Could somebody please explain Benghazi to me?!

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Could somebody please explain Benghazi to me?!

Postby compared2what? » Sat May 25, 2013 3:44 pm

belligerent savant wrote:Eh. Fined, yes -- he should be fined, perhaps. Otherwise he should be ignored for the fool/troll that he is.

Not sure why such venom is being directed at such wholly ignorable clowns that are looking to simply generate attention/page views/air traffic among those that fully subscribe to this "Left wing/Right wing" divisive nonsense.

Also, Hillary is not so honorable a human to deserve to be defended in the manner depicted above [far from it] -- semi-jest or not.


No woman's so dishonorable that she doesn't deserve to be defended from threats to shoot her in the vagina.

But wait! I'm curious.

When the House GOP hijacks the national news by telling vicious lies about the opposition with the aim of creating fear, strife and insecurity for partisan political gain, what right-left-nonsense-free terms do you suggest people use when discussing it?

This whole Benghazi thing is silly from several angles. Yet it's up to 10 pages here already!


One party is wasting taxpayer time and money -- which are supposed to be spent on stuff that benefits the taxpayer -- by telling lies to advance its own interests. It's the pursuit of power, by dishonest, abusive means, basically.

That seems serious enough to merit ten pages to me.

Looks like we're not quite ready to move beyond diversionary constructs.


I don't mean this in a confrontational way. I really am curious to hear the logic. But as far as I can tell, reassigning blame from the GOP to a diversionary construct is one. Isn't it?

Please explicate.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Could somebody please explain Benghazi to me?!

Postby Belligerent Savant » Sat May 25, 2013 4:13 pm

.

stuff that benefits the taxpayer

Ha! And that's something that either party is otherwise known to do on even a semi-regular basis?

I don't care enough about this topic to expound on this. My mistake for replying to this thread.

However, with regards to Hillary being "threatened" of being shot in the vagina: I have zero concern that such a verbal 'threat' by that particular human -- who is paid to spew attention-seeking nonsense via airwaves -- is cause for any real concern.

I'd also lay down a hefty wager -- perhaps as much as 100, nay 1,000 pesos -- that even if this character... what's his name again? Hold on, let me scroll back... ah yes: Santilli. Even if Santilli had himself a firearm and was within 50 yards of Ms. Clinton [absurd scenario, I know], the man would not have the fortitude/courage/true intent to inflict any harm on Ms. Clinton's 'person'.

rabble-rousing.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5575
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Could somebody please explain Benghazi to me?!

Postby barracuda » Sat May 25, 2013 4:36 pm

Belligerent Savant » Sat May 25, 2013 1:13 pm wrote:However, with regards to Hillary being "threatened" of being shot in the vagina: I have zero concern that such a verbal 'threat' by that particular human...is cause for any real concern.


POINT

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missed.
User avatar
barracuda
 
Posts: 12890
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:58 pm
Location: Niles, California
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Could somebody please explain Benghazi to me?!

Postby Belligerent Savant » Sat May 25, 2013 4:49 pm

.
What's the point, then, fish? How much attention shall we pay to this Santilli [other than already wasted here?].

Consider the source. Consider the target audience.

Sure, he was offensive. Purposely.

He obtained the desired result -- a reaction. More attention.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5575
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Could somebody please explain Benghazi to me?!

Postby compared2what? » Sat May 25, 2013 5:37 pm

Belligerent Savant » Sat May 25, 2013 3:13 pm wrote:.

stuff that benefits the taxpayer

Ha! And that's something that either party is otherwise known to do on even a semi-regular basis?


What's that got to do with it?

Seems like another diversionary construct. The question was:

Well. You know what the question was.

I don't care enough about this topic to expound on this. My mistake for replying to this thread.


Wait, wait, wait. I didn't ask you about Benghazi. I asked you how you'd suggest discussing the GOP's various and sundry divisive partisan campaigns of insecurity-and-strife-provoking lies in right-left-nonsense-free terms.

Benghazi just provided a handy example.

However, with regards to Hillary being "threatened" of being shot in the vagina: I have zero concern that such a verbal 'threat' by that particular human -- who is paid to spew attention-seeking nonsense via airwaves -- is cause for any real concern.


Right. The thing is that one of the reasons that any kind of nonsense gets enough attention from listeners for the person spewing it to be a radio personality is that it speaks for them in a way that they find appealing. So I'd say that whenever someone expresses hostility to any woman by threatening to shoot her in the vagina, it's a cause for real concern to all people with vaginas At a minimum. But possibly to others, as well..

I'd also lay down a hefty wager -- perhaps as much as 100, nay 1,000 pesos -- that even if this character... what's his name again? Hold on, let me scroll back... ah yes: Santilli. Even if Santilli had himself a firearm and was within 50 yards of Ms. Clinton [absurd scenario, I know], the man would not have the fortitude/courage/true intent to inflict any harm on Ms. Clinton's 'person'.

rabble-rousing.


I don't really know how to calculate those odds. Due to a quirk of fate, I was within...I'd say about ten or twelve feet of Ms. Clinton's ''person" for a good fifteen minutes once. And as far as I can recall, she wasn't, like, radiating vulnerability in that area or anything. But to be honest, I was so completely focused on hating what she said that that it never even crossed my mind she had one. So maybe she was and I just didn't notice.

Anyway. It's probably likelier than it would be if nobody ever thought or spoke about doing it. But it seems like a pretty remote possibility, I agree. That's not the point.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Could somebody please explain Benghazi to me?!

Postby Belligerent Savant » Sat May 25, 2013 6:08 pm

.
As game as you seem to be in engaging in this back-and-forth 'dialogue', I'm going to pass on participating.... ahh, F it. I'll participate for just a bit.

I have little interest and/or intellectual/emotional investment in the GOP's partisan campaign. Both sides are guilty of partisan politics. One can argue that one side [the GOP] takes part in chicanery at a more voluminous clip than the other side, or is 'dirtier' than the other side when partaking in such partisan play. Regardless, it's ALL to the detriment of the taxpayer. Both parties suck. One may like to argue that a certain party sucks less than the other. Fine. You're well within your rights to stake such a claim.

The thing is that one of the reasons that any kind of nonsense gets enough attention from listeners for the person spewing it to be a radio personality is that it speaks for them in a way that they find appealing. So I'd say that whenever someone expresses hostility to any woman by threatening to shoot her in the vagina, it's a cause for real concern to all people with vaginas At a minimum. But possibly to others, as well..


I don't disagree with that. There are some vile humans among us. What are we to do about them, or more specifically, this particularly vile example of a fellow human? Shall we fine him, or have him fired? Similar to trolls, the more attention we pay to them, the more empowered they [or their cause] get[s]. And it seems for every troll we smack down, well gosh darn it, another one pops up! At least it'll remove this clown, though.

Unfortunately, there remains a market for this tripe. As long as the market remains, I'm afraid folks like Santilli [and/or those of his ilk] shall persist in one form or another.

Attempts to stifle, shut out or remove such 'vile-speak' will almost certainly not extinguish it, not in the long-term. To the contrary, any such attempts will likely only stoke flames and/or be leveraged as yet another partisan ploy.
Last edited by Belligerent Savant on Sat May 25, 2013 7:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5575
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Could somebody please explain Benghazi to me?!

Postby Jerky » Sat May 25, 2013 6:22 pm

Wow, BelSav. You're so cool and intellectual and above-it-all! Can I suck your surely massive cock? Please? With sugar on top?

Jerky
User avatar
Jerky
 
Posts: 2240
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 6:28 pm
Location: Toronto, ON
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Could somebody please explain Benghazi to me?!

Postby compared2what? » Sat May 25, 2013 7:06 pm

Belligerent Savant » Sat May 25, 2013 5:08 pm wrote:.
As game as you seem to be in engaging in this back-and-forth 'dialogue', I'm going to pass on participating.... ahh, F it. I'll participate for just a bit.


I appreciate it. Also, apologies. I didn't think we were going to go three rounds on it. It was more like: You said something that didn't make sense to me. I asked a question..

I have little interest and/or intellectual/emotional investment in the GOP's partisan campaign. Both sides are guilty of partisan politics. One can argue that one side [the GOP] takes part in chicanery at a more voluminous clip than the other side, or is 'dirtier' than the other side when partaking in such partisan play. Regardless, it's ALL to the detriment of the taxpayer. Both parties suck. One may like to argue that a certain party sucks less than the other. Fine. You're well within your rights to stake such a claim.


I don't really think about it in those terms. It's more that I object to the promulgation of hatred for women, gays, blacks, immigrants, Muslims, the poor, the dispossessed, and the different, And I happen to be alive now.

As far as I do think about it, I guess I agree that they both suck, though.

The thing is that one of the reasons that any kind of nonsense gets enough attention from listeners for the person spewing it to be a radio personality is that it speaks for them in a way that they find appealing. So I'd say that whenever someone expresses hostility to any woman by threatening to shoot her in the vagina, it's a cause for real concern to all people with vaginas At a minimum. But possibly to others, as well..


I don't disagree with that. There are some vile humans among us. What are we to do about them, or more specifically, this particularly vile example of a fellow human? Shall we fine him, or have him fired? Similar to trolls, the more attention we pay to them, the more empowered they [or their cause] get[s]. And it seems for every troll we smack down, well gosh darn it, another one pops up! Unfortunately, there remains a market for this tripe. As long as the market remains, I'm afraid folks like Santilli [and/or those of his ilk] shall persist in one form or another.

Attempts to stifle, shut out or remove such 'vile-speak' will almost certainly not extinguish it, not in the long-term. To the contrary, any such attempts will likely only stoke flames and/or be leveraged as yet another partisan ploy.


But they do that anyway. So remaining silent would just be letting the terrorists win, And since blaming it on the people who object to it would be assisting them, I say, what the hell. Object.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Could somebody please explain Benghazi to me?!

Postby Canadian_watcher » Sat May 25, 2013 7:14 pm

Jerky » Sat May 25, 2013 5:22 pm wrote:Wow, BelSav. You're so cool and intellectual and above-it-all! Can I suck your surely massive cock? Please? With sugar on top?

Jerky


wwwwwwwwwwwwhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaattttt, the ffffffffffffffffffffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucccccccccccckkkkkkkkkkkkk?
Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own.-- Jonathan Swift

When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him. -- Jonathan Swift
User avatar
Canadian_watcher
 
Posts: 3706
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:30 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Could somebody please explain Benghazi to me?!

Postby Belligerent Savant » Sat May 25, 2013 7:15 pm

.

So remaining silent would just be letting the terrorists win, And since blaming it on the people who object to it would be assisting them, I say, what the hell. Object.


Right. Object.
I object as well.

We agree to object to such crap.

Now what? Fine him? Fire him? Sure. Let's do that too.

And Now what?

Talk about it in this forum? Is that helping remove such blights?

[primarily rhetorical -- it's loathsome, and by all means it needs to be made clear that such commentary is loathsome. And surely the majority of those that listened to the 'shoot her vagina' comment reacted similarly to you et al., and as such proceeded to discuss it -- in forums, blogs, perhaps public radio, perhaps filing formal complaints, etc... which unfortunately serves the dual purpose of feeding the troll, yet the very few vermin that may agree with such a comment won't be persuaded by any backlash]
Last edited by Belligerent Savant on Sat May 25, 2013 7:33 pm, edited 6 times in total.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5575
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Could somebody please explain Benghazi to me?!

Postby Jerky » Sat May 25, 2013 7:17 pm

Oh, and I suppose YOU have never experienced an intense physical attraction to slash uncontrollable desire to orally copulate with a brilliantly insightful intellectual Bad Boy before.

Shyaright!

Jerky

Canadian_watcher » 25 May 2013 23:14 wrote:
Jerky » Sat May 25, 2013 5:22 pm wrote:Wow, BelSav. You're so cool and intellectual and above-it-all! Can I suck your surely massive cock? Please? With sugar on top?

Jerky


wwwwwwwwwwwwhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaattttt, the ffffffffffffffffffffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucccccccccccckkkkkkkkkkkkk?
User avatar
Jerky
 
Posts: 2240
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 6:28 pm
Location: Toronto, ON
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Could somebody please explain Benghazi to me?!

Postby KeenInsight » Sat May 25, 2013 9:28 pm

Politicians lying to save face? What else is new
User avatar
KeenInsight
 
Posts: 663
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 4:17 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Could somebody please explain Benghazi to me?!

Postby compared2what? » Sat May 25, 2013 9:38 pm

Belligerent Savant » Sat May 25, 2013 6:15 pm wrote:.


We agree to object to such crap.

Now what? Fine him? Fire him? Sure. Let's do that too.


If you like. I'm pro-speech, though.

And Now what?

Talk about it in this forum? Is that helping remove such blights?


It reduces their power. And has, considerably, in my lifetime. Removal would take everybody. Kind of like the right/left paradigm, except better-suited to progress via talk.

[primarily rhetorical -- it's loathsome, and by all means it needs to be made clear that such commentary is loathsome. And surely the majority of those that listened to the 'shoot her vagina' comment reacted similarly to you et al., and as such proceeded to discuss it -- in forums,[ blogs, perhaps public radio, perhaps filing formal complaints, etc... which unfortunately serves the dual purpose of feeding the troll, yet the very few vermin that may agree with such a comment won't be persuaded by any backlash]


I don't know about that "majority" and "very few." That's not really how culturally normative hatreds work. It's more like they're always there latently, as long as the culture is, but only there actively to the extent the cultural norm tolerates. Which is why talking about them makes a difference for the better.

I don't understand the feeding-the-troll argument. It's true that some people can't be persuaded not to be haters. But haters gonna hate, whether or not anybody objects. So I'm lost..
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Could somebody please explain Benghazi to me?!

Postby Belligerent Savant » Sat May 25, 2013 10:21 pm

I don't understand the feeding-the-troll argument. It's true that some people can't be persuaded not to be haters. But haters gonna hate, whether or not anybody objects. So I'm lost..
.

This guy Santilli's on the radio, right? Part of his 'schtick' is to inflame/initiate a reaction/garner attention, right?

His comments garner more publicity. Jury's out regarding how much he truly believes in whatever it is he says [there are aholes out there that say things simply to generate a reaction.. AKA shit-stirrers -- I'm sure that's a novel concept 'round these parts. If there's money to be made from it, you can multiply that by orders of magnitude. it's moot whether or not they may actually believe in whatever it is they're spewing at any given moment]. But he sure as hell is generating publicity. I don't even listen to "talk" radio AT ALL -- never heard of this guy before -- yet here I am talking about him on a public forum.

Any publicity's good publicity, no?

As far as "the majority" or "the few" -- I would certainly say "the majority" of the citizenry would object to any references alluding to 'shooting vaginas', even if said vagina belonged to Hillary. Now, if we're talking about "the majority" of those that regularly listen to his program, that may indeed be different. Different demographic/mindset, needless to say. You ain't changing any of their minds --- but that goes back to an earlier point I previously made, so now we're getting circular.... not to mention straying from the original thread, a topic that I don't care to talk about in the first place. Ain't that somethin'? Shoulda just excused myself some time ago.

Well: as y'all were. Back to your previously scheduled programming.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5575
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Could somebody please explain Benghazi to me?!

Postby stillrobertpaulsen » Thu Aug 01, 2013 6:45 pm

I wonder how the Teavangelicals will spin this tidbit into their Obama Made Benghazi Happen On Purpose narrative or whatever the hell they're trying to shill. Obama is actually a CIA mole? Who knows what fevered hallucinations plague their hard-on-for-supply-side-jesus minds.

August 1st, 2013
05:00 PM ET
Exclusive: Dozens of CIA operatives on the ground during Benghazi attack

CNN has uncovered exclusive new information about what is allegedly happening at the CIA, in the wake of the deadly Benghazi terror attack.

Four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were killed in the assault by armed militants last September 11 in eastern Libya.

Sources now tell CNN dozens of people working for the CIA were on the ground that night, and that the agency is going to great lengths to make sure whatever it was doing, remains a secret.

CNN has learned the CIA is involved in what one source calls an unprecedented attempt to keep the spy agency's Benghazi secrets from ever leaking out.

Read: Analysis: CIA role in Benghazi underreported

Since January, some CIA operatives involved in the agency's missions in Libya, have been subjected to frequent, even monthly polygraph examinations, according to a source with deep inside knowledge of the agency's workings.

The goal of the questioning, according to sources, is to find out if anyone is talking to the media or Congress.

It is being described as pure intimidation, with the threat that any unauthorized CIA employee who leaks information could face the end of his or her career.

In exclusive communications obtained by CNN, one insider writes, "You don't jeopardize yourself, you jeopardize your family as well."

Another says, "You have no idea the amount of pressure being brought to bear on anyone with knowledge of this operation."

"Agency employees typically are polygraphed every three to four years. Never more than that," said former CIA operative and CNN analyst Robert Baer.

In other words, the rate of the kind of polygraphs alleged by sources is rare.

"If somebody is being polygraphed every month, or every two months it's called an issue polygraph, and that means that the polygraph division suspects something, or they're looking for something, or they're on a fishing expedition. But it's absolutely not routine at all to be polygraphed monthly, or bi-monthly," said Baer.

CIA spokesman Dean Boyd asserted in a statement that the agency has been open with Congress.

"The CIA has worked closely with its oversight committees to provide them with an extraordinary amount of information related to the attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi," the statement said.

"CIA employees are always free to speak to Congress if they want," the statement continued. "The CIA enabled all officers involved in Benghazi the opportunity to meet with Congress. We are not aware of any CIA employee who has experienced retaliation, including any non-routine security procedures, or who has been prevented from sharing a concern with Congress about the Benghazi incident."

Among the many secrets still yet to be told about the Benghazi mission, is just how many Americans were there the night of the attack.

A source now tells CNN that number was 35, with as many as seven wounded, some seriously.

While it is still not known how many of them were CIA, a source tells CNN that 21 Americans were working in the building known as the annex, believed to be run by the agency.

The lack of information and pressure to silence CIA operatives is disturbing to U.S. Rep. Frank Wolf, whose district includes CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

"I think it is a form of a cover-up, and I think it's an attempt to push it under the rug, and I think the American people are feeling the same way," said the Republican.

"We should have the people who were on the scene come in, testify under oath, do it publicly, and lay it out. And there really isn't any national security issue involved with regards to that," he said.

Wolf has repeatedly gone to the House floor, asking for a select committee to be set-up, a Watergate-style probe involving several intelligence committee investigators assigned to get to the bottom of the failures that took place in Benghazi, and find out just what the State Department and CIA were doing there.

More than 150 fellow Republican members of Congress have signed his request, and just this week eight Republicans sent a letter to the new head of the FBI, James Comey, asking that he brief Congress within 30 days.

Read: White House releases 100 pages of Benghazi e-mails

In the aftermath of the attack, Wolf said he was contacted by people closely tied with CIA operatives and contractors who wanted to talk.

Then suddenly, there was silence.

"Initially they were not afraid to come forward. They wanted the opportunity, and they wanted to be subpoenaed, because if you're subpoenaed, it sort of protects you, you're forced to come before Congress. Now that's all changed," said Wolf.

Lawmakers also want to about know the weapons in Libya, and what happened to them.

Speculation on Capitol Hill has included the possibility the U.S. agencies operating in Benghazi were secretly helping to move surface-to-air missiles out of Libya, through Turkey, and into the hands of Syrian rebels.

It is clear that two U.S. agencies were operating in Benghazi, one was the State Department, and the other was the CIA.

The State Department told CNN in an e-mail that it was only helping the new Libyan government destroy weapons deemed "damaged, aged or too unsafe retain," and that it was not involved in any transfer of weapons to other countries.

But the State Department also clearly told CNN, they "can't speak for any other agencies."

The CIA would not comment on whether it was involved in the transfer of any weapons.
User avatar
stillrobertpaulsen
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:43 pm
Location: Gone baby gone
Blog: View Blog (37)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 175 guests