Bengaaaazzziiiiiiiii. !!!!!!!!

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I'm still perplexed why some can't fathom that the video protests in Cairo and other cities inspired the militants to attack a US presence they'd been itching to get at for months...

it's not perplexing...they didn't need video motivation as you stated, they'd been itching.....which is why blaming the video and it's source is stupid....you answered your own perplexion

but Spence, if a left wing group produces a video depicting Tea Party members in all sorts compromising and unsavory acts and members of a Tea Party group get offended and ransack a DNC office...maybe kill a few people...are you willing to blame the video and would you want the video makers jailed? will it perplex you if people blame the video and makers rather than the Tea Party members for the damage and death?

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

it's not perplexing...they didn't need video motivation as you stated, they'd been itching.....which is why blaming the video and it's source is stupid....you answered your own perplexion

Then why didn't they attack in scale before? Why wasn't it well planned? Why did many attackers cite the video as their motivation?

Sorry but you can't take the video out of the equation.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Then why didn't they attack in scale before? irrelevant Why wasn't it well planned? irrelevant Why did many attackers cite the video as their motivation? irrelevant

Sorry but you can't take the video out of the equation.

the video is irrelevant to the equation....it was nothing more than a smoke screen for the killers and the administration

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

the video is irrelevant to the equation....it was nothing more than a smoke screen for the killers and the administration

I see, so it's just because you say so. Right.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Then why didn't they attack in scale before?

Are you serious? "They" have and were attacking "in scale" well before the video.

Why wasn't it well planned?

Ok. This is still getting confusing and in the mode of constant change. Is the current thinking-investigation-talking point-whatever that it was not well planned? And what does well planned mean? Planned but not well? Not planned at all? Even though they were "itching" to attack? Hey--if they were itching to attack, and 9/11 just popped up unexpectedly, not giving them time to plan an attack, couldn't they "spontaneously" make an unplanned attack even if the video didn't exist? Was the video necessary to make it spontaneous? And if the video was necessary, how spontaneous is that. The video was (erroneously) blamed for previous attacks elsewhere. Then how would it be "spontaneous" if it was the cause of a chain of previous attacks? Seems, in that case, it would just be more of an expected reaction.

Why did many attackers cite the video as their motivation?

I could think of several reasons, including covering up senseless killing and mayhem by providing a "reason" to justify it. Lying is often use to cover up mistakes or evil.

Sorry but you can't take the video out of the equation.

The video is, obviously, not out of the equation. Or, more accurately, out of various equations, only one of which can be true--except in a relative world, in which case all things are true and what would be the point of arguing about it?

If we have an equation where after the equal sign there must be the attack, and we use Occam's razor of the simplest explanation, what can be left out of causes before the equal sign and still have the result? If we took the video out of the equation would the result still be valid. Yes.

Which puts in question what is the purpose of putting the video into the equation? It could be used to facilitate a circumstance that would occur wthout the use of it. Just as all evil will be justified by some excuse to make it appear as good. Or to cover up that which incriminates.

If the video was used, it was obviously done so to somehow make sensible, excuse, what otherwise might be seen by the world as senseless violence (even though, to the attackers ,it was not senseless without the video), or as a cover-up for the incompetence in not preventing the attack.

Making an issue of the video deflects from the ignorant incompetence of the administration.

And promising to prosecute the maker of the video even though it was not illegal raises the level of incompetence to psychopathic justification for it.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Making an issue of the video deflects from the ignorant incompetence of the administration.

And promising to prosecute the maker of the video even though it was not illegal raises the level of incompetence to psychopathic justification for it.

yup...and deflects blame from those that actually did the attacking and killing

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If we have an equation where after the equal sign there must be the attack, and we use Occam's razor of the simplest explanation, what can be left out of causes before the equal sign and still have the result? If we took the video out of the equation would the result still be valid. Yes.

You're making an assumption that the attack would have happened at the same time and same veracity regardless. That's a big assumption not supported by any facts...which greatly complicates your equation.

Occam's Razor = FAIL

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

You're making an assumption that the attack would have happened at the same time and same veracity regardless. That's a big assumption not supported by any facts...which greatly complicates your equation.

Occam's Razor = FAIL

it was September 11th...nothing ever happened that was related on September 11th

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

it was September 11th...nothing ever happened that was related on September 11th

You're making more assumptions and complicating Detbuch's equation.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

You're making more assumptions and complicating Detbuch's equation.

people like to celebrate anniversaries

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

You're making more assumptions and complicating Detbuch's equation.

Here's what is not an assumption.

(1) other nations, as well as the Red Cross, were aware that Benghazi was too dangerous to safely keep their people there, so they were evacuated. Clinton's State Dept didn't come to the same conclusion.

(2) Stevens, sensing the danger, made many requests for extra security that were denied.

It would appear that the State Dept really screwed this up, and left those people up the creek without a paddle.

She was in charge, was she not?

[Doover]

Originally Posted by spence

Then why didn't they attack in scale before? Why wasn't it well planned? Why did many attackers cite the video as their motivation?

Sorry but you can't take the video out of the equation.

Jeepers? That video only had a handful of hits up until the night of the attack.
That video, AFTER the Administration viewed it and settled on it and THEN presented it to the World as the cause of the deadly Benghazi attack, then had MANY views.

Why has there been no OTHER attacks on OUR interests related to THIS video?

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

Then why didn't they attack in scale before? Why wasn't it well planned? Why did many attackers cite the video as their motivation?

Sorry but you can't take the video out of the equation.

In Libya? Video had nothing to do with it. The leaser of the attackers blamed that after he was caught, the Guv's investigation determined the video was not the instigator but the attack was planned for the Sept 11th anniversary.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

In Libya? Video had nothing to do with it. The leaser of the attackers blamed that after he was caught, the Guv's investigation determined the video was not the instigator but the attack was planned for the Sept 11th anniversary.

I've read through all the reports and never seen that finding stated explicitly.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I've read through all the reports and never seen that finding stated explicitly.

Did you read that every time she changed her story, it was after receiving a report that a reasonable person would conclude was more credible, than the previous one? You must have, because that's what you keep insisting she did.

You're saying that every time she flip-flopped, it had nothing to do with avoiding guilt, but rather, she was always reacting to the most current, most credible, report?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Did you read that every time she changed her story, it was after receiving a report that a reasonable person would conclude was more credible, than the previous one? You must have, because that's what you keep insisting she did.

The focus of her remarks follows quite closely what the CIA was giving the State Department at the time, yet it does...

I don't see how the email to her daughter is even contradictory to anything. She just said there was an attack. There was...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The focus of her remarks follows quite closely what the CIA was giving the State Department at the time, yet it does...

I don't see how the email to her daughter is even contradictory to anything. She just said there was an attack. There was...

Can you post something to support your statement that she was always relying on the latest CIA report? The CIA flip-flops dovetailed with her flip-flops? The CIA flip-flopped as many times as she did? And all those flip-flops from CIA, were timed perfectly, so that she never had to say in public that it was a planned terrorist attack? Boy, what good fortune for her.

The email to her daughter, I thought, stated that it was a pre-planned terrorist attack, which is contradictory to the theory that it ws a spontaneous reaction to the video.