Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

benghazi cover upFollow

#53 Oct 15 2012 at 11:09 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,873 posts
crazylegz1975 wrote:
obviously
I'd say that word doesn't mean what you think it means, but I'm past the point of believing you're capable of it at all.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#54 Oct 15 2012 at 11:30 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,044 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
crazylegz1975 wrote:
obviously
I'd say that word doesn't mean what you think it means, but I'm past the point of believing you're capable of it at all.

Obviously.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#55 Oct 15 2012 at 2:47 PM Rating: Decent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,428 posts
Obama requested five billion for embassy security. Congress grudgingly gave them, 4.5 billion. They really needed double that, but, you know, austerity and deficits and freedom. And stuff.

Thus, I blame Congress.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#56 Oct 15 2012 at 3:42 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
catwho wrote:
Obama requested five billion for embassy security. Congress grudgingly gave them, 4.5 billion. They really needed double that, but, you know, austerity and deficits and freedom. And stuff.

Thus, I blame Congress.


That's the latest excuse, cause *ZING!*, right? As usual, the Dems are playing word games. The administration always requests more for pretty much everything, then congress gives them some amount slightly less than that in the budget. So while the House Republicans budgeted less than the state department requested, they didn't lose funding relative to previous years. There was no sudden drop in funding which could explain the lack of security, nor has anyone officially stated that the reason additional security was denied was because of lack of funding (no one from state has said anything about this actually). Lot of spin going on, but the facts don't support it.


I'll point out again that the bigger problem is usually not the problem (failure to protect our ambassador), but the cover up. It's becoming increasingly obvious, even to the most jaded left-wingers, that the Administration took the rather stupid course of attempting to lie about the nature of the attack itself. And it seems to be digging itself into a deeper and deeper hole with this. As more evidence shows that pretty much everyone in the intelligence community knew that this was a planned attack within a day or two of said attack, yet the White House continued to try to downplay it into a mob that got out of control. So now they're trying to point the finger of blame at everyone else. The State department lied to them, the CIA lied to them, everyone lied to them.

Yeah, right. So either they're lying themselves, or somehow everyone working for them is lying to them. Either scenario is bad for them.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#57 Oct 15 2012 at 3:53 PM Rating: Excellent
someproteinguy wrote:
Just for the record Hitlary is a odd nickname for someone you're accusing of not having enough weapons on site.
Smiley: nod
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#58 Oct 15 2012 at 4:45 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
*****
19,978 posts
crazylegz1975 wrote:
Obama's blaming hitlary who's fled to south america.

Does she have an Argentinian mistress or something?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#59 Oct 16 2012 at 3:47 AM Rating: Good
Gbaji wrote:
That's the latest excuse, cause *ZING!*, right? As usual, the Dems are playing word games. The administration always requests more for pretty much everything, then congress gives them some amount slightly less than that in the budget. So while the House Republicans budgeted less than the state department requested, they didn't lose funding relative to previous years. There was no sudden drop in funding which could explain the lack of security, nor has anyone officially stated that the reason additional security was denied was because of lack of funding (no one from state has said anything about this actually). Lot of spin going on, but the facts don't support it.

I'll point out again that the bigger problem is usually not the problem (failure to protect our ambassador), but the cover up. It's becoming increasingly obvious, even to the most jaded left-wingers, that the Administration took the rather stupid course of attempting to lie about the nature of the attack itself. And it seems to be digging itself into a deeper and deeper hole with this. As more evidence shows that pretty much everyone in the intelligence community knew that this was a planned attack within a day or two of said attack, yet the White House continued to try to downplay it into a mob that got out of control. So now they're trying to point the finger of blame at everyone else. The State department lied to them, the CIA lied to them, everyone lied to them.

Yeah, right. So either they're lying themselves, or somehow everyone working for them is lying to them. Either scenario is bad for them.


But you do get that it's kinda hard to criticize someone for "not doing enough" to secure an embassy when you're the one that cut their budget? Stones, glass houses, etc. I'm more than ok with trying to figure out every small detail about what happened & why, I just think it's hard to score political points with Libya's embassy attacks before all the facts are out.

Two other embassies were attacked immediately prior to the attack in Libya, in response to the youtube video, so I can understand why the intelligence might have been leaning towards that explanation at the time. If you don't, I suppose you're reality-retarded.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#60 Oct 16 2012 at 7:21 AM Rating: Good
******
43,873 posts
gbaji wrote:
So while the House Republicans budgeted less than the state department requested,
Guess they should have budgeted more, huh.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#61 Oct 16 2012 at 9:36 AM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
*****
19,978 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Two other embassies were attacked immediately prior to the attack in Libya, in response to the youtube video, so I can understand why the intelligence might have been leaning towards that explanation at the time. If you don't, I suppose you're reality-retarded.

It depends on the reality in question.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#62 Oct 16 2012 at 2:16 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So while the House Republicans budgeted less than the state department requested,
Guess they should have budgeted more, huh.


Only if you can show that the decision to deny requests for additional security was because of lack of funding. Can you?


It's abundantly obvious that the decision to keep a minimal security force in the area was a political one. The Obama administration didn't want it to look like we considered Libya an unsafe country, or that we didn't trust their security forces to protect our embassy personnel. Ooops!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#63 Oct 16 2012 at 2:25 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Two other embassies were attacked immediately prior to the attack in Libya, in response to the youtube video, so I can understand why the intelligence might have been leaning towards that explanation at the time. If you don't, I suppose you're reality-retarded.


Um... One other embassy. Cairo and Benghazi. But the second one wasn't because of the video. So no pattern at all except the one invented in the minds of those who desperately wanted this to be a random act of violence in response to a video instead of a failure of foreign policy (and possible resurgence of Al Queda).

And even if we bought that on day one. What about day 5? Or day 10? Or day 14? Obama gave a speech to the UN two weeks after the attacks and spent a significant portion speaking about the video and the violence that resulted, but didn't identify the Benghazi attack as planned, much less as terrorism, and didn't mention Al Queda except in the context of how defeated they are. There's a small window in which we can forgive the administration for not knowing the full facts, and even getting some things wrong. But there's a point at which that's just no longer an excuse. The Obama administration continued to directly mislead (and perhaps even outright lie) about the motivation behind the attacks well after they should have known better. And they can blame lack of communication all day long, but it's their responsibility to find out what really happened as quickly as possible. So either they did know and chose to lie about it, or they utterly failed at their jobs by not even bothering to find out.

Either possibility represents a gross violation of the expectations the American people have of their leaders.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#64 Oct 16 2012 at 2:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
It's abundantly obvious that the decision to keep a minimal security force in the area was a political one. The Obama administration didn't want it to look like we considered Libya an unsafe country, or that we didn't trust their security forces to protect our embassy personnel. Ooops!

It was a political decision in that the US was trying to work with the fledgling Libyan government & public and keep a lower profile rather than an armed military presence. If you think it was so the US public wouldn't think Libya was dangerous, you're retarded. I guarantee you that neither you nor I nor anyone else had a clue as to whether the consulate in Benghazi was protected by a 10 year old Libyan girl with a slingshot or a ring of Abram tanks prior to the attack.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#66 Oct 17 2012 at 10:44 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,856 posts
crazylegz1975 wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's abundantly obvious that the decision to keep a minimal security force in the area was a political one. The Obama administration didn't want it to look like we considered Libya an unsafe country, or that we didn't trust their security forces to protect our embassy personnel. Ooops!

It was a political decision in that the US was trying to work with the fledgling Libyan government & public and keep a lower profile rather than an armed military presence. If you think it was so the US public wouldn't think Libya was dangerous, you're retarded. I guarantee you that neither you nor I nor anyone else had a clue as to whether the consulate in Benghazi was protected by a 10 year old Libyan girl with a slingshot or a ring of Abram tanks prior to the attack.


Probably not protected by a tank. Remind me again why hitlary shouldn't resign?


You could just say "I don't know either" and be done with it.

Or better yet you could google it and actually learn something...

Quote:
Republican committee members and the State Department officials went back and forth about the appropriate number of people needed to provide security at the vulnerable Benghazi location.

Various communications dating back nearly a year asked for anywhere from three to five diplomatic security special agents.

As the four-hour hearing drew to a close, Nordstrom divulged he had verbally asked for significantly more help -- 12 agents -- but the officer from the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs had rebuffed his request.


and then later on...

Quote:
Five special agents were in Benghazi at the time of the attack, Issa said.

Two of them only happened to be there only because they had traveled with Stevens from Tripoli, Lamb said.

"The post had agreed that three was a sufficient number to have on the ground." Lamb said.


Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#67 Oct 17 2012 at 10:47 AM Rating: Good
******
43,873 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Or better yet you could google it and actually learn something...
We know THAT isn't an option since he's anti-education.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#68 Oct 17 2012 at 10:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,856 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Or better yet you could google it and actually learn something...
We know THAT isn't an option since he's anti-education.


Probably just as well, I can't imagine facts actually helping in his crusade anyway.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#69 Oct 17 2012 at 11:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
someproteinguy wrote:
You could just say "I don't know either" and be done with it.

Or better yet you could google it and actually learn something...

This is somewhat apart from my point. Gbaji said that security was kept light to give the US populace the illusion that Libya was safe and happy. I'm saying that the US populace doesn't think about, know about or care about what the security is like at any given diplomatic outpost, much less connect it to that's nation's security unless something happens to bring it directly into the news. This is ignoring the people who were completely unaware that there WAS a US diplomatic outpost in Benghazi (i.e. nearly everyone) and the people who were unaware that there's a Benghazi (probably a significant percentage of "nearly everyone").
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#70 Oct 17 2012 at 3:41 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's abundantly obvious that the decision to keep a minimal security force in the area was a political one. The Obama administration didn't want it to look like we considered Libya an unsafe country, or that we didn't trust their security forces to protect our embassy personnel. Ooops!

It was a political decision in that the US was trying to work with the fledgling Libyan government & public and keep a lower profile rather than an armed military presence.


Which is what I just said.

Quote:
If you think it was so the US public wouldn't think Libya was dangerous, you're retarded.


That's not what I think. So phew!

Quote:
I guarantee you that neither you nor I nor anyone else had a clue as to whether the consulate in Benghazi was protected by a 10 year old Libyan girl with a slingshot or a ring of Abram tanks prior to the attack.


Yes. Hence, when I said "The Obama administration didn't want it to look like we considered Libya an unsafe country, or that we didn't trust their security forces to protect our embassy personnel", it should have been clear that I was speaking about how this appeared to the Libyans, and not to the folks back at home.

Great job telling us all what I wasn't talking about though. So we're agreed that it had nothing to do with funding? Good!


Care to respond to the portion about how the Obama administration continued to portray this as just a random event stemming from a protest over a video? Cause that's the big story here. It's usually the coverup that kills you, and that goes double in this case. There's lots of blame to go around in terms of the security choices made leading up to the attack, but none of that explains or excuses the administrations attempts to make it seem like this wasn't really a planned terrorist attack on us at all. I'll point out again that there is no way in **** the US ambassador to the UN goes on the Sunday talk show circuit to speak about Benghazi without having been sent to those shows by the White House to say exactly what the White House wanted her to say. So one has to wonder who exactly sent her and decided what message she was to say.


It's hard to imagine that Obama wasn't involved with that in any way. How exactly does our "best intelligence" get to Ambassador Rice for her to make those statements, if it didn't come through the White House? I mean, "best intelligence" makes one assume she was briefed by the head of the CIA, State and Defense Departments, and the National Security Adviser, right? Cause that's how one normally gets to make a statement like that, right? Who the **** did she talk to?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#71 Oct 17 2012 at 4:05 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Yes. Hence, when I said "The Obama administration didn't want it to look like we considered Libya an unsafe country, or that we didn't trust their security forces to protect our embassy personnel", it should have been clear that I was speaking about how this appeared to the Libyans, and not to the folks back at home.

So your master theory here is that Obama kept a lighter security presence in Benghazi to trick the Libyans into thinking their country was safe? That is what was going to make them think it's safe? Not the militias around or former Ghaddafi loyalists or whatever... but they'd all say "Hey, there's only five guys at that building! Thank Allah our country is now saved!"?

Holy fuck. You should have just gone with the "Made Americans think it's safe" line. Smiley: facepalm

Quote:
Care to respond to the portion about how the Obama administration continued to portray this as just a random event stemming from a protest over a video? Cause that's the big story here. It's usually the coverup that kills you, and that goes double in this case. There's lots of blame to go around in terms of the security choices made leading up to the attack, but none of that explains or excuses the administrations attempts to make it seem like this wasn't really a planned terrorist attack on us at all.

I did earlier. I linked to a CIA analyst explaining it, in fact. You started hooting and saying you know so much more than they do.

Quote:
I'll point out again that there is no way in **** the US ambassador to the UN goes on the Sunday talk show circuit to speak about Benghazi without having been sent to those shows by the White House to say exactly what the White House wanted her to say.

I'll point out that your opinion here is worthless.

Edited, Oct 17th 2012 5:09pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#72 Oct 17 2012 at 4:38 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Yes. Hence, when I said "The Obama administration didn't want it to look like we considered Libya an unsafe country, or that we didn't trust their security forces to protect our embassy personnel", it should have been clear that I was speaking about how this appeared to the Libyans, and not to the folks back at home.

So your master theory here is that Obama kept a lighter security presence in Benghazi to trick the Libyans into thinking their country was safe?


Huh? No. To make the Libyan government and people think that we trust and respect them. You know, kinda what Obama's whole foreign policy has been based on for the last 3+ years (if we're nice to them, they'll be nice to us)?

Jophiel wrote:
It was a political decision in that the US was trying to work with the fledgling Libyan government & public and keep a lower profile rather than an armed military presence.


Why would one keep a lower profile rather than an armed military presence? What's funny is that you said that but didn't seem to give a second thought as to why we might do that. Complete the thought Joph. You are aware enough to make the statement you did, but not aware enough to consider *why* we might do that? Seriously?

Quote:
I did earlier. I linked to a CIA analyst explaining it, in fact.


Which would be a great response except for the absolute fact that the "best intelligence" at the time did not suggest at all that this was a spontaneous attack arising from a protest over an offensive video. It's all well and good to say that intelligence isn't perfect, but that does not explain why Rice said what she said. If the intelligence was unclear, she should have said that the intelligence was unclear. The fact is that at no time did we have any intelligence at all that supported what she said. Unless "best intelligence" really just means "wild speculation".

Quote:
Quote:
I'll point out again that there is no way in **** the US ambassador to the UN goes on the Sunday talk show circuit to speak about Benghazi without having been sent to those shows by the White House to say exactly what the White House wanted her to say.

I'll point out that your opinion here is worthless.


Wrong. My opinion here is spot on. You just don't want to address it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#73 Oct 17 2012 at 4:52 PM Rating: Decent
******
43,873 posts
gbaji wrote:
My opinion here is spot on.
Well, your opinion of Fox News' opinion anyway.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#74 Oct 17 2012 at 5:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
You know, kinda what Obama's whole foreign policy has been based on for the last 3+ years (if we're nice to them, they'll be nice to us)?
I thought it was kill anyone we don't particularly like with unmanned drones.

I don't think having 5, 10, or 15 agents in a building would have any noticeable effect on how the people in lybia thought of the US. I'd imagine pretty much all of them know as much about the security arrangements inside the embassy as most Americans. IE: none.

Here's a questions, how many security people does Canada have in the our embassy in the states? What message are we sending with that presence?
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#75 Oct 17 2012 at 5:44 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Huh? No. To make the Libyan government and people think that we trust and respect them. You know, kinda what Obama's whole foreign policy has been based on for the last 3+ years (if we're nice to them, they'll be nice to us)?

Well, the Libyan government didn't attack us and a large majority of the people are on board with us so I guess there's that.

Quote:
Why would one keep a lower profile rather than an armed military presence?

You can't think of a reason to avoid posting an active military presence in a nation where you just helped overthrow the government? Interesting.

Quote:
Which would be a great response except...

...except you'll just pretend you know now. That's nice and all but if I have to accept the random opinion of a CIA analyst here over the random opinion of a strident partisan looking to wail about the president, I'm going to have to go with the former.

Quote:
Wrong. My opinion here is spot on. You just don't want to address it.

Right. We'll call that "Reason B".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#76 Oct 18 2012 at 7:41 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,873 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Here's a questions, how many security people does Canada have in the our embassy in the states?
Never been inside, but there's usually two guys with hockey sticks standing out front.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#77 Oct 18 2012 at 8:23 AM Rating: Excellent
******
21,717 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Here's a questions, how many security people does Canada have in the our embassy in the states?
Never been inside, but there's usually two guys with hockey sticks standing out front.


They really shouldn't allow Weapons of Molar Destruction at the embassy. It's not safe.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#78 Oct 18 2012 at 8:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
BrownDuck wrote:
They really shouldn't allow Weapons of Molar Destruction at the embassy. It's not safe.

They're armed with Bit-O-Honey's?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#80 Oct 18 2012 at 8:30 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,873 posts
crazylegz1975 wrote:
Do you think the ambassador wished he had an ak while those muslims were ripping the flesh from his bones?
Leave it to you liberals to not even know what an American weapon is. Why do you hate America so much?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#81 Oct 18 2012 at 8:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
crazylegz1975 wrote:
I'm guessing you've never heard of the alamo.

You mean the missionary-turned-fortress defeated by the Mexican army?

Nice point.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#82 Oct 18 2012 at 8:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Whoa there cowboy, He had a point? Crazy.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#83 Oct 18 2012 at 8:59 AM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
They really shouldn't allow Weapons of Molar Destruction at the embassy. It's not safe.

They're armed with Bit-O-Honey's?
I was gonna say "Mary Jane's" but they both pale in comparison to peanut brittle.
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#84 Oct 18 2012 at 9:08 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Whoa there cowboy, He had a point? Crazy.

Just wait. His next point will probably be that if Davey Crockett held out until the Apache gunships arrived, he totally could have defeated Santa Anna.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#85 Oct 18 2012 at 9:10 AM Rating: Excellent
Well, if I had a light saber and a time machine I could totally have saved the Alamo.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#86 Oct 18 2012 at 9:21 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#87 Oct 18 2012 at 9:46 AM Rating: Good
******
43,873 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Well, if I had a light saber and a time machine I could totally have saved the Alamo.
I don't know. The Skrulls and the Spartans you'd be against were formidable.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#88 Oct 18 2012 at 12:57 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
*****
19,978 posts
crazylegz1975 wrote:
Depends on how many bullets those 15 agents have. I'm guessing you've never heard of the alamo. Do you think the ambassador wished he had an ak while those muslims were ripping the flesh from his bones?

Well, by all accounts no amount of military prescnce is going to turn back the zombie hordes.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#89 Oct 18 2012 at 1:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
At the point where the zombies of Islam ([davebarry]Band name![/davebarry]) were ripping his flesh, he was probably well past wishing he hadn't died from smoke inhalation.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#90 Oct 18 2012 at 1:09 PM Rating: Good
******
43,873 posts
Zombies of Islam would be a pretty awesome name for a band. Unless it was a metal band. Then it'd be kind of pedestrian.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#91 Oct 18 2012 at 1:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'm thinking alt-folk rock.

They need a zombie survival shooter which takes place in the Middle East.

Edited, Oct 18th 2012 2:14pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#92 Oct 18 2012 at 1:20 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,978 posts
Stupid phone.

Edited, Oct 18th 2012 3:27pm by Debalic
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#93 Oct 18 2012 at 1:21 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,978 posts
The ArmA DayZ mod could probably be moved from the Chernaeus map to whatever their ME campaign is.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#94 Oct 18 2012 at 1:27 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,686 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I'm thinking alt-folk rock.

They need a zombie survival shooter which takes place in the Middle East.

Edited, Oct 18th 2012 2:14pm by Jophiel
So zombies can come out of the sand and attack you? I mean, there's really no where else for them to hide is there?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#95 Oct 18 2012 at 1:30 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,978 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Zombies of Islam would be a pretty awesome name fo
  • List Item
  • r a band. Unless it was a metal band. Then it'd be kind of pedestrian.

    Cannibal Mohammed
    ____________________________
    publiusvarus wrote:
    we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
    #96 Oct 18 2012 at 1:44 PM Rating: Excellent
    Liberal Conspiracy
    *******
    TILT
    Uglysasquatch wrote:
    So zombies can come out of the sand and attack you? I mean, there's really no where else for them to hide is there?

    Replace "sand" for "snow" and that's why there's no "Zombie Canada" games.
    ____________________________
    Belkira wrote:
    Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
    #97 Oct 18 2012 at 1:51 PM Rating: Good
    Avatar
    *****
    11,283 posts
    Jophiel wrote:
    Uglysasquatch wrote:
    So zombies can come out of the sand and attack you? I mean, there's really no where else for them to hide is there?

    Replace "sand" for "snow" and that's why there's no "Zombie Canada" games.


    Someone needs to make a Dead Snow game, that way you have shooting, zombies, and ***** in one neat little package,
    ____________________________
    Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
    91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
    Cooking/Fishing 100


    "We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
    — James D. Nicoll
    #98 Oct 18 2012 at 2:01 PM Rating: Excellent
    Liberal Conspiracy
    *******
    TILT
    Any chance of adding some Russians in those white/grey camo snow suits?
    ____________________________
    Belkira wrote:
    Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
    #100 Oct 18 2012 at 9:13 PM Rating: Decent
    **
    489 posts
    crazylegz1975 wrote:
    while those muslims were ripping the flesh from his bones?

    Did they use Muslim weasels?
    Screenshot
    #101 Oct 18 2012 at 10:07 PM Rating: Good
    Avatar
    *****
    11,283 posts
    Jophiel wrote:
    Uglysasquatch wrote:
    So zombies can come out of the sand and attack you? I mean, there's really no where else for them to hide is there?

    Replace "sand" for "snow" and that's why there's no "Zombie Canada" games.


    Hey, guess what. Someone just released a winter map for DayZ. Smiley: lol
    ____________________________
    Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
    91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
    Cooking/Fishing 100


    "We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
    — James D. Nicoll
    Reply To Thread

    Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

     

    Recent Visitors: 42 All times are in CDT
    Kuwoobie, stupidmonkey, Szabo, Anonymous Guests (39)