inflame are admirable.

I think you're being intentionally obtuse here. The idea that the video isn't blasphemous is silly. As is the idea that this video did not spur chaos in multiple places around the world.

its irrelevant if the video is blasphemous, for two reasons:

one: Blasphemy is legally protected speech in America due to this thing called the 1st Amendment.

two: Benghazi was never about "the video". Never. The faster you come to accept that truth, the better.

No one, not me nor the comments Saints posted from Obama, are suggesting that blasphemous comments aren't protected speech. Obama even alludes to that protection with the "people wonder why this isn't banned" comment.

It's obvious that Benghazi was about far more than the video. It's also obvious to anyone with a brain that the video wasn't some conspiracy created by the administration for political purposes. And that's been the issue the past two years from guys on your side. Can we finally put that stupidity to bed and move on?

 

[Max Power]

We know who did it. We've done nothing in response

wait one more week

 yup

 

[timschochet]

• "There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents."

(The name of the movie is "Innocence of Muslims". What's funny is that Egyptian muslims have been killing Egyptian Christians.)

• "In this modern world with modern technologies, for us to respond in that way to hateful speech empowers any individual who engages in such speech to create chaos around the world."

(Basile created "chaos"? You agree with that?)

• "We do not expect other nations to agree with us on every issue, nor do we assume that the violence of the past weeks or the hateful speech by some individuals represent the views of the overwhelming majority of Muslims, any more than the views of the people who produced this video represents those of Americans."

I don't think most Americans think the koran is "real". Neither does Basile.

• "The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt -- it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted, “Muslims, Christians, we are one.”

Did this actually happen?

• "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."

Who "slandered" whom? Basile slandered Mohammed? And we're saying Mohammed is an actual "prophet"? Most Americans don't believe any of that.

>>> Obsession begets obsession.

Yes, I agree with all of those statements made by Obama. And I'm an atheist. Just because I don't believe in Islam or Christianity or Hinduism doesn't mean that I think intentionally over the top videos designed to offend and inflame are admirable.

I think you're being intentionally obtuse here. The idea that the video isn't blasphemous is silly. As is the idea that this video did not spur chaos in multiple places around the world.

its irrelevant if the video is blasphemous, for two reasons:

one: Blasphemy is legally protected speech in America due to this thing called the 1st Amendment.

two: Benghazi was never about "the video". Never. The faster you come to accept that truth, the better.

Sigh.

From the New York Times article. Here's the part that Saints didn't quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/18/world/middleeast/apprehension-of-ahmed-abu-khattala-may-begin-to-answer-questions-on-assault.html?hp&_r=1

Mr. Abu Khattala told other Libyans in private conversations during the night of the attack that he was moved to attack the diplomatic mission to take revenge for an insult to Islam in an American-made online video.

An earlier demonstration venting anger over the video outside the American Embassy in Cairo had culminated in a breach of its walls, and it dominated Arab news coverage. Mr. Abu Khattala told both fellow Islamist fighters and others that the attack in Benghazi was retaliation for the same insulting video, according to people who heard him.

Time to stop, tommyboy.

 

[quickhands]

Saints, I don't understand either of your last two posts. It's being reported everywhere now that the guy we just captured says the video was a motivation for the attack. In your first post you seem intent on denying that. But apparently the guy said it!

In your second post you seem to want to defend the content of the video. But how is that relevant to the discussion?

I dont know, from what ive seen and read of the guy he is a pretty savvy media guy.

I think hes saying what the man in power wants to hear. He attacked on sept 11 because of a video? Very convenient. Also its funny that some people who question information they dont agree with based on the source, like the nra of oil companies would jump to see a terroist as honest when he says what they wanna hear.

Lets look at his lap top and see when he first watched the video.

 

[quickhands]

Anyhow, can we move on to more important stuff, or is the House still going to waste everyone's time with more hearings on this?

Can we discuss populism and how much the tea party sucks?

 

[timschochet]

Saints, I don't understand either of your last two posts. It's being reported everywhere now that the guy we just captured says the video was a motivation for the attack. In your first post you seem intent on denying that. But apparently the guy said it!

In your second post you seem to want to defend the content of the video. But how is that relevant to the discussion?

I dont know, from what ive seen and read of the guy he is a pretty savvy media guy.I think hes saying what the man in power wants to hear. He attacked on sept 11 because of a video? Very convenient. Also its funny that some people who question information they dont agree with based on the source, like the nra of oil companies would jump to see a terroist as honest when he says what they wanna hear.

Lets look at his lap top and see when he first watched the video.

So now you're suggesting that the guy who planned all of this is LYING about the video? Are you ####### kidding me???

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Goalpost! Wait!

 

[quickhands]

Saints, I don't understand either of your last two posts. It's being reported everywhere now that the guy we just captured says the video was a motivation for the attack. In your first post you seem intent on denying that. But apparently the guy said it!

In your second post you seem to want to defend the content of the video. But how is that relevant to the discussion?

I dont know, from what ive seen and read of the guy he is a pretty savvy media guy.I think hes saying what the man in power wants to hear. He attacked on sept 11 because of a video? Very convenient. Also its funny that some people who question information they dont agree with based on the source, like the nra of oil companies would jump to see a terroist as honest when he says what they wanna hear.

Lets look at his lap top and see when he first watched the video.

So now you're suggesting that the guy who planned all of this is LYING about the video? Are you ####### kidding me???

I have no idea. But to quote you "I dont believe" him. Hes got zero credibility with me. I just think he might be playing the media. He apperently likes that.

Feel free to suck his ####. The guy killed four americans. go ahead and search my past posts on this topic.

I generally dont take strongly without evidence some may, I dont. It should be easy to see when he watched the video.

Until then ill wait to apologize to amb. Rice for something I never accused her of.

 

[timschochet]

Goalpost! Wait!

Not really a question of moving the goalposts. It's the maddening thing about conspiracy theories. There is NO WAY to disprove them. So the leader of the attack gets captured and says that the video motivated him? Not to SaintsInDome. He ignores that part of the story and quotes only the other part when, asked about it a SECOND time, the guy refused to confirm or deny it. Not to quickhands- obviously, the guy must be lying in order to- well, I can't really explain why he's lying- why would a terrorist want to cover up for Obama and Hillary Clinton? But never mind, that doesn't matter. The point is, he must be lying!

 

[timschochet]

Saints, I don't understand either of your last two posts. It's being reported everywhere now that the guy we just captured says the video was a motivation for the attack. In your first post you seem intent on denying that. But apparently the guy said it!

In your second post you seem to want to defend the content of the video. But how is that relevant to the discussion?

I dont know, from what ive seen and read of the guy he is a pretty savvy media guy.I think hes saying what the man in power wants to hear. He attacked on sept 11 because of a video? Very convenient. Also its funny that some people who question information they dont agree with based on the source, like the nra of oil companies would jump to see a terroist as honest when he says what they wanna hear.

Lets look at his lap top and see when he first watched the video.

So now you're suggesting that the guy who planned all of this is LYING about the video? Are you ####### kidding me???

I have no idea. But to quote you "I dont believe" him. Hes got zero credibility with me. I just think he might be playing the media. He apperently likes that.

Feel free to suck his ####. The guy killed four americans. go ahead and search my past posts on this topic.

I generally dont take strongly without evidence some may, I dont. It should be easy to see when he watched the video.

Until then ill wait to apologize to amb. Rice for something I never accused her of.

Classy.

As far as when he watched the video, I guarantee you that by the time the Benghazi attacks occurred, there was probably not a single Muslim in that part of the world who was not aware of the video. It was the leading story in every media outlet, the cause of protests everywhere. The idea that this guy was NOT AWARE of the video and then made up a story about it afterwards strikes me as the height of absurdity. But believe what you want.

 

[quickhands]

Goalpost! Wait!

Not really a question of moving the goalposts. It's the maddening thing about conspiracy theories. There is NO WAY to disprove them. So the leader of the attack gets captured and says that the video motivated him? Not to SaintsInDome. He ignores that part of the story and quotes only the other part when, asked about it a SECOND time, the guy refused to confirm or deny it. Not to quickhands- obviously, the guy must be lying in order to- well, I can't really explain why he's lying- why would a terrorist want to cover up for Obama and Hillary Clinton? But never mind, that doesn't matter. The point is, he must be lying!

#### you tim...you are an #######. I never said that. I said only his word means #### to me.

 

[quickhands]

Saints, I don't understand either of your last two posts. It's being reported everywhere now that the guy we just captured says the video was a motivation for the attack. In your first post you seem intent on denying that. But apparently the guy said it!

In your second post you seem to want to defend the content of the video. But how is that relevant to the discussion?

I dont know, from what ive seen and read of the guy he is a pretty savvy media guy.I think hes saying what the man in power wants to hear. He attacked on sept 11 because of a video? Very convenient. Also its funny that some people who question information they dont agree with based on the source, like the nra of oil companies would jump to see a terroist as honest when he says what they wanna hear.

Lets look at his lap top and see when he first watched the video.

So now you're suggesting that the guy who planned all of this is LYING about the video? Are you ####### kidding me???

I have no idea. But to quote you "I dont believe" him. Hes got zero credibility with me. I just think he might be playing the media. He apperently likes that.Feel free to suck his ####. The guy killed four americans. go ahead and search my past posts on this topic.

I generally dont take strongly without evidence some may, I dont. It should be easy to see when he watched the video.

Until then ill wait to apologize to amb. Rice for something I never accused her of.

Classy.As far as when he watched the video, I guarantee you that by the time the Benghazi attacks occurred, there was probably not a single Muslim in that part of the world who was not aware of the video. It was the leading story in every media outlet, the cause of protests everywhere. The idea that this guy was NOT AWARE of the video and then made up a story about it afterwards strikes me as the height of absurdity. But believe what you want.

Oh. Sorry. I didnt realize I had your guarentee. Ill move on.

 

[timschochet]

Goalpost! Wait!

Not really a question of moving the goalposts. It's the maddening thing about conspiracy theories. There is NO WAY to disprove them. So the leader of the attack gets captured and says that the video motivated him? Not to SaintsInDome. He ignores that part of the story and quotes only the other part when, asked about it a SECOND time, the guy refused to confirm or deny it. Not to quickhands- obviously, the guy must be lying in order to- well, I can't really explain why he's lying- why would a terrorist want to cover up for Obama and Hillary Clinton? But never mind, that doesn't matter. The point is, he must be lying!

#### you tim...you are an #######. I never said that. I said only his word means #### to me.

Please stop with the personal insults, thanks.

Regarding when he watched the video- I wouldn't be at all surprised if he NEVER watched it. Most of the people who protested over the video never saw it, just as most of the people who protested over the Dutch comic strip 10 years ago never saw it, just as most of the people who protested over Salman Rushdie 20 years ago never read his book. Muslim protesters in that part of the world aren't really big on getting their facts straight. They hear about a supposed blasphemy and run with it.

 

[quickhands]

Goalpost! Wait!

Not really a question of moving the goalposts. It's the maddening thing about conspiracy theories. There is NO WAY to disprove them. So the leader of the attack gets captured and says that the video motivated him? Not to SaintsInDome. He ignores that part of the story and quotes only the other part when, asked about it a SECOND time, the guy refused to confirm or deny it. Not to quickhands- obviously, the guy must be lying in order to- well, I can't really explain why he's lying- why would a terrorist want to cover up for Obama and Hillary Clinton? But never mind, that doesn't matter. The point is, he must be lying!

#### you tim...you are an #######. I never said that. I said only his word means #### to me.

Please stop with the personal insults, thanks.Regarding when he watched the video- I wouldn't be at all surprised if he NEVER watched it. Most of the people who protested over the video never saw it, just as most of the people who protested over the Dutch comic strip 10 years ago never saw it, just as most of the people who protested over Salman Rushdie 20 years ago never read his book. Muslim protesters in that part of the world aren't really big on getting their facts straight. They hear about a supposed blasphemy and run with it.

Well then there is nothing to prove anything but his word?

His word and your guarentee are enough for me.

 

[timschochet]

Goalpost! Wait!

Not really a question of moving the goalposts. It's the maddening thing about conspiracy theories. There is NO WAY to disprove them. So the leader of the attack gets captured and says that the video motivated him? Not to SaintsInDome. He ignores that part of the story and quotes only the other part when, asked about it a SECOND time, the guy refused to confirm or deny it. Not to quickhands- obviously, the guy must be lying in order to- well, I can't really explain why he's lying- why would a terrorist want to cover up for Obama and Hillary Clinton? But never mind, that doesn't matter. The point is, he must be lying!

#### you tim...you are an #######. I never said that. I said only his word means #### to me.

Please stop with the personal insults, thanks.Regarding when he watched the video- I wouldn't be at all surprised if he NEVER watched it. Most of the people who protested over the video never saw it, just as most of the people who protested over the Dutch comic strip 10 years ago never saw it, just as most of the people who protested over Salman Rushdie 20 years ago never read his book. Muslim protesters in that part of the world aren't really big on getting their facts straight. They hear about a supposed blasphemy and run with it.

Well then there is nothing to prove anything but his word?

His word and your guarentee are enough for me.

Common sense is what should be enough for you. There is no reason, none whatsoever that I can see, for this guy to lie. Surely he is not interested in defending the integrity of the President of the United States? Makes no sense.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

• "There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents."

(The name of the movie is "Innocence of Muslims". What's funny is that Egyptian muslims have been killing Egyptian Christians.)

• "In this modern world with modern technologies, for us to respond in that way to hateful speech empowers any individual who engages in such speech to create chaos around the world."

(Basile created "chaos"? You agree with that?)

• "We do not expect other nations to agree with us on every issue, nor do we assume that the violence of the past weeks or the hateful speech by some individuals represent the views of the overwhelming majority of Muslims, any more than the views of the people who produced this video represents those of Americans."

I don't think most Americans think the koran is "real". Neither does Basile.

• "The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt -- it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted, “Muslims, Christians, we are one.”

Did this actually happen?

• "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."

Who "slandered" whom? Basile slandered Mohammed? And we're saying Mohammed is an actual "prophet"? Most Americans don't believe any of that.

>>> Obsession begets obsession.

Yes, I agree with all of those statements made by Obama. And I'm an atheist. Just because I don't believe in Islam or Christianity or Hinduism doesn't mean that I think intentionally over the top videos designed to offend and inflame are admirable.

I think you're being intentionally obtuse here. The idea that the video isn't blasphemous is silly. As is the idea that this video did not spur chaos in multiple places around the world.

its irrelevant if the video is blasphemous, for two reasons:

one: Blasphemy is legally protected speech in America due to this thing called the 1st Amendment.

two: Benghazi was never about "the video". Never. The faster you come to accept that truth, the better.

Sigh.

From the New York Times article. Here's the part that Saints didn't quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/18/world/middleeast/apprehension-of-ahmed-abu-khattala-may-begin-to-answer-questions-on-assault.html?hp&_r=1

Mr. Abu Khattala told other Libyans in private conversations during the night of the attack that he was moved to attack the diplomatic mission to take revenge for an insult to Islam in an American-made online video.

An earlier demonstration venting anger over the video outside the American Embassy in Cairo had culminated in a breach of its walls, and it dominated Arab news coverage. Mr. Abu Khattala told both fellow Islamist fighters and others that the attack in Benghazi was retaliation for the same insulting video, according to people who heard him.

Time to stop, tommyboy.

Tim I excluded it because whoever quoted the article I quoted first excluded the part I posted but included the part you posted.

And that was the first point I made, you've got a report that's several weeks old which is that of a second hand account, or you've got a direct quote from Khattala himself saying the attack had nothing to do with the video. They're in the same article, the first time it was quoted - and when the media and left leaning blogs refer to it - they mention the former but not the latter.

 

[timschochet]

• "There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents."

(The name of the movie is "Innocence of Muslims". What's funny is that Egyptian muslims have been killing Egyptian Christians.)

• "In this modern world with modern technologies, for us to respond in that way to hateful speech empowers any individual who engages in such speech to create chaos around the world."

(Basile created "chaos"? You agree with that?)

• "We do not expect other nations to agree with us on every issue, nor do we assume that the violence of the past weeks or the hateful speech by some individuals represent the views of the overwhelming majority of Muslims, any more than the views of the people who produced this video represents those of Americans."

I don't think most Americans think the koran is "real". Neither does Basile.

• "The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt -- it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted, “Muslims, Christians, we are one.”

Did this actually happen?

• "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."

Who "slandered" whom? Basile slandered Mohammed? And we're saying Mohammed is an actual "prophet"? Most Americans don't believe any of that.

>>> Obsession begets obsession.

Yes, I agree with all of those statements made by Obama. And I'm an atheist. Just because I don't believe in Islam or Christianity or Hinduism doesn't mean that I think intentionally over the top videos designed to offend and inflame are admirable.

I think you're being intentionally obtuse here. The idea that the video isn't blasphemous is silly. As is the idea that this video did not spur chaos in multiple places around the world.

its irrelevant if the video is blasphemous, for two reasons:

one: Blasphemy is legally protected speech in America due to this thing called the 1st Amendment.

two: Benghazi was never about "the video". Never. The faster you come to accept that truth, the better.

Sigh.

From the New York Times article. Here's the part that Saints didn't quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/18/world/middleeast/apprehension-of-ahmed-abu-khattala-may-begin-to-answer-questions-on-assault.html?hp&_r=1

Mr. Abu Khattala told other Libyans in private conversations during the night of the attack that he was moved to attack the diplomatic mission to take revenge for an insult to Islam in an American-made online video.

An earlier demonstration venting anger over the video outside the American Embassy in Cairo had culminated in a breach of its walls, and it dominated Arab news coverage. Mr. Abu Khattala told both fellow Islamist fighters and others that the attack in Benghazi was retaliation for the same insulting video, according to people who heard him.

Time to stop, tommyboy.

Tim I excluded it because whoever quoted the article I quoted first excluded the part I posted but included the part you posted.

And that was the first point I made, you've got a report that's several weeks old which is that of a second hand account, or you've got a direct quote from Khattala himself saying the attack had nothing to do with the video. They're in the same article, the first time it was quoted - and when the media and left leaning blogs refer to it - they mention the former but not the latter.

But he never said that. He "declined to say" in a second interview. But he NEVER stated that it had nothing to do with the video. And NEITHER quote is a direct quote.

So what we have, according to the story, are several unnamed sources who claim that he told them the attack was because of the video, and one unnamed source who says he declined to say. There is a direct quote from this second source- "From a religious point of view, etc." but that doesn't really tell us anything one way or the other. The rational conclusion, IMO, has to be:

1. There is every reason to believe that at least part of the motivation for this guys attack was the video.

2. More importantly for our purposes, there is no reason to believe that the Obama administration thought that the attack had nothing to do with the video. Which means they did not deliberately lie. I was pretty sure, like you, that they screwed up; now I'm not even sure of that.

3. There is no good purpose in investigating this any further.

 

[Rove!]

• "There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents."

(The name of the movie is "Innocence of Muslims". What's funny is that Egyptian muslims have been killing Egyptian Christians.)

• "In this modern world with modern technologies, for us to respond in that way to hateful speech empowers any individual who engages in such speech to create chaos around the world."

(Basile created "chaos"? You agree with that?)

• "We do not expect other nations to agree with us on every issue, nor do we assume that the violence of the past weeks or the hateful speech by some individuals represent the views of the overwhelming majority of Muslims, any more than the views of the people who produced this video represents those of Americans."

I don't think most Americans think the koran is "real". Neither does Basile.

• "The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt -- it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted, “Muslims, Christians, we are one.”

Did this actually happen?

• "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."

Who "slandered" whom? Basile slandered Mohammed? And we're saying Mohammed is an actual "prophet"? Most Americans don't believe any of that.

>>> Obsession begets obsession.

Yes, I agree with all of those statements made by Obama. And I'm an atheist. Just because I don't believe in Islam or Christianity or Hinduism doesn't mean that I think intentionally over the top videos designed to offend and inflame are admirable.

I think you're being intentionally obtuse here. The idea that the video isn't blasphemous is silly. As is the idea that this video did not spur chaos in multiple places around the world.

its irrelevant if the video is blasphemous, for two reasons:

one: Blasphemy is legally protected speech in America due to this thing called the 1st Amendment.

two: Benghazi was never about "the video". Never. The faster you come to accept that truth, the better.

Sigh.

From the New York Times article. Here's the part that Saints didn't quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/18/world/middleeast/apprehension-of-ahmed-abu-khattala-may-begin-to-answer-questions-on-assault.html?hp&_r=1

Mr. Abu Khattala told other Libyans in private conversations during the night of the attack that he was moved to attack the diplomatic mission to take revenge for an insult to Islam in an American-made online video.

An earlier demonstration venting anger over the video outside the American Embassy in Cairo had culminated in a breach of its walls, and it dominated Arab news coverage. Mr. Abu Khattala told both fellow Islamist fighters and others that the attack in Benghazi was retaliation for the same insulting video, according to people who heard him.

Time to stop, tommyboy.

Tim I excluded it because whoever quoted the article I quoted first excluded the part I posted but included the part you posted.

And that was the first point I made, you've got a report that's several weeks old which is that of a second hand account, or you've got a direct quote from Khattala himself saying the attack had nothing to do with the video. They're in the same article, the first time it was quoted - and when the media and left leaning blogs refer to it - they mention the former but not the latter.

But he never said that. He "declined to say" in a second interview. But he NEVER stated that it had nothing to do with the video. And NEITHER quote is a direct quote.

So what we have, according to the story, are several unnamed sources who claim that he told them the attack was because of the video, and one unnamed source who says he declined to say. There is a direct quote from this second source- "From a religious point of view, etc." but that doesn't really tell us anything one way or the other. The rational conclusion, IMO, has to be:

1. There is every reason to believe that at least part of the motivation for this guys attack was the video.

2. More importantly for our purposes, there is no reason to believe that the Obama administration thought that the attack had nothing to do with the video. Which means they did not deliberately lie. I was pretty sure, like you, that they screwed up; now I'm not even sure of that.

3. There is no good purpose in investigating this any further.

1. even so, it does not change the fact that the narrative of a 'spontaneous protest" was completely wrong

2. they knew there were mortar shells, RPGs, and other weapons...they also knew the group responsible. The evidence overwhelmingly said this was not a spontaneous protest, but an organized attack.

3. There are still some outstanding questions and the previous investigations were working from incomplete evidence and were poorly run. There should have been one committee from the get-go

a new unanswered question is who is this guy they arrested and what was his role? You call him a mastermind, but the authorities, for two years, had no interest in even interviewing him...I'm not sure of the value of this guys info, even the CNN reporter said his narrative was often contradictory and he certainly did not characterize himself as some kind of mastermind.

 

[jamny]

apologize to Susan Rice

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Mat, when I wrote that, I thought that may be the response, but that's ok. Yeah I think Obama defenders are as hyper-obssessed about making this a "conspiracy" discussion as his opponents.

What do you think of the president's comments about the movie? Would you not describe these comments as "obsessive" and completely off base from a liberal viewpoint?

• "a crude and disgusting video"

Do you personally think it's disgusting? Why?

• "I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity"

Really.

• "It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well"

Why is this movie an insult to America?

• "We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them."

Where does he get this?

• "I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video"

Who in America, again?

• "Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs."

(The movie was "blasphemy"? To whom? Which sacred beliefs?)

• "Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views, even views that we profoundly disagree with."

(Who in America profoundly disagrees with the movie?)

• "hateful speech"

(Is it?)

• "There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents."

(The name of the movie is "Innocence of Muslims". What's funny is that Egyptian muslims have been killing Egyptian Christians.)

• "In this modern world with modern technologies, for us to respond in that way to hateful speech empowers any individual who engages in such speech to create chaos around the world."

(Basile created "chaos"? You agree with that?)

• "We do not expect other nations to agree with us on every issue, nor do we assume that the violence of the past weeks or the hateful speech by some individuals represent the views of the overwhelming majority of Muslims, any more than the views of the people who produced this video represents those of Americans."

I don't think most Americans think the koran is "real". Neither does Basile.

• "The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt -- it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted, “Muslims, Christians, we are one.”

Did this actually happen?

• "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."

Who "slandered" whom? Basile slandered Mohammed? And we're saying Mohammed is an actual "prophet"? Most Americans don't believe any of that.

>>> Obsession begets obsession.

Yes, I agree with all of those statements made by Obama. And I'm an atheist. Just because I don't believe in Islam or Christianity or Hinduism doesn't mean that I think intentionally over the top videos designed to offend and inflame are admirable.

I think you're being intentionally obtuse here. The idea that the video isn't blasphemous is silly. As is the idea that this video did not spur chaos in multiple places around the world.

its irrelevant if the video is blasphemous, for two reasons:

one: Blasphemy is legally protected speech in America due to this thing called the 1st Amendment.

two: Benghazi was never about "the video". Never. The faster you come to accept that truth, the better.

Sigh.

From the New York Times article. Here's the part that Saints didn't quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/18/world/middleeast/apprehension-of-ahmed-abu-khattala-may-begin-to-answer-questions-on-assault.html?hp&_r=1

Mr. Abu Khattala told other Libyans in private conversations during the night of the attack that he was moved to attack the diplomatic mission to take revenge for an insult to Islam in an American-made online video.

An earlier demonstration venting anger over the video outside the American Embassy in Cairo had culminated in a breach of its walls, and it dominated Arab news coverage. Mr. Abu Khattala told both fellow Islamist fighters and others that the attack in Benghazi was retaliation for the same insulting video, according to people who heard him.

Time to stop, tommyboy.

Tim I excluded it because whoever quoted the article I quoted first excluded the part I posted but included the part you posted.

And that was the first point I made, you've got a report that's several weeks old which is that of a second hand account, or you've got a direct quote from Khattala himself saying the attack had nothing to do with the video. They're in the same article, the first time it was quoted - and when the media and left leaning blogs refer to it - they mention the former but not the latter.

But he never said that. He "declined to say" in a second interview. But he NEVER stated that it had nothing to do with the video. And NEITHER quote is a direct quote.

So what we have, according to the story, are several unnamed sources who claim that he told them the attack was because of the video, and one unnamed source who says he declined to say. There is a direct quote from this second source- "From a religious point of view, etc." but that doesn't really tell us anything one way or the other. The rational conclusion, IMO, has to be:

1. There is every reason to believe that at least part of the motivation for this guys attack was the video.

2. More importantly for our purposes, there is no reason to believe that the Obama administration thought that the attack had nothing to do with the video. Which means they did not deliberately lie. I was pretty sure, like you, that they screwed up; now I'm not even sure of that.

3. There is no good purpose in investigating this any further.

but that doesn't really tell us anything one way or the other

Yes it does, if he didn't find it offensive that wasn't why he was attacking. It was the 11th anniversary of September 11, 2001, he's a militia/terror leader, and it was the US embassy. That's why he was attacking.

There is every reason to believe that at least part of the motivation for this guys attack was the video.

There is one reason to believe it. The militia/terror leaders saw the chaos elsewhere and the US's lack of response to it and decided to take advantage at that point in time. I could see that.

...there is no reason to believe that the Obama administration thought that the attack had nothing to do with the video. Which means they did not deliberately lie. I was pretty sure, like you, that they screwed up; now I'm not even sure of that.

Tim if you look at the actual sources, and not just what pundits are telling you, the emails, the Senate report and Hillary's own book, and even the two NYT reports say it was a terrorist/militia group, Ansar Al-Sharia, that was behind the attack. Point of fact: Ansar Al-Sharia existed before the video and never needed a video to attack the US and it continues to oppose the US without reference to the video. That's how you know.

In terms of incompetence, yeah, again, these are the same folks who had no idea their own healthcare website was completely screwed up and unready for the rollout. Think about that. No conspiracy or GOP invention needed there, that was all on their own and it's a real window into just how out of touch this administration can be.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Mat, when I wrote that, I thought that may be the response, but that's ok. Yeah I think Obama defenders are as hyper-obssessed about making this a "conspiracy" discussion as his opponents.

What do you think of the president's comments about the movie? Would you not describe these comments as "obsessive" and completely off base from a liberal viewpoint?

• "a crude and disgusting video"

Do you personally think it's disgusting? Why?

• "I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity"

Really.

• "It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well"

Why is this movie an insult to America?

• "We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them."

Where does he get this?

• "I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video"

Who in America, again?

• "Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs."

(The movie was "blasphemy"? To whom? Which sacred beliefs?)

• "Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views, even views that we profoundly disagree with."

(Who in America profoundly disagrees with the movie?)

• "hateful speech"

(Is it?)

• "There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents."

(The name of the movie is "Innocence of Muslims". What's funny is that Egyptian muslims have been killing Egyptian Christians.)

• "In this modern world with modern technologies, for us to respond in that way to hateful speech empowers any individual who engages in such speech to create chaos around the world."

(Basile created "chaos"? You agree with that?)

• "We do not expect other nations to agree with us on every issue, nor do we assume that the violence of the past weeks or the hateful speech by some individuals represent the views of the overwhelming majority of Muslims, any more than the views of the people who produced this video represents those of Americans."

I don't think most Americans think the koran is "real". Neither does Basile.

• "The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt -- it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted, “Muslims, Christians, we are one.”

Did this actually happen?

• "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."

Who "slandered" whom? Basile slandered Mohammed? And we're saying Mohammed is an actual "prophet"? Most Americans don't believe any of that.

>>> Obsession begets obsession.

Yes, I agree with all of those statements made by Obama. And I'm an atheist. Just because I don't believe in Islam or Christianity or Hinduism doesn't mean that I think intentionally over the top videos designed to offend and inflame are admirable.

I think you're being intentionally obtuse here. The idea that the video isn't blasphemous is silly. As is the idea that this video did not spur chaos in multiple places around the world.

its irrelevant if the video is blasphemous, for two reasons:

one: Blasphemy is legally protected speech in America due to this thing called the 1st Amendment.

two: Benghazi was never about "the video". Never. The faster you come to accept that truth, the better.

Sigh.

From the New York Times article. Here's the part that Saints didn't quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/18/world/middleeast/apprehension-of-ahmed-abu-khattala-may-begin-to-answer-questions-on-assault.html?hp&_r=1

Mr. Abu Khattala told other Libyans in private conversations during the night of the attack that he was moved to attack the diplomatic mission to take revenge for an insult to Islam in an American-made online video.

An earlier demonstration venting anger over the video outside the American Embassy in Cairo had culminated in a breach of its walls, and it dominated Arab news coverage. Mr. Abu Khattala told both fellow Islamist fighters and others that the attack in Benghazi was retaliation for the same insulting video, according to people who heard him.

Time to stop, tommyboy.

Tim I excluded it because whoever quoted the article I quoted first excluded the part I posted but included the part you posted.

And that was the first point I made, you've got a report that's several weeks old which is that of a second hand account, or you've got a direct quote from Khattala himself saying the attack had nothing to do with the video. They're in the same article, the first time it was quoted - and when the media and left leaning blogs refer to it - they mention the former but not the latter.

But he never said that. He "declined to say" in a second interview. But he NEVER stated that it had nothing to do with the video. And NEITHER quote is a direct quote.

So what we have, according to the story, are several unnamed sources who claim that he told them the attack was because of the video, and one unnamed source who says he declined to say. There is a direct quote from this second source- "From a religious point of view, etc." but that doesn't really tell us anything one way or the other. The rational conclusion, IMO, has to be:

1. There is every reason to believe that at least part of the motivation for this guys attack was the video.

2. More importantly for our purposes, there is no reason to believe that the Obama administration thought that the attack had nothing to do with the video. Which means they did not deliberately lie. I was pretty sure, like you, that they screwed up; now I'm not even sure of that.

3. There is no good purpose in investigating this any further.

1. even so, it does not change the fact that the narrative of a 'spontaneous protest" was completely wrong

2. they knew there were mortar shells, RPGs, and other weapons...they also knew the group responsible. The evidence overwhelmingly said this was not a spontaneous protest, but an organized attack.

3. There are still some outstanding questions and the previous investigations were working from incomplete evidence and were poorly run. There should have been one committee from the get-go

a new unanswered question is who is this guy they arrested and what was his role? You call him a mastermind, but the authorities, for two years, had no interest in even interviewing him...I'm not sure of the value of this guys info, even the CNN reporter said his narrative was often contradictory and he certainly did not characterize himself as some kind of mastermind.

This is a really good point:

a new unanswered question is who is this guy they arrested and what was his role? You call him a mastermind, but the authorities, for two years, had no interest in even interviewing him...I'm not sure of the value of this guys info, even the CNN reporter said his narrative was often contradictory and he certainly did not characterize himself as some kind of mastermind.

All the intelligence reports and the NYT reports point to Ansar Al-Sharia as the culprit and this guy, Khattala, essentially joined up with them for this attack. Khattala is not Ansar Al-Sharia.

 

[pantagrapher]

Goalpost! Wait!

Not really a question of moving the goalposts. It's the maddening thing about conspiracy theories. There is NO WAY to disprove them. So the leader of the attack gets captured and says that the video motivated him? Not to SaintsInDome. He ignores that part of the story and quotes only the other part when, asked about it a SECOND time, the guy refused to confirm or deny it. Not to quickhands- obviously, the guy must be lying in order to- well, I can't really explain why he's lying- why would a terrorist want to cover up for Obama and Hillary Clinton? But never mind, that doesn't matter. The point is, he must be lying!

#### you tim...you are an #######. I never said that. I said only his word means #### to me.

Please stop with the personal insults, thanks.Regarding when he watched the video- I wouldn't be at all surprised if he NEVER watched it. Most of the people who protested over the video never saw it, just as most of the people who protested over the Dutch comic strip 10 years ago never saw it, just as most of the people who protested over Salman Rushdie 20 years ago never read his book. Muslim protesters in that part of the world aren't really big on getting their facts straight. They hear about a supposed blasphemy and run with it.

Well then there is nothing to prove anything but his word?

His word and your guarentee are enough for me.

If you read the phrasing of the NYT story, he told other Libyans during private conversations on the night of the attack that the video was his motivation. He did not tell the media.

 

[jamny]

Goalpost! Wait!

Not really a question of moving the goalposts. It's the maddening thing about conspiracy theories. There is NO WAY to disprove them. So the leader of the attack gets captured and says that the video motivated him? Not to SaintsInDome. He ignores that part of the story and quotes only the other part when, asked about it a SECOND time, the guy refused to confirm or deny it. Not to quickhands- obviously, the guy must be lying in order to- well, I can't really explain why he's lying- why would a terrorist want to cover up for Obama and Hillary Clinton? But never mind, that doesn't matter. The point is, he must be lying!

#### you tim...you are an #######. I never said that. I said only his word means #### to me.

Please stop with the personal insults, thanks.Regarding when he watched the video- I wouldn't be at all surprised if he NEVER watched it. Most of the people who protested over the video never saw it, just as most of the people who protested over the Dutch comic strip 10 years ago never saw it, just as most of the people who protested over Salman Rushdie 20 years ago never read his book. Muslim protesters in that part of the world aren't really big on getting their facts straight. They hear about a supposed blasphemy and run with it.

Well then there is nothing to prove anything but his word?

His word and your guarentee are enough for me.

If you read the phrasing of the NYT story, he told other Libyans during private conversations on the night of the attack that the video was his motivation. He did not tell the media.

And the US found out about it from those other Libyans in the hours, days, weeks after the attack?

 

[pantagrapher]

Goalpost! Wait!

Not really a question of moving the goalposts. It's the maddening thing about conspiracy theories. There is NO WAY to disprove them. So the leader of the attack gets captured and says that the video motivated him? Not to SaintsInDome. He ignores that part of the story and quotes only the other part when, asked about it a SECOND time, the guy refused to confirm or deny it. Not to quickhands- obviously, the guy must be lying in order to- well, I can't really explain why he's lying- why would a terrorist want to cover up for Obama and Hillary Clinton? But never mind, that doesn't matter. The point is, he must be lying!

#### you tim...you are an #######. I never said that. I said only his word means #### to me.

Please stop with the personal insults, thanks.Regarding when he watched the video- I wouldn't be at all surprised if he NEVER watched it. Most of the people who protested over the video never saw it, just as most of the people who protested over the Dutch comic strip 10 years ago never saw it, just as most of the people who protested over Salman Rushdie 20 years ago never read his book. Muslim protesters in that part of the world aren't really big on getting their facts straight. They hear about a supposed blasphemy and run with it.

Well then there is nothing to prove anything but his word?

His word and your guarentee are enough for me.

If you read the phrasing of the NYT story, he told other Libyans during private conversations on the night of the attack that the video was his motivation. He did not tell the media.

And the US found out about it from those other Libyans in the hours, days, weeks after the attack?

I'm only making a statement regarding what the NYT story actually says, and how it contradicts quickhands and his stated reason for not believing it.

 

[matuski]

Just so I can be sure I understand the nut angle here... are we putting it out there that this guy (who took part in the assault of an embassy resulting in American deaths) is in cahoots with Obama/Clinton?

 

[jamny]

Just so I can be sure I understand the nut angle here... are we putting it out there that this guy (who took part in the assault of an embassy resulting in American deaths) is in cahoots with Obama/Clinton?

Who is saying that?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Mat, when I wrote that, I thought that may be the response, but that's ok. Yeah I think Obama defenders are as hyper-obssessed about making this a "conspiracy" discussion as his opponents.

What do you think of the president's comments about the movie? Would you not describe these comments as "obsessive" and completely off base from a liberal viewpoint?

• "a crude and disgusting video"

Do you personally think it's disgusting? Why?

• "I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity"

Really.

• "It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well"

Why is this movie an insult to America?

• "We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them."

Where does he get this?

• "I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video"

Who in America, again?

• "Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs."

(The movie was "blasphemy"? To whom? Which sacred beliefs?)

• "Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views, even views that we profoundly disagree with."

(Who in America profoundly disagrees with the movie?)

• "hateful speech"

(Is it?)

• "There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents."

(The name of the movie is "Innocence of Muslims". What's funny is that Egyptian muslims have been killing Egyptian Christians.)

• "In this modern world with modern technologies, for us to respond in that way to hateful speech empowers any individual who engages in such speech to create chaos around the world."

(Basile created "chaos"? You agree with that?)

• "We do not expect other nations to agree with us on every issue, nor do we assume that the violence of the past weeks or the hateful speech by some individuals represent the views of the overwhelming majority of Muslims, any more than the views of the people who produced this video represents those of Americans."

I don't think most Americans think the koran is "real". Neither does Basile.

• "The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt -- it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted, “Muslims, Christians, we are one.”

Did this actually happen?

• "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."

Who "slandered" whom? Basile slandered Mohammed? And we're saying Mohammed is an actual "prophet"? Most Americans don't believe any of that.

>>> Obsession begets obsession.

Yes, I agree with all of those statements made by Obama. And I'm an atheist. Just because I don't believe in Islam or Christianity or Hinduism doesn't mean that I think intentionally over the top videos designed to offend and inflame are admirable.

I think you're being intentionally obtuse here. The idea that the video isn't blasphemous is silly. As is the idea that this video did not spur chaos in multiple places around the world.

its irrelevant if the video is blasphemous, for two reasons:

one: Blasphemy is legally protected speech in America due to this thing called the 1st Amendment.

two: Benghazi was never about "the video". Never. The faster you come to accept that truth, the better.

No one, not me nor the comments Saints posted from Obama, are suggesting that blasphemous comments aren't protected speech. Obama even alludes to that protection with the "people wonder why this isn't banned" comment.

It's obvious that Benghazi was about far more than the video. It's also obvious to anyone with a brain that the video wasn't some conspiracy created by the administration for political purposes. And that's been the issue the past two years from guys on your side. Can we finally put that stupidity to bed and move on?

I have to say this cracks me up.

We frequently read here how religion and its books are a bunch of fairy tales, how we shouldn't be fighting to stop a bunch of people who are fighting amongst themselves over their various interpretations, and yet here you are saying the Basile movie was blasphemy? You personally think that saying that Mohammed was absolutely full of hooey is blashpemy? That's what you personally believe?

And why do you believe this if you haven't seen the movie (you haven't, right?)? And what business does the Presidents of the USA have deciding and saying what is blashemy? I would really like to hear a good, strong liberal explanation of this.

Obama goes before the world at the UN and in discussing an attack on a US embassy by a militia/terror group on the anniversary of the September 11th attacks and he makes the movie the centerpiece of what he is saying.

And by the way notice how often he claims to speak for the American people in those comments. Most Americans (IMO) do not share those opinions about the movie and never did.

 

[matuski]

Just so I can be sure I understand the nut angle here... are we putting it out there that this guy (who took part in the assault of an embassy resulting in American deaths) is in cahoots with Obama/Clinton?

Who is saying that?

I'm asking, because the obfuscation is thick in here.

There are a couple here who seem to be doubting "the timing" and "convenience" of this guy's apprehension.

The implication would be it is all a fake, and/or that this guy is working in cahoots with the admin? Or we nabbed a guy and made the rest up?

I don't understand the angle from Saints & Co. I'm hoping someone can just come out and say what they are saying.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Mat, when I wrote that, I thought that may be the response, but that's ok. Yeah I think Obama defenders are as hyper-obssessed about making this a "conspiracy" discussion as his opponents.

What do you think of the president's comments about the movie? Would you not describe these comments as "obsessive" and completely off base from a liberal viewpoint?

• "a crude and disgusting video"

Do you personally think it's disgusting? Why?

• "I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity"

Really.

• "It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well"

Why is this movie an insult to America?

• "We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them."

Where does he get this?

• "I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video"

Who in America, again?

• "Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs."

(The movie was "blasphemy"? To whom? Which sacred beliefs?)

• "Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views, even views that we profoundly disagree with."

(Who in America profoundly disagrees with the movie?)

• "hateful speech"

(Is it?)

• "There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents."

(The name of the movie is "Innocence of Muslims". What's funny is that Egyptian muslims have been killing Egyptian Christians.)

• "In this modern world with modern technologies, for us to respond in that way to hateful speech empowers any individual who engages in such speech to create chaos around the world."

(Basile created "chaos"? You agree with that?)

• "We do not expect other nations to agree with us on every issue, nor do we assume that the violence of the past weeks or the hateful speech by some individuals represent the views of the overwhelming majority of Muslims, any more than the views of the people who produced this video represents those of Americans."

I don't think most Americans think the koran is "real". Neither does Basile.

• "The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt -- it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted, “Muslims, Christians, we are one.”

Did this actually happen?

• "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."

Who "slandered" whom? Basile slandered Mohammed? And we're saying Mohammed is an actual "prophet"? Most Americans don't believe any of that.>>> Obsession begets obsession.

Yes, I agree with all of those statements made by Obama. And I'm an atheist. Just because I don't believe in Islam or Christianity or Hinduism doesn't mean that I think intentionally over the top videos designed to offend and inflame are admirable.

I think you're being intentionally obtuse here. The idea that the video isn't blasphemous is silly. As is the idea that this video did not spur chaos in multiple places around the world.

its irrelevant if the video is blasphemous, for two reasonsne: Blasphemy is legally protected speech in America due to this thing called the 1st Amendment.

two: Benghazi was never about "the video". Never. The faster you come to accept that truth, the better.

No one, not me nor the comments Saints posted from Obama, are suggesting that blasphemous comments aren't protected speech. Obama even alludes to that protection with the "people wonder why this isn't banned" comment.

It's obvious that Benghazi was about far more than the video. It's also obvious to anyone with a brain that the video wasn't some conspiracy created by the administration for political purposes. And that's been the issue the past two years from guys on your side. Can we finally put that stupidity to bed and move on?

I have to say this cracks me up.

We frequently read here how religion and its books are a bunch of fairy tales, how we shouldn't be fighting to stop a bunch of people who are fighting amongst themselves over their various interpretations, and yet here you are saying the Basile movie was blasphemy? You personally think that saying that Mohammed was absolutely full of hooey is blashpemy? That's what you personally believe?

And why do you believe this if you haven't seen the movie (you haven't, right?)? And what business does the Presidents of the USA have deciding and saying what is blashemy? I would really like to hear a good, strong liberal explanation of this.

Obama goes before the world at the UN and in discussing an attack on a US embassy by a militia/terror group on the anniversary of the September 11th attacks and he makes the movie the centerpiece of what he is saying.

And by the way notice how often he claims to speak for the American people in those comments. Most Americans (IMO) do not share those opinions about the movie and never did.

I'm happy to move on to discussing the substance of the video, as soon as you admit that this entire "scandal" has been a farce and that Susan Rice was unjustly criticized.

 

[SmoovySmoov]

I really enjoy it when people are proven wrong, and then they double down on their wrongness.

 

[jamny]

How did the Administration know, only days after the attack, that Khattala's impetus for it was the video?

Good guess?

There were warnings from Stevens for months leading up to it and most involved during it dispute the video as being the reason. Now, stories come out, from unnamed sources, saying that Khattala was influenced by the video and we're all supposed to apologize to Susan Rice and the rest? We're just supposed to believe it? C'mon, you can't be that trusting and/or naïve.

Let's all wait to see what comes from this before high-fiving each other. I'll keep my fingers crossed that his capture leads to a lot more info and arrests. Or drone attacks (dronings?)

 

[pantagrapher]

How did the Administration know, only days after the attack, that Khattala's impetus for it was the video?

Good guess?

Info from an intelligence agency. Wild guess.

 

[jamny]

How did the Administration know, only days after the attack, that Khattala's impetus for it was the video?

Good guess?

Info from an intelligence agency. Wild guess.

So they knew Khattala was involved right away?

 

[pantagrapher]

How did the Administration know, only days after the attack, that Khattala's impetus for it was the video?

Good guess?

Info from an intelligence agency. Wild guess.

So they knew Khattala was involved right away?

Maybe. Maybe not. But I noticed how you slipped his name into your initial post and kind of figured you would use it as some kind of gotcha. It's perfectly reasonable to hear rumblings about a motive without having a specific name attached to it.

 

[jamny]

It wasn't a gotcha. I didn't slip his name in. I've been specifically talking about Khattala and his reasons for the attack from the beginning. Some unnamed Libyans heard from Khattala that the video was the reason (or a big reason). When did we learn that info? Just prior to his arrest or in the hours before or after the attack?

 

[pantagrapher]

It wasn't a gotcha. I didn't slip his name in. I've been specifically talking about Khattala and his reasons for the attack from the beginning. Some unnamed Libyans heard from Khattala that the video was the reason (or a big reason). When did we learn that info? Just prior to his arrest or in the hours before or after the attack?

Nobody in the administration said they had that specific information days after the attack. It's from a NYT story published June 17, 2014.

 

[Chaka]

This is unbelievable. First it that the administration was wrong and stuck to that narrative for too long. Now it looks like that narrative may have been correct and it's "How could they possibly have known that at the time?"

Weren't you guys criticizing them for not knowing the exact motivation immediately? Now you question how they could have possibly known?

Come on guys, just stop trying to make this into a scandal.

 

[jamny]

This is unbelievable. First it that the administration was wrong and stuck to that narrative for too long. Now it looks like that narrative may have been correct and it's "How could they possibly have known that at the time?"

Weren't you guys criticizing them for not knowing the exact motivation immediately? Now you question how they could have possibly known?

Come on guys, just stop trying to make this into a scandal.

May have been correct?

Because of unnamed Libyans that are saying that they heard the video was Khattala's reason for the attack?

That's all it takes?

 

[jamny]

It wasn't a gotcha. I didn't slip his name in. I've been specifically talking about Khattala and his reasons for the attack from the beginning. Some unnamed Libyans heard from Khattala that the video was the reason (or a big reason). When did we learn that info? Just prior to his arrest or in the hours before or after the attack?

Nobody in the administration said they had that specific information days after the attack. It's from a NYT story published June 17, 2014.

OK, great. So right now the Khattala arrest is a separate story from the supposed scandal.

One has nothing to do with the other at this point. Yet people will continue to use any little detail to high-five each other and claim some kind of victory.

 

[pantagrapher]

It wasn't a gotcha. I didn't slip his name in. I've been specifically talking about Khattala and his reasons for the attack from the beginning. Some unnamed Libyans heard from Khattala that the video was the reason (or a big reason). When did we learn that info? Just prior to his arrest or in the hours before or after the attack?

Nobody in the administration said they had that specific information days after the attack. It's from a NYT story published June 17, 2014.

OK, great. So right now the Khattala arrest is a separate story from the supposed scandal.

One has nothing to do with the other at this point. Yet people will continue to use any little detail to high-five each other and claim some kind of victory.

Huh?

The recent information about Khattala's motives collaborates what the administration said at the time. Nice try though.

 

[Chaka]

This is unbelievable. First it that the administration was wrong and stuck to that narrative for too long. Now it looks like that narrative may have been correct and it's "How could they possibly have known that at the time?"

Weren't you guys criticizing them for not knowing the exact motivation immediately? Now you question how they could have possibly known?

Come on guys, just stop trying to make this into a scandal.

May have been correct?

Because of unnamed Libyans that are saying that they heard the video was Khattala's reason for the attack?

That's all it takes?

Of course not that's why I said "may have been".

 

[Rove!]

It wasn't a gotcha. I didn't slip his name in. I've been specifically talking about Khattala and his reasons for the attack from the beginning. Some unnamed Libyans heard from Khattala that the video was the reason (or a big reason). When did we learn that info? Just prior to his arrest or in the hours before or after the attack?

Nobody in the administration said they had that specific information days after the attack. It's from a NYT story published June 17, 2014.

OK, great. So right now the Khattala arrest is a separate story from the supposed scandal.

One has nothing to do with the other at this point. Yet people will continue to use any little detail to high-five each other and claim some kind of victory.

Huh?

The recent information about Khattala's motives collaborates what the administration said at the time. Nice try though.

does not

 

[jamny]

It wasn't a gotcha. I didn't slip his name in. I've been specifically talking about Khattala and his reasons for the attack from the beginning. Some unnamed Libyans heard from Khattala that the video was the reason (or a big reason). When did we learn that info? Just prior to his arrest or in the hours before or after the attack?

Nobody in the administration said they had that specific information days after the attack. It's from a NYT story published June 17, 2014.

OK, great. So right now the Khattala arrest is a separate story from the supposed scandal.

One has nothing to do with the other at this point. Yet people will continue to use any little detail to high-five each other and claim some kind of victory.

Huh?

The recent information about Khattala's motives collaborates what the administration said at the time. Nice try though.

Because of unnamed Libyans that are saying that they heard the video was Khattala's reason for the attack?

That's all it takes?

 

[pantagrapher]

It wasn't a gotcha. I didn't slip his name in. I've been specifically talking about Khattala and his reasons for the attack from the beginning. Some unnamed Libyans heard from Khattala that the video was the reason (or a big reason). When did we learn that info? Just prior to his arrest or in the hours before or after the attack?

Nobody in the administration said they had that specific information days after the attack. It's from a NYT story published June 17, 2014.

OK, great. So right now the Khattala arrest is a separate story from the supposed scandal.

One has nothing to do with the other at this point. Yet people will continue to use any little detail to high-five each other and claim some kind of victory.

Huh?

The recent information about Khattala's motives collaborates what the administration said at the time. Nice try though.

Because of unnamed Libyans that are saying that they heard the video was Khattala's reason for the attack?

That's all it takes?

They heard from Khattala himself on the night of the attacks Khattala [allegedly] helped invoke.

 

[Rove!]

This is unbelievable. First it that the administration was wrong and stuck to that narrative for too long. Now it looks like that narrative may have been correct and it's "How could they possibly have known that at the time?"

Weren't you guys criticizing them for not knowing the exact motivation immediately? Now you question how they could have possibly known?

Come on guys, just stop trying to make this into a scandal.

May have been correct?

Because of unnamed Libyans that are saying that they heard the video was Khattala's reason for the attack?

That's all it takes?

I'm convinced that most of these people are trolling. Nobody could possibly be that thick and still function in society.

Fact 1: The administration message to the world was this this was a spontaneous protest that got out of hand

Fact 2: The event was not spontaneous. Was preplanned, was an intentional attack by a known terrorist group and was not a protest.

Fact 3: There was clarity around fact 2 while the attack was going on

Fact 4: Fact 1 narrative varies greatly with fact 2 narrative

conclusion; The administration lied

QED

 

[jamny]

All I'm saying is that the whole political climate is so eroded that all it takes is comments from unnamed Libyans for some people to say "aha! See, I told you! Now apologize to Susan Rice and Obama!"

It's like this with every hot issue and it's the main reason we'll never come together. It goes for both sides and I'm guilty of it as well.

 

[pantagrapher]

[Khattala] also maintained that the violence in Benghazi that night grew out of a protest against a movie produced in the United States that lampooned Islam and the Prophet Muhammad, rather than being a planned action by militants. (This has been a much-contested question; Kirkpatrick concluded that “the reality in Benghazi was different, and murkier, than either of those story lines suggests.… The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs.”)

link