Bengaaaazzziiiiiiiii. !!!!!!!!

[detbuch]

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.

No I am not making such an assumption. I am assuming that if we set up a system of verbal equations re attacks by al Qaeda, each with combinations of different known or assumed causes on the left hand side of the equations, but each with the same known constant result on the right hand side=an attack by al Qaeda--and there was included a constant variable in all the left hand sides of the equations but the other causative variables differed from equation to equation, were not constant, then the constant one could be assumed to be the basic and necessary cause. The others being peripheral, or not even true.

The video would be an assumed variable in very few of the known al Qaeda attacks. Ergo, assuming the constant variable was necessary to all of al Qaeda attacks, the video does not have to be considered as a reason for the Benghazi attack. It would not be necessary for the attack to occur. And wouldn't have to be considered a "veracity" as a reason for the attack, even if some of the participants said it was. They haven't been vetted. We don't know if they were truthful. Or even if they really exist. If they do, and if they were ginned up to it by al Qaeda operatives, they would be more tools in the attack rather than merely spontaneous let's have a party and go kill Americans because of a video we were told about (by al Qaeda operatives) types. But the video can fit into an equation which explores not actual reasons for the attack, but cosmetic justifications for it.

It can be used as lipstick on a pig. The pig being a brutal massacre of not only innocent beings, but those who, as you claim, are loved and supported by the Libyan people. Or the pig being failed policy which made possible the massacre.

And I still wonder what you think about Hillary's promise to prosecute the video maker as a result of something that is not illegal. Or about Hillary's role in creating a vacuum for "extremists" by her recommendation to remove Qaddafi--which created vastly more of a condition for the Benghazi massacre than the video could. And how she is any better than Bush was in his removal of Saddam.

[scottw]

if you replace the video with some other source of blame...like the anniversary of 9/11....some guy drawing a cartoon somewhere....a guy in Texas burning a stack of Korans.....

would Hillary then have told the families of the victims she was going to arrest those responsible for the deaths?....which would be who? the folks that brought you 9/11??...a cartoonist??.....a guy burning Korans on the other side of the planet??

and would the administration and willing media the push those stories in order to deflect .......oh probably

future terrorist attackers should blame George Bush as the motivation for their actions and then we can enjoy the spectacle of President Shillary announcing that she's going to track down and jail the person responsible for the "tragedy"...George Bush....and that would just please a bunch of leftists to no end and probably make sense to them too...

bizarro world....

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

No I am not making such an assumption. I am assuming that if we set up a system of verbal equations re attacks by al Qaeda, each with combinations of different known or assumed causes on the left hand side of the equations, but each with the same known constant result on the right hand side=an attack by al Qaeda--and there was included a constant variable in all the left hand sides of the equations but the other causative variables differed from equation to equation, were not constant, then the constant one could be assumed to be the basic and necessary cause. The others being peripheral, or not even true.

The video would be an assumed variable in very few of the known al Qaeda attacks. Ergo, assuming the constant variable was necessary to all of al Qaeda attacks, the video does not have to be considered as a reason for the Benghazi attack. It would not be necessary for the attack to occur. And wouldn't have to be considered a "veracity" as a reason for the attack, even if some of the participants said it was. They haven't been vetted. We don't know if they were truthful. Or even if they really exist. If they do, and if they were ginned up to it by al Qaeda operatives, they would be more tools in the attack rather than merely spontaneous let's have a party and go kill Americans because of a video we were told about (by al Qaeda operatives) types. But the video can fit into an equation which explores not actual reasons for the attack, but cosmetic justifications for it.

Who ever said this was an alQaeda attack? More assumptions?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Who ever said this was an alQaeda attack? More assumptions?

Al Qaeda affiliates? That was not said? And what did you mean by not being able to leave the video out of the equation? What do you mean by an equation . . . a=c? No a+b=c, or a+b+x=c? That the video was the sole reason for the attack? Is that truly what you meant by saying that the video could not be left out of the equation?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Al Qaeda affiliates? That was not said? And what did you mean by not being able to leave the video out of the equation? What do you mean by an equation . . . a=c? No a+b=c, or a+b+x=c? That the video was the sole reason for the attack? Is that truly what you meant by saying that the video could not be left out of the equation?

I believe the investigation found the attackers were a diverse mix of militants, Gaddafi loyalists and angry locals. A few of which had some connection al Qaeda members. That's a LONG way from saying it was an affiliate...and even LONGER from suggesting that previous al Qaeda behavior should be used as any measure in trying to establish a motive for the attack.