An environmental question. — Anything Else on True Nudists

MemberOriginal Poster

May 10, 2013

Did al Qaida pay carbon credits for the attack and fire that they caused in Benghazi? Is that why they were allowed to get away with it?

ReactReplySubscribe

Replies

MA
ManOfWicklow
May 10, 2013
The Obama administration was trying to downplay terrorism ahead of the november election. Who really knows what cover ups were, and are still going on ?
ReactReply
DE
DesertRat
May 11, 2013
Radical Muslims play by a different set of rules than everyone else and no official in the US Government will call them out on it.
ReactReply
SO
Soupie
May 14, 2013
Were a 110,000 civilians killed in Iraq in a misguided war? Did Bush and Cheney plan 9/11? Are you people all nuts?
ReactReply
SO
Soupie
May 15, 2013
Did nothing just post something?
ReactReply
SO
Soupie
May 15, 2013
http://www.politicususa.com/bush-aides-935-false-statements-iraq-2-years-911.html

How do 4 deaths in Benghazi compare with the lies told about Iraq and the 110,000 civilians killed there? Or the 6500 service men and women? Now try and be rational and logical, and think about the numbers. How many more lives were lost by a deliberate misperception away from the Taliban and Al Queda to Iraq?
ReactReply
MA
ManOfWicklow
May 16, 2013
[quote]Did someone just post something?[/quote]I don't see any post since you last one, Gassy.
ReactReply
MA
ManOfWicklow
May 16, 2013
[quote]It looks as if someone may be trying to hijack this environmental thread, but then again I can't be sure.[/quote]Could be a moose on the loose. [img src="http://thesmokingnun.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/rsz_1funny-moose-wine-gadgets.jpg?w=140">
ReactReply
ME
MemberOriginal Poster
May 16, 2013
[quote]http://www.politicususa.com/bush-aides-935-false-statements-iraq-2-years-911.html

How do 4 deaths in Benghazi compare with the lies told about Iraq and the 110,000 civilians killed there? Or the 6500 service men and women? Now try and be rational and logical, and think about the numbers. How many more lives were lost by a deliberate misperception away from the Taliban and Al Queda to Iraq?[/quote]
Well, this dead horse has been beaten to death. But-12 years and 17 UN resolutions (give or take-just going off memory) seems like plenty of time for Saddam to have agreed to the conditions of his surrender before finally saying it's time to put an end to his regime-a cease fire agreement is just that-it ends the war as long as the loser agrees to and follows up on terms of surrender.
Of course, once we were in Iraq, al Qaida made it the battlefield in the war on terror; thus making the "Iraq War" not just a war against Saddam, but also one where islamist extremists went to die, instead of suicide bombs on planes and pressure cookers in Boston. It should really be referred to as TW I; or Terror War One.
It would be interesting to see a breakdown of who killed how many civilians, and compare to how that would be if the US and coalition forces were not among the aggressors. We tend to go to extreme measures in protecting innocents. Unlike those compassionate communists, terrorists and other dictators. Also, to see how quickly the war would have been over if there were no al Qaida.
ReactReply
ME
MemberOriginal Poster
May 16, 2013
One thing I have noticed across the web. Liberals are awfully silent about Benghazi. The IRS. The AP-although that one hits close to home for them.

Where's the outrage?
ReactReply
ME
MemberOriginal Poster
May 16, 2013
Back to Benghazi-this is important.
1.) Someone told a quick response team in Tripoli to stand down, early during the attack. Two of the four may have been saved otherwise. We don't know who issued that command.
2.) It is not clear what the president was doing during the seven hour siege.
3.) It is not clear what the secretary of state was doing during the seven hour siege.
4.) It is not clear who came up with the idea of declaring that this terrorist attack was not a terrorist attack. However, considering that Obama was eight weeks from re-election and a major feather in his campaign cap was the false claim that since UBL was dead, that the overseas contingency operation (properly known as the war on terror) was largely behind us; the truth of a terrorist victory in the form of an ambassador's scalp (the first since Carter was president) would be far too inconvenient and could indeed have swung the election. This begs the conclusion that maybe-just maybe-this was a political decision where re-election was the priority.
5.) Since the narrative of blaming it on a video was the lie to be told, it would be inexplicable to counterstrike on terrorists in Libya.
6.) Since the administration told the lie of blaming the attack on a video, they directly contradicted our friends in Libyan leadership-essentially calling them liars.
7.) Since the administration called the Libyan leadership liars, we were delayed in getting the FBI and other investigative teams into investigate. (and clean up any sensitive materials that may have been left behind.)
8.) Results are the direct consequences of action, including the decision to not act. The result of Benghazi so far are that al Qaida scored a major victory and the administration apparently made a conscious decision to not respond in kind. This and other weak positions creates a more dangerous world.
ReactReply
ME
MemberOriginal Poster
May 16, 2013
[quote]Were a 110,000 civilians killed in Iraq in a misguided war? Did Bush and Cheney plan 9/11? Are you people all nuts?[/quote]Let's come to the present day.
What should be done, Soupie, about the 80,000 dead in Syria? Including the crossing of Obama's red line regarding chemical weapons?
ReactReply
SO
Soupie
May 17, 2013
I would leave that decision up to the UN and not some renegade war declared by the U.S. We all know that hasn't worked out well in the past. What is your personal obligation to "fix" Syria? Do you have a long range plan?
ReactReply
DE
DesertRat
May 17, 2013
I don't think the US Government is capable of "fixing" anything, any where in the World. including the US itself. This comes from one who considers himself to be a patriot.
ReactReply
MA
ManOfWicklow
May 17, 2013
[quote]I don't think the US Government is capable of "fixing" anything, any where in the World. including the US itself. This comes from one who considers himself to be a patriot.[/quote]I agree with you. The problem is, majority of politicians don't give a damn about anything other than themselves. They do not care about the people who voted for them. They are in it for their own satifaction and profit. Nothing else matters to them. They will lie,cheat and steal, in order to achieve their own goal.
ReactReply
SO
Soupie
May 17, 2013
Bizarre. I agree with you both. But I don't blame Obama for that. Iraq is a great example of a useless and misguided war that bled the taxpayers as well as the victims. And as a senator, he didn't vote for that one.
ReactReply
FF
FF32404
May 17, 2013
[quote]Bizarre. I agree with you both. But I don't blame Obama for that. Iraq is a great example of a useless and misguided war that bled the taxpayers as well as the victims. And as a senator, he didn't vote for that one.[/quote]He wasn't a senator when it was voted on.
ReactReply
MA
ManOfWicklow
May 18, 2013
[img src="http://www.wordans.ca/wvc-1363737471/wordansfiles/images/2013/3/19/184170/184170_340.jpg">
ReactReply
JO
John
May 30, 2013
[quote]He may not have been there when it started, but he vehemently opposed it when he ran in 2008, and a part of his platform was to bring the troops home and get out. s.[/quote]Lol. He voted FOR every funding bill while he was a senator and they pulled out under the agreement that the Bush administration had been forced to sign to by the Maliki government, despite Obama desperately trying to extend the occupation.

Your man is a busted flush Soupie. The worst president ever. He's a smoother liar than Bush is the best thing that can be said about him. But that just makes him a bigger fraudster.
How anyone could openly support this regime is beyond me. Just the same as anyone who supported the Bush regime.
ReactReply
ME
MemberOriginal Poster
May 31, 2013
[quote][quote]He may not have been there when it started, but he vehemently opposed it when he ran in 2008, and a part of his platform was to bring the troops home and get out. s.[/quote]Lol. He voted FOR every funding bill while he was a senator and they pulled out under the agreement that the Bush administration had been forced to sign to by the Maliki government, despite Obama desperately trying to extend the occupation.

Your man is a busted flush Soupie. The worst president ever. He's a smoother liar than Bush is the best thing that can be said about him. But that just makes him a bigger fraudster.
How anyone could openly support this regime is beyond me. Just the same as anyone who supported the Bush regime.[/quote]
Ahhhh, nostalgia for fine leaders like Mao, Stalin, and Castro. "take off your banners the reactionary slogan a fair day's pay for a fair day's work and instead inscribe upon your banner the revolutionary watchword; the abolition of the wages system"
ReactReply
SO
Soupie
May 31, 2013
Where you got your hyperbolic and ridiculous assumptions of Marxism and Mao from the above quote is beyond comprehension. How does expressing contempt for the Bush and Obama regimes express a pure love of communism or socialism or the abolition of wages? You accuse me constantly of tangents, but you seem to spin off into orbit quite a lot.
ReactReply
ME
MemberOriginal Poster
May 31, 2013
[quote]Where you got your hyperbolic and ridiculous assumptions of Marxism and Mao from the above quote is beyond comprehension. How does expressing contempt for the Bush and Obama regimes express a pure love of communism or socialism or the abolition of wages? You accuse me constantly of tangents, but you seem to spin off into orbit quite a lot.[/quote]
Silly Soupie- Relax, buddy. The world doesn't revolve around you. I was responding to the marxist. Has my return flustered you?
ReactReply
SO
Soupie
May 31, 2013
Gee, colour me surprised. You missed the point again. I was questioning your response to the previous poster, not my posts. And of course, you could not answer the question. Your return was inevitable. I knew that you would soon suffer withdrawal from your "boobies and coochie" fix and come back to burnish your own narcissistic, pathological self. Flustered, no. Depressed to see you again, yes.
ReactReply
JO
John
May 31, 2013
[quote][quote][quote]He may not have been there when it started, but he vehemently opposed it when he ran in 2008, and a part of his platform was to bring the troops home and get out. s.[/quote]Lol. He voted FOR every funding bill while he was a senator and they pulled out under the agreement that the Bush administration had been forced to sign to by the Maliki government, despite Obama desperately trying to extend the occupation.

Your man is a busted flush Soupie. The worst president ever. He's a smoother liar than Bush is the best thing that can be said about him. But that just makes him a bigger fraudster.
How anyone could openly support this regime is beyond me. Just the same as anyone who supported the Bush regime.[/quote]
Ahhhh, nostalgia for fine leaders like Mao, Stalin, and Castro. "take off your banners the reactionary slogan a fair day's pay for a fair day's work and instead inscribe upon your banner the revolutionary watchword; the abolition of the wages system"
[/quote]What the hell are you on about?
ReactReply
SO
Soupie
May 31, 2013
Brucie checks under his bed every night for hidden commies. He's paranoid and obsessed. So if you disagree with him politically or ideologically, he spins off into his red-baiting routine. Reminds me of McCarthy.
ReactReply