GOP Responsible for Fraudulent E-Mail Leaks

[Clave]

Like anyone was wondering...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57584947/wh-benghazi-emails-have-different-quotes-than-earlier-reported/

--
"Was I even talking to you?"
Paul "Pop-Tard" Popinjay

[Truthseeker]

On 5/17/13 11:10 AM, Clave wrote:
> Like anyone was wondering...
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57584947/wh-benghazi-emails-have-different-quotes-than-earlier-reported/

Squirrel!!!

I sure doesn't take much to keep you fooled.



--
Truthseeker

"On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog."

[Clave]

"Truthseeker" <truth...@nospam.us> wrote in message
news:Qe-dnb0-wJ1f6wvM...@giganews.com...

> On 5/17/13 11:10 AM, Clave wrote:
>> Like anyone was wondering...
>>
>> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57584947/wh-benghazi-emails-have-different-quotes-than-earlier-reported/
>
> Squirrel!!!
>
> I sure doesn't take much to keep you fooled.

I'm sure that in some remote corner of Wingnuttia that makes some kind of
sense.

Jim

[mo_ntresor]

On May 17 2013 12:28 PM, Truthseeker wrote:

> Squirrel!!!
>
> I sure doesn't take much to keep you fooled.

you made clam's weekend: SOMEBODY STILL RESPONDS!!!

mo_ntresor

[Truthseeker]

Well, yeah. But the White House puts out a little misdirection and
Clave immediately falls for it.

No good comes from Claving. I gotta remember that.

[VegasJerry]

On Friday, May 17, 2013 11:28:17 AM UTC-7, Truthseeker wrote:
> On 5/17/13 11:10 AM, Clave wrote:
> > Like anyone was wondering...
> >
> > http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57584947/wh-benghazi-emails-have-different-quotes-than-earlier-reported/
>
> Squirrel!!!

.
.> I sure doesn't take much to keep you fooled.

Typical embarrassed Truthseeker (sic). When too embarrassed to admit he's wrong, he attacks the messenger.

You lose again.

Jerry 'n Vegas

[VegasJerry]

Once again I get to point out: No conspiracies, no lies, no cover-ups.
The ball's still in your court, wing nuts….

[fffurken]

On May 17, 9:38 pm, Truthseeker <truthsee...@nospam.us> wrote:
> On 5/17/13 12:59 PM, mo_ntresor wrote:
>
> > On May 17 2013 12:28 PM, Truthseeker wrote:
>
> >> Squirrel!!!
>
> >> I sure doesn't take much to keep you fooled.
>
> > you made clam's weekend:  SOMEBODY STILL RESPONDS!!!
>
> Well, yeah.  But the White House puts out a little misdirection and
> Clave immediately falls for it.
>
> No good comes from Claving.  I gotta remember that.

And no good comes from fffurkening and no good comes from BillBing and
maybe a few others too.

Can you imagine what this newsgroup would be like without the likes of
us?

It would be like a bunch of wingnuts slavering over each other. Eughh.

Btw, I'm really starting to wonder where BillB is. I don't ever recall
an absence this long and he's a big loss to the group.

--
"There is reason to believe that strict right-wing ideology might
appeal to those who have trouble grasping the complexity of the world".

[Travel]

On Friday, May 17, 2013 1:10:50 PM UTC-4, Clave wrote:
> Like anyone was wondering...
>
>
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57584947/wh-benghazi-emails-have-different-quotes-than-earlier-reported/
>
>
>

It must really suck to be this desperate (giggle).

[bub]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 13:54:05 -0700 (PDT), fffurken
<fffu...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Can you imagine what this newsgroup would be like without the likes of
>us?

yeah, you're a legend that will last a lunchtime

[fffurken]

On May 17, 10:19 pm, bub <b...@plottus.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 May 2013 13:54:05 -0700 (PDT), fffurken
>

> <fffur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Can you imagine what this newsgroup would be like without the likes of
> >us?
>
>   yeah, you're a legend

Thanks bub, I appreciate your support.

[TruthSeeker]

On 17/5/13 2:54 PM, fffurken wrote:

...

> Can you imagine what this newsgroup would be like without the likes of
> us?

Civil? Actual rational discussions?

I belong to a Junto, a discussion group that meets once a month and
discusses a proposition based on current events. Members range the
gamut from extreme Left to extreme Right. I've been in the group for
two years, and not once has anyone called someone else stupid, ignorant,
a moron, or any such epithet. I find the discussions interesting,
spirited (while civil) and enlightening.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junto_%28club%29


--
TruthSeeker

[Clave]

"TruthSeeker" <Truth...@nof-nspam.us> wrote in message
news:5196E65A...@nof-nspam.us...

> On 17/5/13 2:54 PM, fffurken wrote:
>
> ...
>> Can you imagine what this newsgroup would be like without the likes of
>> us?
>
> Civil? Actual rational discussions?
>
> I belong to a Junto, a discussion group that meets once a month and
> discusses a proposition based on current events. Members range the
> gamut from extreme Left to extreme Right. I've been in the group for
> two years, and not once has anyone called someone else stupid, ignorant,
> a moron, or any such epithet. I find the discussions interesting,
> spirited (while civil) and enlightening.

And yet here you are.

Jim

[Bill Vanek]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 13:49:14 -0700 (PDT), VegasJerry <jer...@cox.net>
wrote:

>
>Once again I get to point out: No conspiracies, no lies, no cover-ups.
>The ball's still in your court, wing nuts�.

I see you still can't answer the question. You lose again.

[fffurken]

On May 18, 3:24 am, TruthSeeker <TruthSee...@nof-nspam.us> wrote:
> On 17/5/13 2:54 PM, fffurken wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > Can you imagine what this newsgroup would be like without the likes of
> > us?
>
> Civil?  Actual rational discussions?

Rational?

I have no problem being rational with rational people.

> I belong to a Junto, a discussion group that meets once a month and
> discusses a proposition based on current events.  Members range the
> gamut from extreme Left to extreme Right.  I've been in the group for
> two years, and not once has anyone called someone else stupid, ignorant,
> a moron, or any such epithet.  I find the discussions interesting,
> spirited (while civil) and enlightening.

Stick with them so and stop pretending you don't come on here and
insult people.

[VegasJerry]

On Friday, May 17, 2013 7:55:57 PM UTC-7, Bill Vanek wrote:
> On Fri, 17 May 2013 13:49:14 -0700 (PDT), VegasJerry <jer...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Once again I get to point out: No conspiracies, no lies, no cover-ups.
> >The ball's still in your court, wing nuts….

.

.> I see you still can't answer the question. You lose again.

I see you can't point to any conspiracies, lies or cover-ups.

[Bill Vanek]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 10:41:57 -0700 (PDT), VegasJerry <jer...@cox.net>

wrote:

>
>
>On Friday, May 17, 2013 7:55:57 PM UTC-7, Bill Vanek wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 May 2013 13:49:14 -0700 (PDT), VegasJerry <jer...@cox.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Once again I get to point out: No conspiracies, no lies, no cover-ups.
>> >The ball's still in your court, wing nuts�.
>
>.
>.> I see you still can't answer the question. You lose again.
>
>I see you can't point to any conspiracies, lies or cover-ups.

Stop dodging. Just answer the question. If you can...

[fffurken]

On May 18, 11:29 pm, Bill Vanek <bilva...@invalid.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 10:41:57 -0700 (PDT), VegasJerry <jerr...@cox.net>

> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Friday, May 17, 2013 7:55:57 PM UTC-7, Bill Vanek wrote:

> >> On Fri, 17 May 2013 13:49:14 -0700 (PDT), VegasJerry <jerr...@cox.net>

> >> wrote:
>
> >> >Once again I get to point out: No conspiracies, no lies, no cover-ups.
> >> >The ball's still in your court, wing nuts….
>
> >.
> >.> I see you still can't answer the question. You lose again.
>
> >I see you can't point to any conspiracies, lies or cover-ups.
>
> Stop dodging. Just answer the question. If you can...

Was Jerry asked a question?

Or is this another imaginary question about Benghazi? Seriously, turn
off Fox, stop being a wingnut etc.

Let the dead rest in peace.

--
This worthless contribution to RGP was brought to you by fffurken

[Bill Vanek]

I see you can't answer it either. and BillB bitch-slapped you again.
And I used to be a cop. Or something.

Bwahahavhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Learn to lose.

[ChrisRobin]

On May 18 2013 6:45 PM, fffurken wrote:

> Or is this another imaginary question about Benghazi? Seriously, turn
> off Fox, stop being a wingnut etc.
>
> Let the dead rest in peace.

Why? "Ambassador" Stevens was in charge of the covert regime change
program in Libya. His job largely consisted of arming various Al-Qaeda
sects to fight the sitting governments of Libya and Syria (yes, he was
arming the terrorists). He is only a sympathetic figure in the media
because the majority of journalists and Americans are too dumb or lazy to
question the government's laughable attempts at misdirection.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

[fffurken]

On May 19, 1:40 am, "ChrisRobin" <a9db...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

> > Or is this another imaginary question about Benghazi? Seriously, turn
> > off Fox, stop being a wingnut etc.
>
> > Let the dead rest in peace.
>
> Why?

Why? Because there is no reason not to.

There was no conspiracy in Benghazi. So respect the dead, just like
you should respect the 3000 dead who were killed by the terrorist
atrocity which occured on September the 11th, 2001 commited by vile
terrorists against innocent people.

So shut your stupid disrespectful fucking kook cakehole and apportion
blame to those deserve it.

That's why.

[ChrisRobin]

On May 18 2013 10:21 PM, fffurken wrote:

> On May 19, 1:40 am, "ChrisRobin" <a9db...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > Or is this another imaginary question about Benghazi? Seriously, turn
> > > off Fox, stop being a wingnut etc.
> >
> > > Let the dead rest in peace.
> >
> > Why?
>
> Why? Because there is no reason not to.
>
> There was no conspiracy in Benghazi. So respect the dead, just like
> you should respect the 3000 dead who were killed by the terrorist
> atrocity which occured on September the 11th, 2001 commited by vile
> terrorists against innocent people.
>
> So shut your stupid disrespectful fucking kook cakehole and apportion
> blame to those deserve it.
>
> That's why.

Read it and weep, ignoramus:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/25/1150015/-Benghazi-Blowback-Confirmed-US-Intel-Confirms-Attack-Linked-to-Pipeline-of-Libyan-Jihadis-to-Syria#

[fffurken]

On May 19, 8:31 am, "ChrisRobin" <a9db...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> On May 18 2013 10:21 PM, fffurken wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 19, 1:40 am, "ChrisRobin" <a9db...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > > Or is this another imaginary question about Benghazi? Seriously, turn
> > > > off Fox, stop being a wingnut etc.
>
> > > > Let the dead rest in peace.
>
> > > Why?
>
> > Why? Because there is no reason not to.
>
> > There was no conspiracy in Benghazi. So respect the dead, just like
> > you should respect the 3000 dead who were killed by the terrorist
> > atrocity which occured on September the 11th, 2001 commited by vile
> > terrorists against innocent people.
>
> > So shut your stupid disrespectful fucking kook cakehole and apportion
> > blame to those deserve it.
>
> > That's why.
>
> Read it and weep, ignoramus:

Before I do that, could you give me a synopsis of what it says
regarding the Benghazi coverup?

It's just that if I read every link an internet kook posted at me I'd
be wasting my time.

Thanks.

[ChrisRobin]

Sure. It confirms my earlier assertion about the Ambassador's role in
arming Al-Qaeda insurgents to fight the sitting governments of Libya and
Syria. The government has been lying about Benghazi from the outset to
cover up its involvement in the region. Just as I've been saying.

> It's just that if I read every link an internet kook posted at me I'd
> be wasting my time.

Educating yourself is never a waste of time, unless of course you insist
on remaining a partisan ignoramus. Which do you choose?

[fffurken]

> on remaining a partisan ignoramus. Which do you choose?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

That's some kind of "education" you got in mind there pal.

[ChrisRobin]

> That's some kind of "education" you got in mind there pal.

So, uh, did ya read it yet?

[fffurken]

> So, uh, did ya read it yet?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

No I didn't.

I got your point. The events of Benghazi, the second 9/11, were
covered up because the American government is arming rebels in Libya
and Syria.

Good luck getting any traction with that.

[ChrisRobin]

On May 19 2013 3:34 PM, fffurken wrote:

> On May 19, 8:24 pm, "ChrisRobin" <a9db...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

> > So, uh, did ya read it yet?

> No I didn't.

Imagine my surprise.

> I got your point. The events of Benghazi, the second 9/11, were
> covered up because the American government is arming rebels in Libya
> and Syria.

Benghazi is not a "second 9/11," whatever that means. Don't compound your
willful ignorance with juvenile strawmen.

> Good luck getting any traction with that.

LMAO. Look at yourself – terrified to read an article because you'll have
to admit you're wrong. What a chickenshit.

[fffurken]

On May 19, 9:16 pm, "ChrisRobin" <a9db...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

> > I got your point. The events of Benghazi, the second 9/11, were
> > covered up because the American government is arming rebels in Libya
> > and Syria.
>
> Benghazi is not a "second 9/11," whatever that means. Don't compound your
> willful ignorance with juvenile strawmen.

OK, you probably missed that reference. "Second 9/11" was something
TruthProof said, which was heavily criticised by me.

> > Good luck getting any traction with that.
>
> LMAO. Look at yourself – terrified to read an article because you'll have
> to admit you're wrong. What a chickenshit.

Terrified? Such hyperbole does not serve your argument very well. I'm
not interested because I'm not interested.

You are a well known conspiracy theorist on RGP and you will fit any
square into a circle to meet that end.

[ChrisRobin]

Chickenshit.

[fffurken]

> Chickenshit.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Kook.

[ChrisRobin]

On May 19 2013 5:26 PM, fffurken wrote:

> Kook.

Do you enjoy getting bitchslapped by a kook?

[fffurken]

How would I know.

[VegasJerry]

"I am a racist. I hate niggers and spics and slants. I was born here.
We are not Africans. They stand on the corner and they can't speak
English. I can't even talk the way these people talk: These knuckleheads
say, Why you ain't, Where you is, What he drive, Where he stay, Where
he work, Who you be... These lower economic people are not holding up
their end. These People put their clothes on backward, their hats on
backward, pants down around the crack. With names like Shaniqua,
Taliqua and Mohammed and all of that crap. The same applies to 99
percent of all the black Americans. What part of Africa did they come
from? We have got to take the neighborhoods back. I should have included
kikes and lesbos too. Put all of them are in jail."
-- Susan the right-wing racist (April 11, 10:50 am)

[Bill Vanek]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 15:13:16 -0700 (PDT), VegasJerry <jer...@cox.net>
wrote:

>I see you can't point to any conspiracies, lies or cover-ups.

And neither can you... Strange, isn't it?

[ChrisRobin]

Crawl out from under the bed and read the article I cited, and you'll find
out.

You know who else refuses to read cites that he knows will make him look
stupid? FL Turbo. So you've got that going for you.

[Pepe Papon]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 13:16:20 -0700, "ChrisRobin"
<a9d...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

>> I got your point. The events of Benghazi, the second 9/11, were
>> covered up because the American government is arming rebels in Libya
>> and Syria.
>
>Benghazi is not a "second 9/11," whatever that means. Don't compound your
>willful ignorance with juvenile strawmen.

Tell that to Joe Long.
--

Pepe Papon

[Pepe Papon]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 11:40:23 -0700, "ChrisRobin"
<a9d...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

>> >
>> > Read it and weep, ignoramus:
>>
>> Before I do that, could you give me a synopsis of what it says
>> regarding the Benghazi coverup?
>
>Sure. It confirms my earlier assertion about the Ambassador's role in
>arming Al-Qaeda insurgents to fight the sitting governments of Libya and
>Syria. The government has been lying about Benghazi from the outset to
>cover up its involvement in the region. Just as I've been saying.

Actually, it doesn't confirm anything. It's an anonymous piece that
makes a lot of vague assertions without documenting any of them. It's
full of statements like, "It has been reported..." or "We've been
hearing..." but there are precious few cites of actual sources.
--

Pepe Papon

[ramashiva]

On Monday, May 20, 2013 12:28:25 AM UTC-7, Pepe Papon wrote:

> Actually, it doesn't confirm anything. It's an anonymous piece that
> makes a lot of vague assertions without documenting any of them. It's
> full of statements like, "It has been reported..." or "We've been
> hearing..." but there are precious few cites of actual sources.

What exactly are you questioning? That the Benghazi "consulate" was a State Department cover for a CIA operation? That anti-aircraft missiles were shipped from Libya to Syria?

Here are a couple of news reports, published before the 2012 Presidential election, which confirm these facts --

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204712904578092853621061838.html

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/middleeast/article3537770.ece


William Coleman (ramashiva)

[Mossingen]

"ramashiva" wrote in message
news:1c82279c-cdcb-4f2c...@googlegroups.com...

______________________________-



William, what do you make of the Benghazi kerfuffle? I am curious.

[ramashiva]

On Monday, May 20, 2013 9:11:54 AM UTC-7, Mossingen wrote:

> William, what do you make of the Benghazi kerfuffle? I am curious.

I think Chrissy has this one right. I think Ambassador Stevens was a CIA asset. I think he was in charge of a CIA operation which rounded up anti-aircraft missiles and other heavy armaments and shipped them to Syrian insurgents.

I think all the media attention on Susan Rice's talking points and who made revisions to those talking points is just kabuki theater designed to distract attention from the reality that, while the Obama administration was claiming we weren't arming the Syrian rebels, the CIA was doing exactly that.

I don't think Obama gave a fuck whether it became public knowledge that Benghazi was a terrorist attack, but I am quite sure he didn't want voters to know that the CIA was running a secret operation to ship anti-aircraft missiles from Libya to Syria.

All the fuss about an inadequate security response to the initial attack on the "consulate" is just another kabuki distraction. In fact, a CIA security team from the CIA annex evacuated everyone from the "consulate" to the CIA annex. And an additional CIA security team from Tripoli arrived at the CIA annex before the second attack, which killed two CIA personnel. In fact, one of the people killed in the second attack, Glen Doherty, was the leader of that Tripoli security team.

Besides the WSJ and London Times articles I previously linked, here are three more articles with more background information --

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-syria-heavy-weapons-jihadists-2012-10

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-secret-cia-mission-in-benghazi-2013-5

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/world/africa/attack-in-libya-was-major-blow-to-cia-efforts.html

The articles from the WSJ, London Times, and NY Times, as well as the first Business Insider article, were all published before the 2012 presidential election. So why wasn't the information in these articles given extensive media coverage before the election?

That's your cover up right there.


William Coleman (ramashiva)

[ChrisRobin]

On May 20 2013 3:28 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:

> On Sun, 19 May 2013 11:40:23 -0700, "ChrisRobin"

> >Sure. It confirms my earlier assertion about the Ambassador's role in
> >arming Al-Qaeda insurgents to fight the sitting governments of Libya and
> >Syria. The government has been lying about Benghazi from the outset to
> >cover up its involvement in the region. Just as I've been saying.
>
> Actually, it doesn't confirm anything. It's an anonymous piece that
> makes a lot of vague assertions without documenting any of them. It's
> full of statements like, "It has been reported..." or "We've been
> hearing..." but there are precious few cites of actual sources.

Multiple sources in both NYT and CNN don't count as proper documentation?
GTFOH.

[ChrisRobin]

Thanks ramashiva. Looks like I have my tinfoil hat pointing in the right
direction, at least this once.

[TruthSeeker]

On 19/5/13 1:34 PM, fffurken wrote:
> On May 19, 8:24 pm, "ChrisRobin" <a9db...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

...

>>>>> It's just that if I read every link an internet kook posted at me I'd
>>>>> be wasting my time.

>>>> Educating yourself is never a waste of time, unless of course you insist
>>>> on remaining a partisan ignoramus. Which do you choose?

>>> That's some kind of "education" you got in mind there pal.

>> So, uh, did ya read it yet?

> No I didn't.

Summation: it would be a waste of time for fffurken to read any cite
which might be contrary to what he already believes, as he will
automatically reject any such information even if he reads it.



--
TruthSeeker

"On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog."

[TruthSeeker]

Context, my good man.

If you use the term "second 9/11" to suggest that the two terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11th are equivalent in scope, that
would be an incorrect usage. If you use the term to be clear WHICH of
the two terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11th you are
referring to, that is a correct and useful usage.

If you constantly harp on the supposed "misuse" of the term (like
fffurken does) you are a knee-jerking fool seeking any means to demean,
fair or foul.

[Travel A]

That's what I've been saying for a long time: It is a left wing
conspiracy, using front groups like the Muslim brotherhood to overthrow
these independent, "strongman" regimes in Egypt, Libya and now, Syria.

The "big ones" like Hussein in Iraq, and Iran coming up, will (has) just
be taken out by the U.S. and/or the Israeli military.

The Bushes (Republican RINOs) are Globalist, U.N. supporting, left-wing
collaborators, btw.

Result: a left wing control of the middle east with Israel the de facto
"power-administrator" of the region.

"Royal family" countries like Jordan and Saudi Arabia will then be in a
position of great pressure.

Why do you think Obama and the Prime Minister of Israel are putting on
this staged dog and pony show of "not Getting along"? It's a smoke
screen. They have this strategy together.

Unless there's actually anyone out there who thinks that peasants and
pissed-off shopkeepers are doing all this overthrowing of middle east
regimes all of a sudden. Then you need to "think about it."

I luv the part where "they're" always saying: "We don't know WHO the
rebels are!" Noooo, 'course not (chortle.)

[VegasJerry]

On Sunday, May 19, 2013 5:26:02 PM UTC-7, Bill Vanek wrote:
> On Sun, 19 May 2013 15:13:16 -0700 (PDT), VegasJerry <jer...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> >I see you can't point to any conspiracies, lies or cover-ups.

.
.> And neither can you... Strange, isn't it?

No. This proved President Obama's in the clear.

[fffurken]

On May 20, 9:36 pm, TruthSeeker <TruthSee...@nof-nspam.us> wrote:

> >> Benghazi is not a "second 9/11," whatever that means. Don't compound your
> >> willful ignorance with juvenile strawmen.
>
> > Tell that to Joe Long.
>
> Context, my good man.
>
> If you use the term "second 9/11" to suggest that the two terrorist
> attacks that occurred on September 11th are equivalent in scope, that
> would be an incorrect usage.  If you use the term to be clear WHICH of
> the two terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11th you are
> referring to, that is a correct and useful usage.

Not it's not but that was never in doubt anyway. Usual smoke and
mirrors from TruthProof.

[fffurken]

On May 20, 9:32 pm, TruthSeeker <TruthSee...@nof-nspam.us> wrote:

> >>>>> It's just that if I read every link an internet kook posted at me I'd
> >>>>> be wasting my time.
> >>>> Educating yourself is never a waste of time, unless of course you insist
> >>>> on remaining a partisan ignoramus. Which do you choose?
> >>> That's some kind of "education" you got in mind there pal.
> >> So, uh, did ya read it yet?
> > No I didn't.
>
> Summation:  it would be a waste of time for fffurken to read any cite
> which might be contrary to what he already believes, as he will
> automatically reject any such information even if he reads it.

I'm not "rejecting the information", I'm rejecting it rising to the
level of a conspiracy or a cover up.

I've never particularly said Chris "The Kook" Robin was wrong about
the American government arming rebels in Syria.

I've said governments are openly talking about arming rebels in Syria.

I've said it's understandable when America arms groups, covertly or
overtly, to suit their means right or wrong because it been happening
since forever.

I've said that I don't think the likes of you are getting your panties
in a Benghazi twist over the Obama administration arming rebels in far
flung countries.

[ChrisRobin]

Jesus, what a weasel.

[fffurken]

> Jesus, what a weasel.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I see you didn't back up that statement.

No surprise there, that's normal in Kooksville.

[TruthSeeker]

Spin and twist, twist and spin, anything to avoid admitting your
closed-minded refusal to accept facts or logic that are contrary to your
beliefs.

[Clave]

"TruthSeeker" <Truth...@nof-nspam.us> wrote in message
news:sYqdnR9CLdoxTwfM...@giganews.com...

Another irony meter completely smoked...

[ChrisRobin]

On May 20 2013 7:04 PM, fffurken wrote:

> I see you didn't back up that statement.

No need. It's all there in writing for everyone to see.

[Pepe Papon]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 14:36:38 -0600, TruthSeeker
<Truth...@nof-nspam.us> wrote:

>On 20/5/13 1:18 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 May 2013 13:16:20 -0700, "ChrisRobin"
>> <a9d...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>> I got your point. The events of Benghazi, the second 9/11, were
>>>> covered up because the American government is arming rebels in Libya
>>>> and Syria.
>>>
>>> Benghazi is not a "second 9/11," whatever that means. Don't compound your
>>> willful ignorance with juvenile strawmen.
>>
>> Tell that to Joe Long.
>
>Context, my good man.
>
>If you use the term "second 9/11" to suggest that the two terrorist
>attacks that occurred on September 11th are equivalent in scope, that
>would be an incorrect usage. If you use the term to be clear WHICH of
>the two terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11th you are
>referring to, that is a correct and useful usage.

It's already been explained to you. The phrase "second 9/11" is a
misleading bit of political spin that attempts to make Obama look bad.
"9/11" doesn't have significance because of the date; it has
significance because it denotes an event that was staggering in its
scope. A "second 9/11" would denote another attack similar in scope.
There's no need for the term in the context that you insist on using
it in, as there is already a well-understood term that denotes this
event, "Benghazi".

>If you constantly harp on the supposed "misuse" of the term (like
>fffurken does) you are a knee-jerking fool seeking any means to demean,
>fair or foul.

100% wrong.
--

Pepe Papon

[Pepe Papon]

Thanks for the cites, although I can't access the WSJ article, since
I'm not a subscriber. The Times article mentions the shipments, but
it doesn't say anything about the CIA.

Anyway, my point was that, although Chris's version of events might,
in fact, be true, the article he cited didn't prove it.
--

Pepe Papon

[fffurken]

It's there in writing for you to see.

Point out anything I said which wasn't true in the post to which you
responded calling me a 'weasel'.

Look at the post I made to you in this thread -

"I got your point. The *events* of Benghazi, the second 9/11, were

covered up because the American government is arming rebels in Libya
and Syria.

Good luck getting any traction with that."

Seriously, good luck.

[brattt]

In the context he first used it he was merely differentiating between the
2 attacks. It's you and fffffffffffff that have turned it into a big
thing.

[fffurken]

Well, suffice to say, only in a few people's mind would it be
necessary to differentiate between 9/11 and Benghazi by calling
Benghazi a "second 9/11".

--
"Look at how Americans rallied around Bush following the first 9/11."

Truthseeker, 21/10/2012

[Mossingen]

"ramashiva" wrote in message
news:ba53562b-8bb5-4014...@googlegroups.com...

___________________________



Thanks. Very interesting. I haven't really been following this as closely
as I should.

[ramashiva]

On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 12:17:15 AM UTC-7, Pepe Papon wrote:

> Thanks for the cites, although I can't access the WSJ article, since
> I'm not a subscriber.

Here is a nifty little tip which works for the WSJ and other paywall websites. Just Google the article title, then click on the appropriate search result. For some reason, these paywall websites let you see the articles if you come to them from Google search. In this case, the article title is "CIA Takes Heat for Role in Libya".

> The Times article mentions the shipments,
> but it doesn't say anything about the CIA.

No, the purpose of citing that article was just to show that such an arms shipment had happened. You aren't going to find it spelled out anywhere that the CIA is responsible for the arms shipments. It's a connect-the-dots exercise.

I suggest you also read the links I provided in my response to Mossingen.


William Coleman (ramashiva)

[Truthseeker]

On 5/21/13 1:01 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> On Mon, 20 May 2013 14:36:38 -0600, TruthSeeker
> <Truth...@nof-nspam.us> wrote:

>> If you use the term "second 9/11" to suggest that the two terrorist
>> attacks that occurred on September 11th are equivalent in scope, that
>> would be an incorrect usage. If you use the term to be clear WHICH of
>> the two terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11th you are
>> referring to, that is a correct and useful usage.

> It's already been explained to you.

Incorrectly.

> The phrase "second 9/11" is a
> misleading bit of political spin that attempts to make Obama look bad.
> "9/11" doesn't have significance because of the date; it has
> significance because it denotes an event that was staggering in its
> scope. A "second 9/11" would denote another attack similar in scope.

No, it denotes another attack on the same date, occurring on that date
in part due to the significance of that date. The attacks are different
in scale, but related by the perpetrators as well as the date.

> There's no need for the term in the context that you insist on using
> it in, as there is already a well-understood term that denotes this
> event, "Benghazi".

But "second 9/11" sends you guys so ballistic (even more than
"Benghazi." I used it pretty much in passing the first time, subsequent
uses have been inspired by your over-reaction to it.

>> If you constantly harp on the supposed "misuse" of the term (like
>> fffurken does) you are a knee-jerking fool seeking any means to demean,
>> fair or foul.
>
> 100% wrong.

You are disproving your own statement by your continuing to harp on it here.



--
Truthseeker

[Truthseeker]

> In the context he first used it he was merely differentiating between the
> 2 attacks. It's you and fffffffffffff that have turned it into a big
> thing.

Wanna take any bets on how long it will take for them to figure that out
(even if I did just point it out to Pepe)?


--
Truthseeker

[Clave]

"Truthseeker" <truth...@nospam.us> wrote in message
news:ftSdnclseowFVAbM...@giganews.com...

<...>

> But "second 9/11" sends you guys so ballistic...

If an eye roll and thinking "Jesus Christ, TroothProof truly *is* a fucking
idiot" is going ballistic, then I guess so.

Jim

[VegasJerry]

On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 12:23:03 PM UTC-7, Truthseeker wrote:
> On 5/21/13 1:01 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 May 2013 14:36:38 -0600, TruthSeeker
> > <Truth...@nof-nspam.us> wrote:
>
> >> If you use the term "second 9/11" to suggest that the two terrorist
> >> attacks that occurred on September 11th are equivalent in scope, that
> >> would be an incorrect usage. If you use the term to be clear WHICH of
> >> the two terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11th you are
> >> referring to, that is a correct and useful usage.
>
> > It's already been explained to you.
>
> Incorrectly.
>
> > The phrase "second 9/11" is a
> > misleading bit of political spin that attempts to make Obama look bad.
> > "9/11" doesn't have significance because of the date; it has
> > significance because it denotes an event that was staggering in its
> > scope. A "second 9/11" would denote another attack similar in scope.

.
.> No,

Yes.

> it denotes another attack on the same date, occurring on that date
> in part due to the significance of that date. The attacks are different
> in scale, but related by the perpetrators as well as the date.

And would give even greater credence to the possibility that it was a demonstration; as was happening at other locations; and not an attack.

And guess what? That's what was thought by virtually EVERYBODY.
(Of course we don't expect you to admit it. You're going to tell us how
you separated this apart from the other demonstrations because of your
Super brilliance)(HAR!).


Jerry 'n Vegas

[ChrisRobin]

On May 21 2013 2:33 PM, ramashiva wrote:

> On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 12:17:15 AM UTC-7, Pepe Papon wrote:

> > The Times article mentions the shipments,
> > but it doesn't say anything about the CIA.
>
> No, the purpose of citing that article was just to show that such an arms
shipment had happened.
> You aren't going to find it spelled out anywhere that the CIA is responsible
for the arms shipments.
> It's a connect-the-dots exercise.

This lends significant credence to the CIA angle:

"At a secret February ceremony at CIA headquarters in Langley, Va., the
chief of the CIA�s base in Benghazi the night of the 9/11 anniversary
attacks there was awarded one of the agency�s highest intelligence medals,
according to U.S. military and intelligence officials.

"The honor given behind closed doors to 'Bob,' the officer who was in
charge of the Benghazi intelligence annex and CIA base that was attacked
in the early morning of September 12, 2012 and then abandoned for nearly
three weeks, illustrates the murky lines of command that preceded the
attack, and helped make it a politically volatile issue. While the State
Department was responsible for elements of the security for the diplomatic
mission at Benghazi, the mission itself was used primarily for
intelligence activities and MOST OF THE U.S. OFFICIALS THERE AND AT THE
NEARBY ANNEX WERE CIA OFFICERS WHO USED STATE DEPARTMENT COVER." (emphasis
mine)

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/21/exclusive-cia-honored-benghazi-chief-in-secret-ceremony.html

[Pepe Papon]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 03:55:37 -0700, "brattt" <af3...@webnntp.invalid>
wrote:

I just explained why that was and continues to be inappropriate. Did
you even bother to read my post before replying?
--

Pepe Papon

[Pepe Papon]

The dishonesty of the phrase has been explained to you, as has the
reason for the objection to it, and you see this as a reason to press
forward with it. That says a lot about you, and none of it is good.

>>> If you constantly harp on the supposed "misuse" of the term (like
>>> fffurken does) you are a knee-jerking fool seeking any means to demean,
>>> fair or foul.
>>
>> 100% wrong.
>
>You are disproving your own statement by your continuing to harp on it here.

I'm doing nothing of the sort. You, OTOH, are proving that you have
ignored every attempt to explain the matter to you.
--

Pepe Papon

[Pepe Papon]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 13:23:03 -0600, Truthseeker
<truth...@nospam.us> wrote:

P.S. It's disingenuous of you to continue to use the term to troll
for a reaction and then turn around and accuse me of harping on it.
--

Pepe Papon

[Pepe Papon]

I read the BI article, which is much more credible than the one Chris
cited.
--

Pepe Papon

[Pepe Papon]

The one question I have about this is why are the Republicans pressing
the inconsequential talking points issue when there's a much bigger
issue they could be slamming Obama and Hillary with?
--

Pepe Papon

[brattt]

Yes I did, and I don't believe it was inappropriate.

[fffurken]

On 22 May, 11:24, "brattt" <af3...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

> > I just explained why that was and continues to be inappropriate.   Did
> > you even bother to read my post before replying?
> > --
>
> > Pepe Papon
>
> Yes I did, and I don't believe it was inappropriate.

That's probably because you're suffering from the same or similar
mental block.

Hey, I'll tell you what's fucking hilarious though, here we are,
MONTHS later, and Truthseeker is STILL HARPING on about the date!
lolololol

That was a pretty good prediction of mine huh.

[brattt]

ummmm YOU would be the harper - not him

[fffurken]

Well you seem to be in the know susan, could you explain the date
thing to me again?

It's just that I didn't get it the first hundred and twenty times
Truthproof wrote it. (chortle)

[ramashiva]

On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 12:47:08 AM UTC-7, Pepe Papon wrote:

> The one question I have about this is why are the Republicans pressing
> the inconsequential talking points issue when there's a much bigger
> issue they could be slamming Obama and Hillary with?

Maybe because the CIA arms shipment operation is highly classified. There was both a classified and unclassified version of the Accountability Review Board report.


William Coleman (ramashiva)

[ChrisRobin]

On May 22 2013 3:47 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:

> The one question I have about this is why are the Republicans pressing
> the inconsequential talking points issue when there's a much bigger
> issue they could be slamming Obama and Hillary with?

Two reasons: 1) What Ramashiva said (it's classified); and 2) Because
these kinds of covert programs are not openly discussed by Serious People.
Quickest way to lose your support/funding/job in D.C. is to discuss how
the sausage is made. Most of the partisan fighting we see is in the MSM is
just a sideshow; the real agenda of the elites is rarely discussed openly
and enjoys full bipartisan support.

[Pepe Papon]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 04:29:08 -0700, "brattt" <af3...@webnntp.invalid>
wrote:

Except that Joe admitted that he's harping on it. He knows it's
inappropriate, but he keeps using it anyway to troll for responses.
--

Pepe Papon

[Pepe Papon]

But why push for an investigation of the matter when they don't really
want the facts to come out? If they wanted to keep it secret, they
ought to have just dropped the whole thing.
--

Pepe Papon

[ChrisRobin]

On May 22 2013 4:51 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:

> But why push for an investigation of the matter when they don't really
> want the facts to come out? If they wanted to keep it secret, they
> ought to have just dropped the whole thing.

There is no such thing as a true "investigation" on Capitol Hill. Sure,
hearings will be called, a commission assembled... but classified
information will be redacted and remain classified, and the true
architects of these programs will be protected by throwing their
underlings to the wolves. Same as it ever was.

[Travel A]

"The one question I have about this is why are the Republicans pressing
the inconsequential talking points issue when there's a much bigger
issue they could be slamming Obama and Hillary with?

--
Pepe Papon"
............................................


I wrote:
Because the Republican leadership are RINOs (left wing collaborators),
and as a result, so are the significant majority of Republican
congressional members.

They put-on the "windowdressing," but there's a line they won't cross.

If there were serious Republican opposition to the left, Obama commie
"care," for example, would never have passed through that joke
"reconciliation" "procedure."

There would have been a Special Prosecutor investigationng all those
unconstitutional "Czars." Among other things.

Holder would have been long thrown-out of office over "Fast and
Furious."

The "Republicans," led by the phony Rubio, wouldn't be assisting the
left (actually leading the way) in the push for blanket-amnesty.

See if the Republican leadership calls-for and appoints a Special
Prosecutor for the IRS scandal. Never has there been one more
appropriately needed. It won't happen.

The Bushes wouldn't have appointed left wing Supreme Court justices;
there wouldn't be a Roberts to ass-fuck the Constitution in the first
place if it weren't for the RINOs.

It's why the "Karl Roves," etc., assist the left in destroying real
conservatives' political careers.

It's why Boner has zero Tea Party members in the leadership, and
actually removed any "suspected" Tea Party sympathizers (conservatives)
of the House from committee leadership.

The list is endless. This Middle East situation is just another of the
kind. They won't cross that line, they'll just go-with the issues and
public disclosure that, in the end, will present no real change in the
power of the left.

[TruthSeeker]

On 22/5/13 1:20 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 13:23:03 -0600, Truthseeker
> <truth...@nospam.us> wrote:

...

>> But "second 9/11" sends you guys so ballistic (even more than
>> "Benghazi." I used it pretty much in passing the first time, subsequent
>> uses have been inspired by your over-reaction to it.

> The dishonesty of the phrase has been explained to you, as has the
> reason for the objection to it,

Incorrectly, as I've shown. The phrase as I have used it is neither
dishonest nor objectionable to rational people.

> and you see this as a reason to press
> forward with it. That says a lot about you, and none of it is good.

The reason I "press forward" with it is that it is so entertaining
seeing you guys froth at the mouth over it ... which says something
about you.

>>>> If you constantly harp on the supposed "misuse" of the term (like
>>>> fffurken does) you are a knee-jerking fool seeking any means to demean,
>>>> fair or foul.
>>>
>>> 100% wrong.
>>
>> You are disproving your own statement by your continuing to harp on it here.
>
> I'm doing nothing of the sort. You, OTOH, are proving that you have
> ignored every attempt to explain the matter to you.

Are you going fffurken on me? Calling me argumentative when you keep
bringing this up and whining about it? Hint: not accepting your flawed
"explanation" is not ignoring it, it is rejecting it (because it's wrong).


--
TruthSeeker

[TruthSeeker]

Trolling is presenting a case you know to be false to generate a
reaction. Replying to someone who is harping on some case or usage
(that they are incorrectly whining about), even to tweak them, is not
trolling.

I'll put it another way: since your complaint and "explanation" about
my use of "second 9/11" is false, my using it in replies to your
constant harping on it is not trolling.

Something else that's really a gas is fffurken constantly bringing this
back up and then accusing me of "harping" if I reply.

I'll make a prediction: you are going to have the last word here. But
thanks, guys, for another fun tempest in a teapot.



--
TruthSeeker

[TruthSeeker]

Uh, not so. I don't "keep using it anyway." I've used in replies to
fffurken's bringing it back up (which he does to attack, not realizing
that he only makes himself the fool by continuing to do so).

[brewmaster]

The reason Benghazi happened on 9/11 was because the terrorists wanted it
to happen on 9/11, it wasn't a coincidence (I don't believe in
coincidences anyway). The scale was obviously orders of magnitude
smaller, but it was still 9/11 on purpose. If I give you a car for a
Christmas gift, and next year I give you a marble, do you call the car "my
Christmas gift" and the marble "that fucking marble"? They are both still
Christmas gifts.

> --
>
> Pepe Papon

[Pepe Papon]

Yes, I know it was done purposely on that date, but that doesn't make
it "another 9/11". Another 9/11 could occur on any date, just like
"another Pearl Harbor" could happen at a wide variety of locations.
It;s what happened on 9/11 that gives it significance in the lexicon,
not the date itself.

> If I give you a car for a
>Christmas gift, and next year I give you a marble, do you call the car "my
>Christmas gift" and the marble "that fucking marble"? They are both still
>Christmas gifts.

That's a very poor analogy. You presumably get Christmas gifts every
year as a matter of course. The car would be an especially nice
Christmas gift, but it's still a Christmas gift like all the others.
No special word or expression has been added to the lexicon to
signify the car.
--

Pepe Papon

[Pepe Papon]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 19:39:20 -0600, TruthSeeker
<Truth...@nof-nspam.us> wrote:

>On 22/5/13 1:20 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 13:23:03 -0600, Truthseeker
>> <truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>
>...
>>> But "second 9/11" sends you guys so ballistic (even more than
>>> "Benghazi." I used it pretty much in passing the first time, subsequent
>>> uses have been inspired by your over-reaction to it.
>
>> The dishonesty of the phrase has been explained to you, as has the
>> reason for the objection to it,
>
>Incorrectly, as I've shown. The phrase as I have used it is neither
>dishonest nor objectionable to rational people.

You've shown nothing of the sort. You've consistently failed to
address the points that have been made.

>> and you see this as a reason to press
>> forward with it. That says a lot about you, and none of it is good.
>
>The reason I "press forward" with it is that it is so entertaining
>seeing you guys froth at the mouth over it ... which says something
>about you.

Nobody is frothing at the mouth. Your need to characterize it as
such says something about you.

>>>>> If you constantly harp on the supposed "misuse" of the term (like
>>>>> fffurken does) you are a knee-jerking fool seeking any means to demean,
>>>>> fair or foul.
>>>>
>>>> 100% wrong.
>>>
>>> You are disproving your own statement by your continuing to harp on it here.
>>
>> I'm doing nothing of the sort. You, OTOH, are proving that you have
>> ignored every attempt to explain the matter to you.
>
>Are you going fffurken on me? Calling me argumentative when you keep
>bringing this up and whining about it? Hint: not accepting your flawed
>"explanation" is not ignoring it, it is rejecting it (because it's wrong).

You're being disingenuous again. You've already admitted to bringing
it up on purpose to el;icit a reaction. My explanation, far from
being flawed, is 100% spot on, and your repeated content-free
contradictions won't change that.
--

Pepe Papon

[Pepe Papon]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 20:11:13 -0600, TruthSeeker
<Truth...@nof-nspam.us> wrote:

>On 22/5/13 1:22 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 13:23:03 -0600, Truthseeker
>> <truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>
>>> You are disproving your own statement by your continuing to harp on it here.
>
>> P.S. It's disingenuous of you to continue to use the term to troll
>> for a reaction and then turn around and accuse me of harping on it.
>
>Trolling is presenting a case you know to be false to generate a
>reaction. Replying to someone who is harping on some case or usage
>(that they are incorrectly whining about), even to tweak them, is not
>trolling.
>
>I'll put it another way: since your complaint and "explanation" about
>my use of "second 9/11" is false, my using it in replies to your
>constant harping on it is not trolling.

Yes, it is. You're doing it just to elicit a reaction. You said so
yourself.

You have no case. Nobody other than perhaps a few right-wing
extremists think of Behghazi as "another 9/11". Once again, there's
no need to invent such a term to refer to the incident, as it's
already known as simply "Benghazi". You can declare all you want that
it's is false, but it's obviously 100% true.

>Something else that's really a gas is fffurken constantly bringing this
>back up and then accusing me of "harping" if I reply.
>
>I'll make a prediction: you are going to have the last word here. But
>thanks, guys, for another fun tempest in a teapot.

When all else fails, trot out the "last word" bullshit. It's another
disingenuous ploy to create the illusion of winning. If I don't
rely, then you win because you got the last word. If I do reply, you
win because you successfully predicted I'd get the last word.
--

Pepe Papon

[Pepe Papon]

They might be doing that on Capitol Hill, but there are others out
there gathering information, as evidenced by the articles you and
Ramashiva have cited. By calling so much attention to the incident,
they're inviting the investigative journalists to look into the
situation and make discoveries like the ones cited in the articles.

If they didn't want people poking their noses into it and turning over
rocks looking for information, then they should have just shut up
about it from the beginning.
--

Pepe Papon

[ramashiva]

On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 11:52:17 PM UTC-7, Pepe Papon wrote:

> They might be doing that on Capitol Hill, but there are others out
> there gathering information, as evidenced by the articles you and
> Ramashiva have cited. By calling so much attention to the incident,
> they're inviting the investigative journalists to look into the
> situation and make discoveries like the ones cited in the articles.

> If they didn't want people poking their noses into it and turning over
> rocks looking for information, then they should have just shut up
> about it from the beginning.

Oh, I think the Republicans would be very happy if solid evidence emerged that the CIA had been shipping anti-aircraft missiles to the Syrian rebels. But even if they know that is the case, they can't make that information public themselves, because the operation, if it indeed took place, would obviously be classified.

It would be a huge embarrassment for Obama, who has said we aren't arming the Syrian rebels. And I am guessing the Republicans would also approve of such a CIA operation.


William Coleman (ramashiva)

[brattt]

On May 23 2013 1:41 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:


It is you and fffckin' that are obsessed with it. I have not seen (please
direct me if I am wrong) if anyone other than you two have brought it up.
Not responded, but brought it up

BTW, if only fffckin' agreed with me I think I would let the matter die a
slow death.

The smart thing for you to do is stop mentioning it.

10/4

[fffurken]

On 23 May, 03:22, "brewmaster" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

> The reason Benghazi happened on 9/11 was because the terrorists wanted it
> to happen on 9/11, it wasn't a coincidence (I don't believe in
> coincidences anyway).

Please join Truthseeker in thinking that's some of kind of
unfathomable mystery we can't understand.

Or just go back to sleep brew. That would probably be better, one
person harping on about the date is enough.

[fffurken]

On 23 May, 07:41, Pepe Papon <hitmeis...@mindspring.com> wrote:

> >> The dishonesty of the phrase has been explained to you, as has the
> >> reason for the objection to it,
>
> >Incorrectly, as I've shown.  The phrase as I have used it is neither
> >dishonest nor objectionable to rational people.
>
> You've shown nothing of the sort.   You've consistently failed to
> address the points that have been made.

..and instead chose to harp on about the date.

What did I fucking say!

lol That was a pretty accurate prediction by me.

[mo_ntresor]

On May 23 2013 12:48 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:

> >Something else that's really a gas is fffurken constantly bringing this
> >back up and then accusing me of "harping" if I reply.
> >
> >I'll make a prediction: you are going to have the last word here. But
> >thanks, guys, for another fun tempest in a teapot.
>
> When all else fails, trot out the "last word" bullshit. It's another
> disingenuous ploy to create the illusion of winning. If I don't
> rely, then you win because you got the last word. If I do reply, you
> win because you successfully predicted I'd get the last word.

this just HAS to be IT!

mo_ntresor

[Travel A]

If there are classified aspects involved, it doesn't make any
difference: the Plame/Scooter Libby issue had CIA classified involvement
and it didn't stop the Special Councel Fitzgerald from being appointed.

The Republican RINOs dont won't to blow-open the left wing "Middle East
strategy" that's been going on, and that's what's stopping
investigations (actually, they already know of course) into who these
rebels are (they're left wing front groups) and who's supporting them
(guess who).

[Pepe Papon]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 04:37:10 -0700, "brattt" <af3...@webnntp.invalid>
wrote:

>On May 23 2013 1:41 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
>
>It is you and fffckin' that are obsessed with it. I have not seen (please
>direct me if I am wrong) if anyone other than you two have brought it up.
>Not responded, but brought it up

You're wrong, of course. Neither fffurken nor I ever mention it
except in response to Joe Long, who insists on using the phrase.
--

Pepe Papon

[brattt]

You're wrong of course - this very thread being proof.

[fffurken]

Was it me who mentioned it first? Actually I think I did, I described
Benghazi as the "second 9/11" in a post to ChrisRobin. He of course
reacted like most people would with a "What the fuck?"

[Truthseeker]

Wrong again, I don't "bring it up" at all. I RESPOND with it to taunt
you and fffurken since you so obsessed with it, after one of you two
bring it up.

> My explanation, far from
> being flawed, is 100% spot on, and your repeated content-free
> contradictions won't change that.

Once again proof by assertion. I did respond, more than once, with a
rational case but you will never admit it.

It's been fascinating to see just how far you will push this.

Uh oh ... I hope that's not the last word. Awww, why am worried, this
is Pepe I'm replying to.



--
Truthseeker

[brattt]

I already showed him, in this thread alone, that it was you responding -
NOT the other way around.