NYTimes: Al-Qaeda not behind Bengahzi attacks (video in part to blame)

[Bowfinger]

Apparently brainwashing goes both ways regardless of party affiliation or "accepted" media source. This is demonstrated on these boards over and over.

I'm sure it's comforting for you to believe that, and yes, there are a couple of posters here from the far left fringe. Yet it is the right-wingers who so consistently offer offer only feelings and opinions, and who cite blatantly dishonest sources like Fox and Breitbart, while the rest of us provide actual facts and data, and cite credible sources. Your equivalence attempt fails.

 

[Angry Irishman]

I'm sure it's comforting for you to believe that, and yes, there are a couple of posters here from the far left fringe. Yet it is the right-wingers who so consistently offer offer only feelings and opinions, and who cite blatantly dishonest sources like Fox and Breitbart, while the rest of us provide actual facts and data, and cite credible sources. Your equivalence attempt fails.

If you say so and that tripe makes you feel better..happy New Years.

 

[Bowfinger]

Sure....while you're at it why don't you go ask people in the real world of which you aren't living in. Go ahead, walk down the street and ask random people. Post your studies and I can give you back exactly the same emotional response you just delivered here. You see, that's just all part of the game...I can discount your sources just like you can discount the two I just provided you.

Yes, I've already noted many times how you guys insulate yourselves in a bubble of the similarly disinformed to reinforce your faith. "My" studies have been posted many times before in threads here discussing media bias. You're free to bump one of those threads if you want to take a shot at refuting those studies.

 

[Bowfinger]

Amazingly like the behavior you exhibited and the post you made in #69 of this thread. It would appear that name calling is a substantive contribution?

I'm done holding any discussions with you...bed time. It's officially 2014 and I'm not starting this year by arguing.

For the record, post 69 contained nothing resembling a straw man, nor did it have any name calling. It did, however, have derogatory comments about people who support their faith through emotional arguments and openly biased propaganda sources.

Happy New Year. You an Aussie?

 

[michal1980]

We live in a pretty insane world where people have become so blinded by partisanship that they think America's newspaper of record is no better than a crazy conspiracy website.

And based on that you believe fox news is 'fair and balanced'

 

[Tom]

Whose heads have rolled in this administration? Who have they fired for telling the lie to the American people that this was a youtube protest.

The coverup is their deflection of ALL accountability. It means they stand by it, all the way up to the President. No one has moved to set the record straight, and now their minions attempt to bury it.

If the President will not fire them, then he must be fired in their stead.

I've heard news accounts that those directly responsible for deciding not to increase security are no longer in their positions. I don't remember if they were fired or not.

There was no "lie" about a link to the video protest. It was never stated that it was an established fact or that it was the sole cause.

What you and others are calling a cover-up requires that the informed speculation in response to demands for explanations was more than that. But the big lie is to call them more than that.

You have to start from a point of view that you're going to "get" someone in order then to look at everything they say and do to see if you can exploit anything to "get" them.

I guess its ok for Obama opponents to try to play every angle they can, but that doesn't make the basis for their attempts, real.

There's really nothing to the concept of a "cover-up" here; there are reasons to question if the security arrangement was proper or not, but that's more complicated than just saying it wasn't because of what happened.

Even in more mundane circumstances than an American outpost in Libya it isn't possible to prevent every heinous act, it isn't possible to remove every trace of risk from life.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You're right. Why on earth would I dismiss an article from a website that currently has headlines of "Is your neighbor a CIA snitch?" And "Twerking Miley Cyrus pushes homosexual agenda" on it? This is a source deserving of sober reflection and refutation.

Seriously, do you know what infowars.com is? It is the website of this guy:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones

If you have something to say, find a real source. Not batshit crazy conspiracy theory websites.

As for what I think you are trying to say about the NYT article, this seems to be a discussion now about who people consider to be Al-Qaeda. If we use the republican definition of the term then just about every extremist group in the world is Al-Qaeda. That's not helpful.

If there is something else about the report you don't like, mention it specifically and provide rebuttal evidence from a credible source and let's talk about it.

I had no idea that infowars was a conspiracy theory website. I saw the article and linked it. When you got your panties in a bunch over it, I linked USA Today and quoted the relevant passage from the article showing that members of BOTH parties on the Intelligence Committee had issues with the credibility of the NYT article. Or is this source also not credible in your opinion?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

And based on that you believe fox news is 'fair and balanced'

eskimospy has always maintained that there is no such thing as MSM bias. My guess is that he doesn't consider Fox News to be mainstream (likely) or he doesn't think it to be biased (unlikely).

 

[yllus]

Even this NYT fluffy piece says the attack was planned. The keep bring up the video, but can never say it was about the video because it was not. The video only helped fuel the aftermath after the attack started.

I'd agree that's accurate.

The CIA along with Obama with all their spying of American's and data collection missed the fact the no one was friendly to the American's in Libya.

I noted that as well.

Then after vowing to capture those that started the attacks, Obama pussied out.

This is schoolboy nonsense. Pussied out of what, sending armed troops into a sovereign nation that just months prior went through a civil war / uprising and bulling their way through anyone who doesn't hand over their suspects? Justice for four dead Americans are worth the enmity of an entire country right after a large number of them have started to see the West positively because of our assistance in liberating them? I and everyone else above the age of fourteen are immensely relieved you have utterly no say in America's foreign policy.

 

[fskimospy]

eskimospy has always maintained that there is no such thing as MSM bias. My guess is that he doesn't consider Fox News to be mainstream (likely) or he doesn't think it to be biased (unlikely).

No, none of the above. I've been over this so many times I'm not sure how there can still be confusion.

MSM bias is a myth that is commonly, but not exclusively, held by the right wing in America. Conservatives in America generally view nearly every news organization to be biased against them except for the explicitly conservative activist ones (like Fox News). What I've been clear about many, many times is that this doesn't mean that an individual source may not be biased, but that there is no aggregate level bias. This is in broad holding with empirical research on the subject.

As for this particular case, Fox News is both mainstream and biased. The NYT has been part of quite a few empirical studies on media bias, and meta-analysis of these studies has found no discernible bias in its news content. (although its editorial page is quite liberal) Conservatives don't like to hear these facts, so they dismiss them or reply with something to the effect of 'I don't care what studies say, I know what I know'.

 

[fskimospy]

I had no idea that infowars was a conspiracy theory website. I saw the article and linked it. When you got your panties in a bunch over it, I linked USA Today and quoted the relevant passage from the article showing that members of BOTH parties on the Intelligence Committee had issues with the credibility of the NYT article. Or is this source also not credible in your opinion?

The source is perfectly fine, but none of them are providing any information on what they think is wrong or why, and I find the discussion over what groups are counted as 'linked to Al-Qaeda' to be a deliberate political attempt at word play.

The groups involved in the attack may have had associations with Al-Qaeda, but the attack itself was not undertaken by Al-Qaeda if you use even a reasonably tight definition of the term.

 

[michal1980]

No, none of the above. I've been over this so many times I'm not sure how there can still be confusion.

MSM bias is a myth that is commonly, but not exclusively, held by the right wing in America. Conservatives in America generally view nearly every news organization to be biased against them except for the explicitly conservative activist ones (like Fox News). What I've been clear about many, many times is that this doesn't mean that an individual source may not be biased, but that there is no aggregate level bias. This is in broad holding with empirical research on the subject.

As for this particular case, Fox News is both mainstream and biased. The NYT has been part of quite a few empirical studies on media bias, and meta-analysis of these studies has found no discernible bias in its news content. (although its editorial page is quite liberal) Conservatives don't like to hear these facts, so they dismiss them or reply with something to the effect of 'I don't care what studies say, I know what I know'.

Liberals analysis liberals, find no basis. News at 10.

 

[fskimospy]

Liberals analysis liberals, find no basis. News at 10.

lol. So predictable. 'I know what I know'.

Meanwhile, no apparent problem with the 'liberals' that produced the study in this thread:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2361158

Why? It told you something you liked.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The source is perfectly fine, but none of them are providing any information on what they think is wrong or why, and I find the discussion over what groups are counted as 'linked to Al-Qaeda' to be a deliberate political attempt at word play.

The groups involved in the attack may have had associations with Al-Qaeda, but the attack itself was not undertaken by Al-Qaeda if you use even a reasonably tight definition of the term.

That's NOT what the NY Time's article said. This is what they said and this is where the credibility of the article comes into question.

http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/#/?chapt=0

Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.

 

[TerryMathews]

That's NOT what the NY Time's article said. This is what they said and this is where the credibility of the article comes into question.

http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/#/?chapt=0

You are right, NY Times really backed themselves into a corner with that one. All someone would need to show is that someone from AQ gave one of the rioters $1 and they're "involved" albeit to a minor degree.

There is no way the NY times has the resources or connections to research the situation to that level of determination.

 

[fskimospy]

That's NOT what the NY Time's article said. This is what they said and this is where the credibility of the article comes into question.

http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/#/?chapt=0

That IS what that quote says. It seems that in your opinion having some ties with the groups that conducted the attack gives them a 'role in the assault', but that to me is more of a Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon thing.

In my opinion (and the opinion of the reporter), to have a role in the attack that means AQ would have to have been either engaged in it themselves or (in my opinion) played a significant organizational or supporting role for that attack. I'm unaware of any evidence that this is the case.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

That IS what that quote says. It seems that in your opinion having some ties with the groups that conducted the attack gives them a 'role in the assault', but that to me is more of a Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon thing.

In my opinion (and the opinion of the reporter), to have a role in the attack that means AQ would have to have been either engaged in it themselves or (in my opinion) played a significant organizational or supporting role for that attack. I'm unaware of any evidence that this is the case.

Well then I guess the R's and D's on the Intelligence Committee who are currently investigating Benghazi with all that access to classified information all just have their collective heads up their butt. If you want to believe that the NY Times nailed it and made them all look like fools....go for it.

 

[fskimospy]

Well then I guess the R's and D's on the Intelligence Committee who are currently investigating Benghazi with all that access to classified information all just have their collective heads up their butt. If you want to believe that the NY Times nailed it and made them all look like fools....go for it.

I don't think what I'm asking for is unreasonable and I find it highly unlikely that were the situation reversed that you would not accept "just trust us" as an adequate rebuttal.

I'm not saying the House members are wrong, but there was a lot of stuff in the report. Having someone say 'they missed something' doesn't tell us much that's useful.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You are right, NY Times really backed themselves into a corner with that one. All someone would need to show is that someone from AQ gave one of the rioters $1 and they're "involved" albeit to a minor degree.

There is no way the NY times has the resources or connections to research the situation to that level of determination.

That's a bullshit argument imo. Rogers (Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee) plainly said last Sunday that AQ was directly involved in planning the attack. This is in direct conflict with the NYT article. Someone doesn't have their facts straight...I wonder who.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I don't think what I'm asking for is unreasonable and I find it highly unlikely that were the situation reversed that you would not accept "just trust us" as an adequate rebuttal.

I'm not saying the House members are wrong, but there was a lot of stuff in the report. Having someone say 'they missed something' doesn't tell us much that's useful.

Whatever.

 

[werepossum]

OK, so you now acknowledge that contrary to the RNC talking points, there was no specific advance warning about an attack on our Benghazi facility on or around September 11. Instead, we had a general awareness that Benghazi was a dangerous place (as was all of Libya and much of the rest of the Middle East). Welcome to where most of us have been for many months. Great job!

Wall'o'text crits you for 2932803282034. You fall asleep.

Anything specific in there you believe supports your claims, or are you just hoping to bluff your way through this?

So a partisan source spreading the RNC propaganda is somehow proof that the propaganda is accurate? Really? Do you also believe OJ was innocent because he said he was innocent?

Meh, at least it provides a great example of how the nutter disinformation bubble works: keep posting the same disinformation round and round and round until the drones are fully indoctrinated through repetition.

The only reference to this I saw in your walls of text was an April incident where two locals, one of whom had been fired, tossed a grenade over the wall of the compound. Do you have anything more, or is that weaksauce spin the best you can do?

Right. You evaded 90% of the inconvenient facts I offered, pulled a Baghdad Bob on the rest, and somehow I'm the one with my head up my ass? Whatever helps you sleep at night sweetie, but denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

Your original post was a giant pack of lies, no matter how vigorously you blow smoke and wave your hands. Own your duplicity instead of trying to shoot the messenger. The tragedy is Benghazi was awful enough without the slimy RNC propaganda machine then exploiting it into a series of dishonest attacks. It is a repugnant, almost traitorous example of putting party over country, and it's shameful that so many Americans are not only willing, but eager to swallow this propaganda. You are but one example.

All you've got is "but nobody told us what day the attack would come!" Amusing. I guess reading is harder than I imagined.

 

[OutHouse]

ROFLMFAO!! Its a sad time in America when people can't get their facts straight years after the event. Jesus Christ you are really really really ignorant.

News refresher, the ambassador was dead within one hour of the attack starting due to smoke inhalation. Why are conservative the MOST uninformed people on the planet. You would think they would spend some time to at least gain a cursory knowledge of the facts before spouting off their inanities. You can't come within a country mile of cogency when you build from a foundation of idiocy.





http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/06/politics/benghazi-attack-timeline/

you really are a piece of shit arent you.

I know the timeframe of events, but if you want to pin me down to a second by second replay of that night's events then yea you burned me good. :thumbsup:

 

[OutHouse]

Jesus Christ, listen to yourself. We have more people killed in school shootings in our own country with even longer response times from law enforcement. Shit happens, get the fuck over it already. The only scandal in this whole incident is the Republican muck-raking, which has been malicious, false, repulsive and downright embarrassing.

and with that you are on my ignore list. you are the poster child of a democrat retard and incapable of an intelligent discussion.

 

[Bowfinger]

All you've got is "but nobody told us what day the attack would come!" Amusing. I guess reading is harder than I imagined.

More substance-free hand-waving. Shocker. In short, you are indeed hoping to bluff your way through this by posting random walls of text. You've again failed to specifically cite the relevant portions you pretend supports your aforementioned giant pack of lies.

Your original post was a giant pack of lies, no matter how vigorously you blow smoke and wave your hands. Own your duplicity instead of trying to shoot the messenger. The tragedy is Benghazi was awful enough without the slimy RNC propaganda machine then exploiting it into a series of dishonest attacks. It is a repugnant, almost traitorous example of putting party over country, and it's shameful that so many Americans are not only willing, but eager to swallow this propaganda. You are but one example.

 

[monovillage]

No, none of the above. I've been over this so many times I'm not sure how there can still be confusion.

MSM bias is a myth that is commonly, but not exclusively, held by the right wing in America. Conservatives in America generally view nearly every news organization to be biased against them except for the explicitly conservative activist ones (like Fox News). What I've been clear about many, many times is that this doesn't mean that an individual source may not be biased, but that there is no aggregate level bias. This is in broad holding with empirical research on the subject.

As for this particular case, Fox News is both mainstream and biased. The NYT has been part of quite a few empirical studies on media bias, and meta-analysis of these studies has found no discernible bias in its news content. (although its editorial page is quite liberal) Conservatives don't like to hear these facts, so they dismiss them or reply with something to the effect of 'I don't care what studies say, I know what I know'.

You liar. Even a New York Times Editor admitted to bias when he retired.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/nyt-public-editor-charges-liberal-bias/
The meta study you cite begins in 1948 and only includes information on Presidential bias and even that admits to a "measurable bias".

A meta-analysis considered 59 quantitative studies containing data concerned with partisan media bias in presidential election campaigns since 1948.

Do you ever get tired of spinning and lying ? You, the Iraqi information minister and Carney were picked off the same tree.