|
Yeah, now it's just a vague shouting of "LIBYA! YOU SEE?" I mean, a bad thing happened there, and now they get to point at it and vaguely imply, but never state, that they were right all along (don't ask how).
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 21:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 12:09 |
|
|
I feel sort of ignorant can someone give me the short version of the Benghazi thing? Im in a developing country right now so sometimes US news slips past me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 22:44
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:I feel sort of ignorant can someone give me the short version of the Benghazi thing? Here's the short version: A liberal may have gotten four people killed in the Middle East through negligence. This is a horrible tragedy. The previous conservative administration got hundreds of thousands of people killed in the Middle East through dishonesty and fearmongering. Never mind that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 22:47
|
|
|
I Am The Scum posted:Here's the short version: That's a tu quoque. The obvious response is "No, they're both bad." In answer to RagnarokAngel's question, some people think it's a big deal that the administration did not present a unified response to Benghazi. This depends heavily on who's saying it, whether they mean a stupid semantics game where "act of terror" doesn't mean "terrorism"; whether they mean the ambassador talking about the video when evidence had come to light that the video was unrelated; or whether the White House should have responded before all the information had been gathered. They also might be referring to the claims that there had been information about a possible attack before it occurred--how much info and how long before is totally up in the air and free for everyone to interpret. They might also be referring to requests the embassy sent for additional security. Who heard these requests, when, in response to what, and how they responded is also totally up in the air. This is why it behooves people who are out to smeer the administration to just say "LIBYA!!" and let everyone who hears that fill in all the blanks mentally.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 23:07
|
|
|
I Am The Scum posted:Here's the short version: The very short answer is that an terrorist attack was staged on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi at the same time as rioting across the middle east over an anti-Islamic video. There weren't enough security personnel at the embassy, and four people, including the ambassador, were killed. Initially, people thought that the attack was part of the broader response to the video, including the administration; this was later revised as the severity of the attack and the weapons involved made it clear that it was something planned, not spontaneous. It's also developed that requests had been made for additional security, which might have helped protect the embassy. The requests, though, appear to have been reflective more of a generally deteriorating situation, rather than any known specifics of an impending attack. Still, people are blaming the administration and Obama for not taking them seriously enough. Wikipedia has a decent summary on what went down.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 23:09
|
|
|
Also, it should be noted that the security requests that were denied were for the Embassy, which is in Tripoli; not the consulate in Benghazi that was attacked.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 23:17
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:It's also developed that requests had been made for additional security, which might have helped protect the embassy. The requests, though, appear to have been reflective more of a generally deteriorating situation, rather than any known specifics of an impending attack. Still, people are blaming the administration and Obama for not taking them seriously enough. It's also important to note that the request for extra security that was apparently turned down was a request made for the embassy in Tripoli, which is an entirely different location than the consulate that was attacked in Benghazi. EDIT: Gah! Beaten.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 23:18
|
|
|
It's hard to get straight info without all the spin so could you guys clarify whether that was additional security for the embassy or for the ambassador (which would have gone with him to Benghazi)?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 23:21
|
|
|
XyloJW posted:It's hard to get straight info without all the spin so could you guys clarify whether that was additional security for the embassy or for the ambassador (which would have gone with him to Benghazi)? What I read said it was for the Embassy, but I will see if I can dig up more details later.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 23:27
|
|
|
XyloJW posted:It's hard to get straight info without all the spin so could you guys clarify whether that was additional security for the embassy or for the ambassador (which would have gone with him to Benghazi)?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 00:28
|
|
|
XyloJW posted:It's hard to get straight info without all the spin so could you guys clarify whether that was additional security for the embassy or for the ambassador (which would have gone with him to Benghazi)? The embassy, as in the place in the capital, asked for more security. It had nothing to do with Stevens.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 00:30
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:This isn't a remotely useful response. It is when taken in the context of the organized vitriolic attack coming out of the rightwing blogs, radio talk shows and Fox. The whole affair is an orchestrated smear, not a good-faith investigation into the facts. Tu quoque is a legitimate tactic in politics if not in reasoned debate, and this issue is not a reasoned debate in any venue I've seen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 00:44
|
|
|
The really sad part of all this is that VileRat is being used for the Romney Campaign's propaganda.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 01:05
|
|
|
No the useful answer is to explain that 'a liberal' didn't get any Americans killed there, a fringe, radical, Islamic group who had this attack planned already, got four Americans killed. That same group was denounced by the people, who rallied to show support for us, and then very literally chased out of Libya by the people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 01:06
|
|
|
Glitterbomber posted:No the useful answer is to explain that 'a liberal' didn't get any Americans killed there, a fringe, radical, Islamic group who had this attack planned already, got four Americans killed. That same group was denounced by the people, who rallied to show support for us, and then very literally chased out of Libya by the people. Exactly. It's ridiculous to assume that an administration should be able to prevent every attack, ever. There is poo poo we just can't prepare for, and embassies/consulates are big targets. Especially when you taken into consideration that the Marine detachment will typically not engage and will prefer to get people out versus fight.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 01:11
|
|
|
So I found this article from ABC that includes this memo. It is from early in 2012, but it discusses how there's been an increase in attacks, and that the State Department's efforts were understaffed overall. It sounds like they were generally asking for more people, period. But not in a "we believe people are preparing to attack us in Benghazi, we need help!" sort of way; more of a "we have X but really need Y to be properly staffed in both Tripoli and Benghazi, can we get some more people?" sort of request. Even if they got more, it would only have been a couple guys at the most (in Benghazi), and I doubt 2-3 more security personnel would have changed things, other than an increase in the number of Americans killed in the attack.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 01:44
|
|
|
I agree with your analysis, but it does mean we can't say "No, they never asked for additional security at Benghazi." Their request, however, was 9 months earlier and unrelated to that attack, which I guess is how I would respond to someone who actually brought it up (as opposed to the usual simply shouting "libya")
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 02:01
|
|
|
Sarion posted:They have to push it, because it is all they have. The problem is, the narrative demands that Democrats are weak on foreign policy. But Obama has been anything but: Iraq war over with relative stability left behind, Afghan surge, Gaddaffi overthrown with US support but no real cost to the US, Osama Bin Laden dead. The one thing they could legitimately criticize him for (drone strikes) is something they like! The fact that the attack in Benghazi was very confusing at first is all they've got, even if they have to totally fabricate a bunch of crap around a few slivers of truth. It's the only foreign policy button they can press, so... I'm a bit hesitant about giving Obama that much credit over Iraq, as leaving the country so quickly had quite a bit to do with Iraq's government refusing to give US soldiers immunity for war crimes committed against Iraqis. So, while there had already been plans and efforts to get out of Iraq, the US government had planned to leave a far greater presence (over 5,000) than we currently have (a couple hundred) in Iraq before the Iraqi government made its intents known. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-20124021/immunity-for-troops-was-iraq-deal-breaker/
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 03:22
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:I'm a bit hesitant about giving Obama that much credit over Iraq, as leaving the country so quickly had quite a bit to do with Iraq's government refusing to give US soldiers immunity for war crimes committed against Iraqis. So, while there had already been plans and efforts to get out of Iraq, the US government had planned to leave a far greater presence (over 5,000) than we currently have (a couple hundred) in Iraq before the Iraqi government made its intents known. True, but the war was effectively over either way. Those troops were only being offered to continue to assist with training and cover some security holes. Just because there would have still been 5,000 troops there wouldn't mean the Iraq War was still being waged anymore than the 20,000+ troops we have in Germany are still waging WWII.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 04:33
|
|
|
What the gently caress poo poo? http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/10/30/Facebook-Censors-Navy-SEALS-To-Protect-Obama-on-Benghazi-Gate Is this real? I find no corroboration outside the right wing echo chamber. The only evidence is a low quality image purporting to be a Facebook takedown notice. Obviously Facebook won't (and shouldn't) comment on this, but is this real? I mean the meme is back up so it's not like Facebook actually won here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 05:00
|
|
|
sicarius posted:What the gently caress poo poo? Doesn't facebook take down just about anything that gets too many complaints? Seems to me that was the reason I'd heard for why they were taking down all the gay people kissing photos a while ago. So it might very well be true that FB shut them down.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 05:44
|
|
|
sicarius posted:What the gently caress poo poo? Is it on Breitbart? That's one big clue that it's a lie.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 05:48
|
|
|
Packaging it as BANNED MEME THAT WAS TOO CONTROVERSIAL FOR FACEBOOK! Seems like a good way to get people to post it on their facebook pages.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 05:50
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:Doesn't facebook take down just about anything that gets too many complaints? Seems to me that was the reason I'd heard for why they were taking down all the gay people kissing photos a while ago. So it might very well be true that FB shut them down. This was my conclusion, since the image is back up. My guess is that someone, somewhere didn't like it and decided to report rush it so the Facebook robot flagged it and shut it down. It just doesn't make sense that they'd target this particular meme over another.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 06:29
|
|
|
Especially when you can so easily find groups on there that are nothing but overtly racist anti-Obama memes. I know this because so many of my hillbilly inlaws belong to them 
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 06:35
|
|
|
XyloJW posted:That's a tu quoque. The obvious response is "No, they're both bad." You're right, and I'm not trying to say that anything that happened in the past excuses any potential wrongdoing in this case. I'm just venting frustration. One would have to be extremely inconsistent to cry foul at this event while staying silent over the atrocities over the past decade. It's hosed up, and it's a shame that the "liberal media" isn't calling them out on it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 13:50
|
|
|
Yeah, I understand. But you run the risk of saying that to a libertarian who might well not have been silent during that time, then you lose all moral high ground, because to him it sounds like you're excusing Obama without even trying to figure out if there was wrongdoing. Best to seriously just ask them what exactly was done wrong and go from there, because there's so many crossed-wires in the conservative messaging on Libya that it's impossible to guess what they mean.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 15:28
|
|
|
XyloJW posted:Yeah, I understand. But you run the risk of saying that to a libertarian who might well not have been silent during that time, then you lose all moral high ground, because to him it sounds like you're excusing Obama without even trying to figure out if there was wrongdoing. Agreed, that's the best place to start. The messaging from the whole Executive branch, and media coverage during the first two weeks was down right confusing enough, but mix in the conservative campaign-attack-spin and there's no telling what someone actually believes happened. You had Glen Beck proclaiming to millions of listeners that Vilerat was a CIA agent and that Goonswarm was a CIA front group after all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 15:41
|
|
|
Sarion posted:Agreed, that's the best place to start. The messaging from the whole Executive branch, and media coverage during the first two weeks was down right confusing enough, but mix in the conservative campaign-attack-spin and there's no telling what someone actually believes happened. He also ranted for a while on weither or not those killed were analy sodomized. But hey, Glen Becks a classy guy right  (They werent, they died from smoke inhalation when the building with the panicroom was set on fire.) The picture circulating that were 'the mob parading them through the street' Were Lybian locals who chased off the terrorists and were rushing the Americans to the hospital shouting 'Allah Ackbar' because they thought they were still alive, though they died from the smoke. Bombadilillo fucked around with this message at 15:57 on Oct 31, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 15:54
|
|
|
Sarion posted:You had Glen Beck proclaiming to millions of listeners that Vilerat was a CIA agent and that Goonswarm was a CIA front group after all. Are you making GBS threads me? I have to hear this now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 16:51
|
|
|
NatasDog posted:Are you making GBS threads me? I have to hear this now. http://themittani.com/media/glenn-beck-goonswarm-cia-front Warning: it will make you angry. I'm guessing you expect that from Glenn Beck already though. e: also, forgot about his "advance team". What a fuckin nut myron cope fucked around with this message at 16:56 on Oct 31, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 16:54
|
|
|
Saw this today: poo poo a brick on the guy who posted it. I don't know why exactly but when I saw Vilerat's image attached to political propaganda I got very agitated. This is the very definition of exploiting death for political capital and it's disgusting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 18:13
|
|
|
sicarius posted:Saw this today: poo poo on him again. One poo poo is not enough.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 18:18
|
|
|
Anyone have a good summary of that day?
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 18:18
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:Anyone have a good summary of that day? Here is a factcheck.org timeline of events, it has a lot of who said what, days after bullshit but heres the day http://factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/ quote:Sept. 11: The Attack http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/10/198791.htm Here is the State departments full transcript of events. I warn you, its very...affecting...know this really happened. Everyone should read this. Bombadilillo fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Oct 31, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 18:48
|
|
|
Bombadilillo posted:http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/10/198791.htm I almost want to make a Facebook friendly timeline out of this because too many people believe the Glenn Beck version.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 19:49
|
|
|
This is great, apparently one of the ex-SEALS who died in Libya was on the advisory board of the Military_Religious_Freedom_Foundation, a "The Military Religious Freedom Foundation is a watchdog / advocacy group and civil rights organization whose stated goals are to ensure that members of the United States Armed Forces receive the Constitutional guarantee of religious freedom to which they are entitled by virtue of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.[1]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Religious_Freedom_Foundation Glen Doherty Glen Anthony Doherty (c. 1970 – September 11, 2012) was a native of Winchester, Massachusetts,[184] and a 1988 graduate of Winchester High School,[185] Doherty was the second of three children born to Bernard and Barbara Doherty. He trained as a pilot at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University before moving to Snowbird, Utah for several winters and then joining the United States Navy. Doherty served as a Navy SEAL including tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. After leaving the Navy, he worked for a private security company in Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Kenya and Libya.[184] Doherty was a member of the advisory board of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, an organization that opposes proselytizing by religious groups in the United States military. MRFF founder Michael L. Weinstein said that Doherty had "helped me on many MRFF client cases behind the scenes to facilitate assistance to armed forces members abused horribly by fundamentalist Christian proselytizing."[186] Doherty's funeral was held at Saint Eulalia's parish in his native Winchester on September 19, 2012.[187] Doherty's Celebration of Life was held in Encinitas, California the weekend of October 12–14, 2012.[188][189] Doherty was coauthor of the book The 21st Century Sniper.[186]
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 21:19
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:This is great, apparently one of the ex-SEALS who died in Libya was on the advisory board of the Military_Religious_Freedom_Foundation, a "The Military Religious Freedom Foundation is a watchdog / advocacy group and civil rights organization whose stated goals are to ensure that members of the United States Armed Forces receive the Constitutional guarantee of religious freedom to which they are entitled by virtue of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.[1]" So... does this mean that he was an atheist? Interesting. I doubt it really means much or will lead to anything at all, but it explains part of why the right isn't seeking to politicize his death as much as that of Woods - whose family is, apparently, quite religious. sicarius fucked around with this message at 21:27 on Oct 31, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 21:24
|
|
|
sicarius posted:So... does this mean that he was an atheist? Interesting. I doubt it really means much or will lead to anything at all, but it explains part of why the right isn't seeking to politicize his death as much as that of Woods - whose family is, apparently, quite religious. This doesn't matter in terms of facebook arguments, anyway. If someone politicizes his death with the mistaken assumption that he was religious, it would do more good to point out that they are politicizing his death (and why that is a lovely thing to do), than it would to talk about him being an atheist. Bombadilillo posted:http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/10/198791.htm That was hard to read but I'm glad I did. Highly recommended if you want to understand what happened. vez veces fucked around with this message at 21:41 on Oct 31, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 21:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 12:09 |
|
|
sicarius posted:So... does this mean that he was an atheist? Interesting. I doubt it really means much or will lead to anything at all, but it explains part of why the right isn't seeking to politicize his death as much as that of Woods - whose family is, apparently, quite religious. It's not so much that as the fact that Mitt Romney tried pulling a Mark Antony and his mom told him to go gently caress himself so the right wing backed the hell off before it blew up in their faces. Empire State posted:This doesn't matter in terms of facebook arguments, anyway. If someone politicizes his death with the mistaken assumption that he was religious, it would do more good to point out that they are politicizing his death (and why that is a lovely thing to do), than it would to talk about him being an atheist. I actually haven't thought about Tillman in quite a while. Didn't it turn out he was intentionally fragged by fellow American soldiers?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 21:35
|
|
