You said it was good to put focus on the video, what else is that suppose to mean?
You should have blamed the radicals 100%
It means at the time we were talking about the video a lot. If you condemn the video it helps to calm the crazies. It doesn't justify the actions.
You freaks are acting like the video never existed and never caused wide spread outrage across the globe.
I blame the radicals for the violence. I note the video as a contributing factor.
Sometimes PR is doing the best thing for everyone, not the thing that best for rational people.
Oh I forgot. No apologies.
Did you leave the world between 9/10-917?
I had to check. You were here making profound statements about it.
Respect for the dead vs Loyalty to Fox News? I think you broke the right way. (pun intended)
Hack
Condemning the video = condemning free speech
The video isn't a contributing factor, its not the videos fault they cant handle criticism, these people cant act like decent people and start behaving like animals because their prophet was insulted. Well too bad thats free speech. They could have made their own video
You are an idiot. Commenting on a picture is not disrespecting the dead. Blaming the deaths on a YouTube video is.
You are an idiot. Commenting on a picture is not disrespecting the dead.
Blaming the deaths on a YouTube video is.
Justify it how you want, you were a good Fox Loyalist and should feel proud.
FUCKING stop strawmanning me.
I never blamed the deaths on a youtube video.
I would say it contributed to a climate that allowed radical freaks to take advantage of the situation. I would equate it to KKK hate speech contributing to a lynching. You can't stop it but you can condemn it and state that it was a factor in some freak/groups action.
Kind of like I can say rape speech contributed to a few senators losing their elections. Am I blaming their right to speak about rape (free speech) for them losing? No that's not logical. Did it contribute to their losses? Yes that is logical.
Man you guys are dense.
Justify it how you want, you were a good Fox Loyalist and should feel proud.
FUCKING stop strawmanning me.
I never blamed the deaths on a youtube video.
I would say it contributed to a climate that allowed radical freaks to take advantage of the situation. I would equate it to KKK hate speech contributing to a lynching. You can't stop it but you can condemn it and state that it was a factor in some freak/groups action.
Kind of like I can say rape speech contributed to a few senators losing their elections. Am I blaming their right to speak about rape (free speech) for them losing? No that's not logical. Did it contribute to their losses? Yes that is logical.
Man you guys are dense.
You dont condemn free speech. Those people died defending our embassy against people that wished to do the US harm, not against people who were protesting someone exercising one of their Liberties.
The radicals were the only ones to blame, you can spend all day saying the video contributed in even a small way but I disagree with you and these radicals are the only ones to blame
You don’t condemn free speech.
Those people died defending our embassy against people that wished to do the US harm, not against people who were protesting someone exercising one of their Liberties.
You dont condemn free speech. Those people died defending our embassy against people that wished to do the US harm, not against people who were protesting someone exercising one of their Liberties.
I see fox news and some of my conservative associates go on and on about Benghazi, but for the life of me I cant see what the supposed conspiracy is based on. Usually a conspiracy is based on a motive, ie "Bush the oil man wants Iraq's oil". In the case of Behghazi, it seems to me that Republicans noticed that there were some conflicting messages coming out of the state department over the motives for the embassy attack, and started constructing a conspiracy around that. Given the proximity of the Libya attack with the Egyptian embassy attack that supposedly WAS related to the video, it doesn't seem all that implausible to assume they were related, though the state department should not operate off assumptions. What concrete facts have come out so far that suggests that this is some kind of cover up, as opposed to simply negligence? Also, do you believe that fox news being the only news organization to relentlessly cover this confirms their claims of a liberal media bias, or is fox news simply driving a story it's readers would like to believe?
If someone has to explain it to you, you probably won't get it.
If someone has to explain it to you, you probably won't get it.
you are a true piece of shit.
That's because there's nothing there to get, otherwise you'd be able to explain it.
As I posted much earlier in this thread, 1. perps interviewed at the time stated they attacked over the video.
Who ya gonna believe- them, or our own armchair quarterback political partisans desperate for an attack venue?
Security was inadequate? Admittedly so, and 2. only in retrospect. That happens when situations go from dead calm to deadly w/o warning.
Embassy personnel asked for more security? So did every other swingin' dick in the State Dept, 3. but it was unavailable due in part to funding constraints invoked by the very people criticizing the lack of security. Nail their foot to the floor, blame them when they can't run.
Righties need some new outrage, 4. because the effects of this one are wearing off, rightfully so, given that it was contrived bullshit all along.
Wow, a grand slam home run!
Lied 4 times in a single post! You rock.
That's because there's nothing there to get, otherwise you'd be able to explain it.
As I posted much earlier in this thread, perps interviewed at the time stated they attacked over the video.
Who ya gonna believe- them, or our own armchair quarterback political partisans desperate for an attack venue?
Security was inadequate? Admittedly so, and only in retrospect. That happens when situations go from dead calm to deadly w/o warning.
Embassy personnel asked for more security? So did every other swingin' dick in the State Dept, but it was unavailable due in part to funding constraints invoked by the very people criticizing the lack of security. Nail their foot to the floor, blame them when they can't run.
Righties need some new outrage, because the effects of this one are wearing off, rightfully so, given that it was contrived bullshit all along.
Wow, a grand slam home run!
Lied 4 times in a single post! You rock.
Heh. Motivated reasoning by one of our resident ravers comes to the fore.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/w...estigation.html?_r=1&ref=world&pagewanted=all
Yeh, I know, only Faux News tells the truth...
“I think that Benghazi generally was hyped, by this network especially. And now that the campaign is over, I think [Sen. John McCain] is backing off a little bit. They’re not going to stop Susan Rice from being Secretary of State,” added Ricks in response to Jon Scott's query.
Then John Scott tried futilely to push back on the accusation that Fox News "hyped" the attack. “When you have four people dead, including the first U.S. ambassador in more than 30 years, how do you call that hype?”
Tom Ricks snapped back at Jon Scott, “How many security contractors died in Iraq? Do you know?” Ricks replied.
“I don’t,” Scott said.
“No, nobody does, because nobody cared. We know that several hundred died, but there was never an official count done of security contractors dead in Iraq.
So when I say this focus on what was essentially a small fire-fight, I think, number one, I’ve covered a lot of fire-fights, it is impossible to figure out what happens in them sometimes,” said Tom Ricks who then slammed Fox News again for their Benghazi coverage.
“And second, I think that the emphasis on Benghazi has been extremely political, partly because Fox News was operating as a wing of the Republican Party."
After that, Jon Scott quickly wrapped up the interview.
"Alright, Tom Ricks. Thanks very much for joining us today," Scott said.
“You’re welcome,” Ricks replied.