Benghazi: How were Republicans able to tell one deadly riot from another?

[rdean]

Protests spread against US over anti-Islamic film - as it happened | World news

I post a time line of these deadly riots going on all over the Arab world and I bet not a single right winger looked at it. We know why. Because they are afraid they will learn the truth. They are such frightened small people.

 

[Meathead]

There MAY have been protesting????

But what?

We aren't sure????

And since more than 50 people died in those other attacks, how did anyone know it was an attack and not just a regular riot where people were killed????

Come on. Make it good.

Mortars idiot. Get you oxygen-deprived head out of Obama's ass. A little fresh air will do you a world of good.

No one knew what happened there until it was all over. Except Republicans. Somehow, they knew everything even before it happened. Right?

More to the point, no one knew how long they could hold out, and apparently their superiors didn't much care. You know, "What difference does it make?".

 

[rdean]

Mortars idiot. Get you oxygen-deprived head out of Obama's ass. A little fresh air will do you a world of good.

No one knew what happened there until it was all over. Except Republicans. Somehow, they knew everything even before it happened. Right?

More to the point, no one knew how long they could hold out, and apparently their superiors didn't much care. You know, "What difference does it make?".

What difference does it make.

You didn't do that alone.

Republicans take those out of context.

They complain Democrats take "let him die" out of context. Except the only context there really was "let him die".

 

[1776]

How come Reagan didn't blame the Marine barracks attack in Beirut on insulting videos to islam???

Clinton didn't do it for the USS Cole and Khobar Towers attacks....


They clearly didn't understand how to spin a terrorist attack like Obama to win an election.

 

[mudwhistle]

Obama called it terrorism on Sept 12, so the rest is a lie.

No wait, the attack was from a video, the comment on terrorism was a lie.

No wait,.........aw....fuck it.....

 

[rdean]

How come Reagan didn't blame the Marine barracks attack in Beirut on insulting videos to islam???

Clinton didn't do it for the USS Cole and Khobar Towers attacks....


They clearly didn't understand how to spin a terrorist attack like Obama to win an election.

Gee, I'm embarrassed to have to explain this. No, really, I am. It's so obvious that it makes me ashamed that another American would ask such an obvious question.

The reason Reagan didn't blam the Marine Barracks attack in Beirut on an insulting video to Islam,

is because,

(sigh)

is because,

there wasn't one. There, I said it.

 

[rdean]

Obama called it terrorism on Sept 12, so the rest is a lie.

No wait, the attack was from a video, the comment on terrorism was a lie.

No wait,.........aw....fuck it.....

Then you admit. There was a video. Do you also admit to the riots all over the Arab world and more than 50 people dying from gunfire and other artillery?

 

[1776]

Shitstain....Islamic terrorists have existed going back before Reagan got into the White House and I guarantee there have been books, recordings, and videos that Islamic nuts claim are against them and created by Jews and Christians.


The point you stupid fuck shitstain is that even Reagan and Bill Clinton didn't make up some fucking lies about being attacked by terrorists to improve their PR campaign.

Your library of weird pictures you use in your posts proves you are fucking insane.

How come Reagan didn't blame the Marine barracks attack in Beirut on insulting videos to islam???

Clinton didn't do it for the USS Cole and Khobar Towers attacks....


They clearly didn't understand how to spin a terrorist attack like Obama to win an election.

Gee, I'm embarrassed to have to explain this. No, really, I am. It's so obvious that it makes me ashamed that another American would ask such an obvious question.

The reason Reagan didn't blam the Marine Barracks attack in Beirut on an insulting video to Islam,

is because,

(sigh)

is because,

there wasn't one. There, I said it.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[pvsi]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2A9LJJuooCQ

Pakistan: Muslims burn Christian churches in day of rage

I invite you to my thread titled no one is chasing America, America is chasing the world - when America will disband its military occupations around the world, no one will care about your despotic nation.

 

[rdean]

Shitstain....Islamic terrorists have existed going back before Reagan got into the White House and I guarantee there have been books, recordings, and videos that Islamic nuts claim are against them and created by Jews and Christians.


The point you stupid fuck shitstain is that even Reagan and Bill Clinton didn't make up some fucking lies about being attacked by terrorists to improve their PR campaign.

Your library of weird pictures you use in your posts proves you are fucking insane.

How come Reagan didn't blame the Marine barracks attack in Beirut on insulting videos to islam???

Clinton didn't do it for the USS Cole and Khobar Towers attacks....


They clearly didn't understand how to spin a terrorist attack like Obama to win an election.

Gee, I'm embarrassed to have to explain this. No, really, I am. It's so obvious that it makes me ashamed that another American would ask such an obvious question.

The reason Reagan didn't blam the Marine Barracks attack in Beirut on an insulting video to Islam,

is because,

(sigh)

is because,

there wasn't one. There, I said it.

But you admit there were riots going on all over the Arab world AT THE SAME TIME because people were protesting a right wing video making fun of their deity. You admit that, right?

 

[rdean]

How come right wingers weren't "outraged" at all the Americans that died in embassy attacks under Bush? They could have investigated. They had both houses.

 

[Darkwind]

Gee...lets see...

A crowd forms and begins throwing rocks and sticks at your walls....that would be a spontaneous riot.

A crowd forms and begins lobbing mortar and rockets at your walls, that would be a deliberate terrorist attack.


Hmm...wasn't hard to figure out at all.

 

[rdean]

Gee...lets see...

A crowd forms and begins throwing rocks and sticks at your walls....that would be a spontaneous riot.

A crowd forms and begins lobbing mortar and rockets at your walls, that would be a deliberate terrorist attack.


Hmm...wasn't hard to figure out at all.

Let's see, hmmm, 60 people died when Bush was president and how many of those were American? How many embassies were hit? Over how many years? And how many investigations did Republicans start.

In fact, if Republicans had investigated during the Bush years all the deaths, Ambassador Stevens might not have died.

This attack takes place, twice Ambassador Stevens denies military help. There were deadly riots going on all over the world with over 50 people killed and Obama made a "cover up"????? What did he cover up? The fact that Republicans cut embassy security by hundreds of millions of dollars? Or did he cover up by failing to mention all the Americans that died under Bush and the GOP House and Senate?

 

[Meathead]

Gee...lets see...

A crowd forms and begins throwing rocks and sticks at your walls....that would be a spontaneous riot.

A crowd forms and begins lobbing mortar and rockets at your walls, that would be a deliberate terrorist attack.


Hmm...wasn't hard to figure out at all.

Let's see, hmmm, 60 people died when Bush was president and how many of those were American? How many embassies were hit? Over how many years? And how many investigations did Republicans start.

In fact, if Republicans had investigated during the Bush years all the deaths, Ambassador Stevens might not have died.

This attack takes place, twice Ambassador Stevens denies military help. There were deadly riots going on all over the world with over 50 people killed and Obama made a "cover up"????? What did he cover up? The fact that Republicans cut embassy security by hundreds of millions of dollars? Or did he cover up by failing to mention all the Americans that died under Bush and the GOP House and Senate?

Pathetic response. Isn't doing you any good pounding a vacuous skull against a brick wall. Bush's fault...

 

[Vigilante]

Gee...lets see...

A crowd forms and begins throwing rocks and sticks at your walls....that would be a spontaneous riot.

A crowd forms and begins lobbing mortar and rockets at your walls, that would be a deliberate terrorist attack.


Hmm...wasn't hard to figure out at all.

Let's see, hmmm, 60 people died when Bush was president and how many of those were American? How many embassies were hit? Over how many years? And how many investigations did Republicans start.

In fact, if Republicans had investigated during the Bush years all the deaths, Ambassador Stevens might not have died.

This attack takes place, twice Ambassador Stevens denies military help. There were deadly riots going on all over the world with over 50 people killed and Obama made a "cover up"????? What did he cover up? The fact that Republicans cut embassy security by hundreds of millions of dollars? Or did he cover up by failing to mention all the Americans that died under Bush and the GOP House and Senate?

Where was the LEFTS OUTRAGE....MIA as usual!!!

 

[rdean]

Gee...lets see...

A crowd forms and begins throwing rocks and sticks at your walls....that would be a spontaneous riot.

A crowd forms and begins lobbing mortar and rockets at your walls, that would be a deliberate terrorist attack.


Hmm...wasn't hard to figure out at all.

Let's see, hmmm, 60 people died when Bush was president and how many of those were American? How many embassies were hit? Over how many years? And how many investigations did Republicans start.

In fact, if Republicans had investigated during the Bush years all the deaths, Ambassador Stevens might not have died.

This attack takes place, twice Ambassador Stevens denies military help. There were deadly riots going on all over the world with over 50 people killed and Obama made a "cover up"????? What did he cover up? The fact that Republicans cut embassy security by hundreds of millions of dollars? Or did he cover up by failing to mention all the Americans that died under Bush and the GOP House and Senate?

Where was the LEFTS OUTRAGE....MIA as usual!!!

When did 4803 become more than 1926?

Course, under Obama, most of those who died happened in the country that actually attacked us.

Conservatives Say Obama Has Lost More US Troops Than Bush

It’s also worth noting the amount of American soldiers who died in Iraq in 2012: 1. And the amount who have died through November 20 of 2013: 0.

 

[Silhouette]

As to the title of this thread...

"You're getting warmer!"....

And here's a sequel to it:

"How did Sean Hannity know the day of the Boston Bombing, exactly what type of bombs were used before the police even knew or reported on it?" He did an "oopsie" on his show where he spoke about the exact type of bomb used before anyone had knowledge of it.. A few people caught that. I think I remember his next show saying something like Fox had inside police knowledge on the details before any other news agency did. So, I guess that covers that.

If memory serves, the Boston Bombings happened right on the eve of some major gun control that was spurred by the Sandy Hook incident. All Fox could talk about over and over was that "no guns were used! Only bombs!" According to reports instead of shooting at police when apprehended, the suspects lobbed bombs at them. Hard to be really accurate with those. And kind of weird too. But Fox was eager to say over and over that "see, guns arent' the only thing that can cause terror attacks". Seemed like a really convenient story for the GOP's gun lobby at the time. I'm sure it was just a coincidence. Didn't one of the witnesses get offed by the FBI? Maybe that was a different incident. I forget.

?

 

[Vigilante]

Let's see, hmmm, 60 people died when Bush was president and how many of those were American? How many embassies were hit? Over how many years? And how many investigations did Republicans start.

In fact, if Republicans had investigated during the Bush years all the deaths, Ambassador Stevens might not have died.

This attack takes place, twice Ambassador Stevens denies military help. There were deadly riots going on all over the world with over 50 people killed and Obama made a "cover up"????? What did he cover up? The fact that Republicans cut embassy security by hundreds of millions of dollars? Or did he cover up by failing to mention all the Americans that died under Bush and the GOP House and Senate?

Where was the LEFTS OUTRAGE....MIA as usual!!!

When did 4803 become more than 1926?

Course, under Obama, most of those who died happened in the country that actually attacked us.

Conservatives Say Obama Has Lost More US Troops Than Bush

It’s also worth noting the amount of American soldiers who died in Iraq in 2012: 1. And the amount who have died through November 20 of 2013: 0.

Nice MISLEADING poster.... Under Bush 581 soldiers died in Afghanistan, under Obuma 1662.... I guess you had trouble with that 39 month THING ...has you confused since you ran out of fingers and toes!

 

[American Horse]

[...]

This is why Benghazi is such a losing issues for the GOP.

1. It happened in the middle of deadly riots going on all over the world.

2. The idea that Republicans care about Americans is humorous.

3. It reminds everyone of the GOP fiasco in Iraq, the cost in young American lives and treasure and image all around the world and the loss of the moral high ground.

4. Mrs. Clinton warned the GOP what could happen if they cut embassy security and they did anyway. The second time the GOP ignored a Clinton "warning".

5. The GOP quietly raised embassy security by $2,000,000,000.00 after saying it wasn't needed.

6. The ambassador turned down military support twice.

The republicans did not cut security funding specifically, they cut funding for non essential discretionary spending St. Dept. wide not exclusively in Libya. That was a reaction for St. Dept. Parties and junkets.

Marine security guards are available at all US Diplomatic posts, stations, and interests. Their cost is charged to the Marine Corps and DOD budget not State's. The State Department did not avail itself of that no-cost service.

They wanted no weapons visible in the hands of US personnel within the post grounds. That was because they wanted to pretend that we were so welcome that there was no need, and to show supreme trust that our presence there was not a boots on the ground operation but a purely friendly one; a naive and arrogant presumption.

They already had competent Americans as security personnel at Benghazi and the State hierarchy continuously degraded it until all was left was a private British crew who weren't allowed weapons; only Libyan nationals, privately contracted, were allowed to carry weapons. The Libyan nationals were provided by Libyan militia organizations operating around Benghazi.

The were given a "pass," an opportunity to leave for their own safety by the attackers when the attack began. The facility guards witnessed the place being reconnoitered and photos being taken on the day and the day prior to the attack.

Your #6 - the Ambassador was required (under orders) to not accept security from our own military to foster the ill founded illusion (delusion?) that it wasn't needed. That's why he kept going back to State HQ stating how dangerous it was and reporting threats - to get that policy changed before a disaster struck.

As to your #1 - and "the riots going on all over the world;". I heard Cheryl Atkinson say a while back that there were no tweets that mentioned a video in Benghazi on the day of the attack and the first tweet in which the video was mentioned was five days after the attack.