Obama Knew Benghazi Was a Terrorist Attack Within Three Days, But Continued to Cover Up

Originally posted by CB328
This is the stupidest "scandal" in the history of humanity. Why the hell does it matter what you call an attack?

Only hyper-partisan retarded morons would be up in arms about this.

Ignorance is all I see when I read your post here.

Ignorance not worthy of a response but I just wanted to point it out.

You're an Obama supporter, no wonder.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by charles1952

 

Cui bono.
(Who benefits)

Who benefitted from the lie?

Did Obama benefit?

Did aspects within our government benefit?

What long-term goals were acheived by the lie?

These are the questions I'm asking.

Good questions Beezer. What benefit to lie? There is not a clear answer as to that question.

CJ

Originally posted by zroth

Aren't all "radical islamists" sympathetic to Al-Qaeda and therefore Terrorist/Communists/Boogeyman?

Obviously I am encouraging some thought here; however the current foreign policies of America claim this is true in order to justify occupation and mass murders by drone.

So how is anything a cover-up? It is all clearly stated by the 4th branch, our media.

Why are people constantly looking for answers they already have?

Seriously? When these attacks were first known to the American public we were led to believe it was because of some protests over a stupid Anti Islam movie. Turns out there was never a protest only a terrorist attack. But the fact the White House played dumb when they knew full well there were never protesters just terrorists is amazing and should make you want to question why. Why would the White House play dumb and blame it on a YouTube video clip? Funny thing about that clip, the whole thing started in Libya and Egypt, according to our MSM and the White House. Protests gone wrong, right? Turns out the protests in Egypt that day had NOTHING to do with that movie instead they were over the imprisonment of the Blind Cleric. CNN was there in Egypt reporting it was over a movie when in fact they knew it was over the Blind Cleric.

Funny thing is 17 other Muslim countries would later protest that stupid movie and the only reason why they knew about it was because US MSM & Gov't were making such a big deal about it. Their lies spread rioting protests in the Muslim world & gave Muslims, especially Arab Muslims, another reason to hate America. See how dangerous the media and Gov't are?

Originally posted by Swills
See how dangerous the media and Gov't is?

I already stated that in my post.

Media is the 4th branch of the gov't.

People are only up in arms because of the media.

Originally posted by zroth

Originally posted by Swills
See how dangerous the media and Gov't is?

I already stated that in my post.

Media is the 4th branch of the gov't.

People are only up in arms because of the media.

I have no idea what you're saying. You admit the media is basically state run propaganda yet you don't see this whole affair as a cover up by the media and their masters?

Originally posted by Swills

Originally posted by zroth

Originally posted by Swills
See how dangerous the media and Gov't is?

I already stated that in my post.

Media is the 4th branch of the gov't.

People are only up in arms because of the media.

I have no idea what you're saying. You admit the media is basically state run propaganda yet you don't see this whole affair as a cover up by the media and their masters?

Here is what I am saying very simply.

The media, which is corporate owned, tells America what to believe. They also pay for candidates to be in office.

The media has been telling Americans that all Muslims are terrorists since 9.11.

This means that any Muslim that "attacks" any American managed location is a terrorist attack.

The opinion is already preinstalled by the media.

You cannot have a cover-up when the public opinion is designed before any incident.

The only reason people are upset about this incident is because the right owned media tried to use it for political leverage, prior to the election.

Since there was so much emotion attached by a large number of people, there is still a condition of unresolved conflict.

People are still processing the programming that the MSM installed. It has to run its course.

reply to post by zroth


I agree with everything you said but they are clearly covering this up, the White House especially. Bottom line is Washington knew about past terrorist attacks on that very compound, knew about threats made against it and the Stevens, denied them security they requested, knew 9/11's ten year anniversary was coming, and let the attack happen while trying to blame it on a stupid movie that was based off of complete lies. The whole anti Muslim movie was a sham brought to us by the media and DC. While the attacks on Benghazi were doing down they had US surveillance drones overhead broadcasting live feed.

So yes, we are conditioned to believe the brown people who love Allah are terrorists but they are clearly covering up the truth and continue to do so.

reply to post by Stormdancer777


You mean idiots that dont know what "fall guy" means, when working with them......

reply to post by zroth

I think I have a slightly different take on things than you do.

The media has been telling Americans that all Muslims are terrorists since 9.11.

This may be an exaggeration. Our media isn't so monolithic, you can't get the same story from them even if it's about the White House Easter egg hunt. It also seems, at least to me, that the majority of news outlets try to shield Islam as much as possible. In any event, I don't know of evidence indicating that "hate crimes" against Muslims have been increasing year after year, do you? If the idea of the media instilling hate for the last dozen years was correct, I'd expect to see lynch mobs and killings every day.

This means that any Muslim that "attacks" any American managed location is a terrorist attack.

But the president said it wasn't a terrorist attack and repeated that over and over.

The only reason people are upset about this incident is because the right owned media tried to use it for political leverage, prior to the election.

I believe the upset is because the President was lying about the deaths of an ambassador and three others. By "right owned media" do you mean that the press in this country leans to the right and presents that bias in their news coverage? If so, you won't find many people, or much evidence, supporting that position.

Since there was so much emotion attached by a large number of people, there is still a condition of unresolved conflict.

May I suggest that the conflict is unresolved because the President is refusing to supply the facts which would resolve it?

Romney said he was mad because Obama didn't say the words "terrorist attack", so again this is just partisan stupidity with no bearing on anything.

Originally posted by CB328
Romney said he was mad because Obama didn't say the words "terrorist attack", so again this is just partisan stupidity with no bearing on anything.

Oh I see, because Romney says something that must means Washington DC isn't covering up allowing a terrorist act to happen on 9/11's ten year anniversary.

Originally posted by Swills

Originally posted by CB328
This is the stupidest "scandal" in the history of humanity. Why the hell does it matter what you call an attack?

Only hyper-partisan retarded morons would be up in arms about this.

Ignorance is all I see when I read your post here.

Ignorance not worthy of a response but I just wanted to point it out.

You're an Obama supporter, no wonder.

Honestly Swills, you further bolstered his point with your final sentence. This is political, no matter how you try to spin it.

Only the attackers, whoever they were, are worthy of any real blame. Everything after that is purely political.

Arguing over whether it was an attack, or a 'terrorist' attack is semantics, and it isn't going to bring anyone actually responsible for the "attack" (

Originally posted by Sek82

Originally posted by Swills

Originally posted by CB328
This is the stupidest "scandal" in the history of humanity. Why the hell does it matter what you call an attack?

Only hyper-partisan retarded morons would be up in arms about this.

Ignorance is all I see when I read your post here.

Ignorance not worthy of a response but I just wanted to point it out.

You're an Obama supporter, no wonder.

Honestly Swills, you further bolstered his point with your final sentence. This is political, no matter how you try to spin it.

Only the attackers, whoever they were, are worthy of any real blame. Everything after that is purely political.

Arguing over whether it was an attack, or a 'terrorist' attack is semantics, and it isn't going to bring anyone actually responsible for the "attack" (

Originally posted by Stormdancer777

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by beezzer

How does enabling an islamic faction benefit the president?

This administration is either clueless, or cold calculating.

edit on 17-11-2012 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)

I am going to say cold and calculating with a bunch of clueless useful idiots working for them.

Sounds about right. Then again, we had that example for 8 years prior to Obama too...

CJ

To those of you deflecting from the seriousness of this event.

******Killing an ambassador is an act of war. ******

>>>>>>Willfully refusing help to American's under attack is an act of treason.

Originally posted by Swills

Originally posted by CB328
This is the stupidest "scandal" in the history of humanity. Why the hell does it matter what you call an attack?

Only hyper-partisan retarded morons would be up in arms about this.

Ignorance is all I see when I read your post here.

Ignorance not worthy of a response but I just wanted to point it out.

You're an Obama supporter, no wonder.

What he said is the damned truth, but you people are so delusional you don't realize it.
You're just accusing Obama of everything you can think of and hope something sticks....except you believe your own accusations, despite no evidence.

and I didn't vote for Obama....before you go there.

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
To those of you deflecting from the seriousness of this event.

******Killing an ambassador is an act of war. ******

>>>>>>Willfully refusing help to American's under attack is an act of treason.

Originally posted by MsAphrodite

******Killing an ambassador is an act of war. ******

>>>>>>Willfully refusing help to American's under attack is an act of treason.

reply to post by Ghost375


Could you provide us a link for when Obama went to congress for us to go to war?

For you second assertion, proof please? The attack lasted seven hours.

Originally posted by ColoradoJens

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
To those of you deflecting from the seriousness of this event.

******Killing an ambassador is an act of war. ******

>>>>>>Willfully refusing help to American's under attack is an act of treason.