Lizzie Warren to Ax Hillary?Follow

Wow. Um... Maybe I just don't hang out with a gullible crowd? I was joking.

No. No, you weren't.

Nah, you would have just called it a consulate or, more accurately, a diplomatic outpost. Not at all a mouthful.

But you were taught "Navy SEALs" and you were taught "Embassy" and you recite them over and over and over like a good little boy. The GOP is proud of you.

Given that it's something like 400 miles from Benghazi to Tripoli, I'm going to guess that yes, a group of people in the Benghazi metropolitan area would protest at the known local US presence (the diplomatic building itself wasn't secret as Stevens spent considerable time among the population) rather than making a seven hour convoy across the country to protest at the embassy proper. You mean you think a seven hour convoy across the North African desert to go have a protest is less absurd? Huh. Well, that's certainly something.

Again, Gbaji is just so in tune to the CIA thing that the building has immediately gone in his mind from "embassy" to "semi-secret building" without ever making a stop at the correct answer. "Man, they're all laughing at me for being so ignorant... I'd better play this one up hard so I can fool them..."

It occurs to me that Gbaji, until reading this post, likely had zero idea where either city was actually located in Libya.

Spoiler

Gbaji wrote:

I'm actually writing that page of text though. You're copying it and adding to it. For the same amount of time and effort you're spending putting tags around stuff, you could just trim the text you're responding to instead. Then, everyone could figure out what you're responding to without having to read the entirety of my post again.

What's annoying isn't the volume of text, but that you think you're saving anyone any time or effort by putting it in spoiler tags.

I AM responding to the entire text. The volume of text is annoying because it's unnecessary and it takes up space. Since I'm responding to your entire text, the only way to reference your whole post without making my post unnecessarily large is to tag it.

Spoiler

Gbaji wrote:

The part I don't understand is why you think this is relevant. My position has never been about the security of the embassy, but the spreading of false information to the public. I'm reasonably certain I've already told you this at least two times already. Remember when I posted a link to the transcript of the conversation leading up to the "What does it matter?" outburst to show you that the question was not about what could have been done to protect the embassy from attack, nor what could have been done during the attack on the embassy, but why Rice went on the talk circuit and told the American people that the attack grew out of a protest in response to the protest in Cairo when this was not actually the case.

You're the one who keeps insisting that it only matters if it could have helped protect the embassy. But that has never been the issue.

You're making stuff up again. I argued that Senator Clinton said that none of the stuff that was being asked was important because it doesn't address the problem. You countered to say that knowing why we were attacked was paramount. You were specifically referring to the attack, not the talking points. When you were unable to show how knowing why would matter, you changed your point into "spreading misinformation".

Spoiler

Gbaji wrote:

Again with this "would it have protected the embassy" bit. That's not the issue. And btw, the scenario I outlined did touch on the idea that if we focus our response on going after the guy who made the film rather than on gathering intelligence on the group that attacked us, we will leave ourselves more vulnerable to future attacks. No one is arguing that the reasons behind the attack would have changed the outcome of that attack. Still not sure why you keep obsessing over this.

Let's start from the beginning so you can understand. What's more important? Determining how this attack happened and preventing something like this from happening again or why it took x amount of days to label the attack as a terrorist attack as opposed to the intel that it was due to a video?

Spoiler

Gbaji wrote:

I'd reverse that and say that only people who are biased think that why they attacked is irrelevant. A large portion of diplomacy is about figuring out what people want and why. The "how" is more operational. That's important, of course, but "why" is even more so. If you can figure out why someone is doing something, you can figure out how to get them to do something different. If all you figure out is "how", you can only ever defend from attacks, but never prevent them in the first place.

So make up your mind. You say that the why is so important, but then when I ask you to explain how knowing why terrorists (who openly say that they hate Americans and want to kill us) attacked us, you claim that isn't your point.

Spoiler

Gbaji wrote:

It's just surprising to me because liberals sure seemed to care about "why" a whole lot when their argument was that our actions in Iraq were simply resulting in more recruitment for Al-queda. Clearly, they were talking about "why" people join terrorist groups, right? Or more broadly, "why" some people hate us and want to attack us. Baring some need to defend the current administration and everyone associated with it (ie: massive bias), I can't imagine any reason one might argue that the "why" doesn't matter. I'd argue that for the State Department, "why" is the most important thing.

I know that I'm new to being a news junkie, but I've never seen any serious discussion on why terrorist hate us. Most US Citizens claim that it's a complete waste of time and resources to try to fix the middle east, so that doesn't support the idea that people are interested in befriending the middle east.

Much like Egypt, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia, Libya is in Iraq.

Well, should you ever get good and pissed at Lebanon, for God's sake don't half-ass it and protest there. Make the hike to Washington DC and protest like someone who gives a shit.

At the zoo?

"Sir, why are you protesting Lebanese policy by the tiger exhibit?"
"Well... you know... the kids like tigers."

A Lebanon protest would be in front of the Nubian Ibex exhibit. Everyone knows that.

Nubian? Isn't that those Princes that ask for your bank account info so they can give you their money.

SHUT THE **** UP!!

I've used several different terms to describe the buildings involved. Zeroing in on the one time I used the term "embassy" and ignoring the times I said "annex", or "diplomatic building", or any other random thing that wasn't the precise word "embassy", is pretty freaking ridiculous.



And you were taught to make a big deal of the fact that they're calling these guys Navy SEALs, and the building an Embassy and so you repeat that over and over like a good little boy, never once stopping to ask if this really makes any difference. Does it?

I just find it funny that you howl over my use of the word Embassy, but then insist that the same building is precisely the public facing diplomatic building that folks in Benghazi would associate with US power in the area, and would otherwise treat said building as an embassy in the absence of desire to drive 400 miles to Tripoli. If that's really the case, then what difference does it make what we call the building? It's either a building owned and operated by the US state department for diplomatic purposes and which falls under diplomatic rules, or it is not. Whether it's the official "Embassy", or not is a pretty irrelevant distinction. Yet, for some bizarre reason, that's what you choose to focus on. Not whether there were grave security mistakes made that day, nor whether there were poor choices made once the attack began, nor whether there was an effort to conceal these mistakes, nor whether there was an effort to downplay the seriousness of the attack itself. Nope. What you care most about is what we call the building.


You seriously never stop and ask if your marching orders make any sense at all? Cause they don't.

Once again, you know you've touched Gbaji's nerve when he takes the things you just pointed out about him and desperately tries to turn them around.

"Umm... no! YOU were told to say it!!"

What's actually "laughable" is how well you kept saying "embassy" and "SEALs" until this thread when you were finally called out on it and then began frantically backpedaling.

You're joking, right? Because you've used it in at least ten posts in this thread alone before you were called out on it.

Look, I don't actually blame you. You didn't know. I realize that's embarrassing for you and you'll scream and claw to deny it but it's obvious to everyone. You had no idea. You had no idea the guys were CIA. You don't need to type another fifteen paragraphs claiming you always knew or how it's really I who was told what to say. Just, you know, maybe educate yourself a little about the world next time.

Hey now, he found a cite on Fox News. Which was a huge coup for him... aside from the fact that I cited from Fox News about a week ago on this very thread page while he was still calling my claims about their actual employment "spooky CIA interpretations".

Apparently he confused his regurgitated talking points with the basic facts that pretty much everyone else (even Fox News!) already knew.

Edited, Oct 21st 2014 5:59pm by Jophiel