"Benghazi is a Laughable Joke"

[jj3jordan 2,172]

homer, you're buying this admin's spin, hook , line and sinker.

It's been categorically shot down, but they still insist on using it, and you still insist on buying into it.

I don't know what else to say. You're what is commonly referred to as an " *useful idiot " .

* The term has been used to refer to Sovietsympathizers in Western countries. The implication was that, although the people in question naïvely thought of themselves as an ally of the Soviet Union, they were actually held in contempt and were being cynically used. The use of the term in political discourse has since been extended to other propagandists, especially those who are seen to unwittingly support a malignant cause which they naïvely believe to be a force for good

Since you failed to address any substantive points I made, there's nothing in that post I can respond to.

I suppose I could respond to your insult with some sort of epithet of my own, but that would simply take me down to your level, wouldn't it?

So I'll just let it go and leave the readers of this thread to determine who is the idiot here, "useful" or not. ;)/>

You are directionally challenged and achieving his level would be impossible for you.

Well, I don't understand what you mean by "directionally" challenged, but I don't consider regressing to the level of simple name calling an "achievement".

Maybe you could get somebody to explain it to you, then you could understand.

Well if you can't, can you direct me to someone who can?

(And fyi, not being able to explain your statements is a warning flag you maybe shouldn't be making them.)

You implied that you did not want to take yourself down to Raptor's level. That would currently place you above Raptor's level. My contention is that you are not above Raptor's level. Having to explain this to you is further proof. Thank you for making my case.

[homersapien 12,353]

Homer, your mistake is trying to come up with some kind of "cause and effect" relationship to any of this (they only did it because of that terrible video or because of the Crusades or whatever nonsensical past trauma). They attacked that compound because they hate us or lust for conquest like they did when they invaded Europe in 711; the same reason they attacked us on 9/11/2011 in the first place; or attacked the USS Cole, or attacked the WTC the 1st time; or attacked the embassy in Kenya, or ...ad infinitum, ad nauseum. They attacked it on Sept 11 for obvious reasons. To look beyond the obvious is absurd. When I see this behavior in people I suddenly understand where they found the OJ Trial jurors.

Sorry but I think you misunderstand my position.

I haven't argued the Libyan attacks were in fact, motivated by the "movie riots". To the contrary, my argument is that the "movie riots" occurred independently and (were ultimately) determined to be unrelated to the Libyan attacks.

Even so, I have also argued that the presumption the Libyan attacks were motivated by the "movie riots" was not unreasonable at the time, even if the presumption was ultimately proven wrong.

AU Raptor is making the case that the movie riots:

1) were used from the beginning in a calculating way by the Obama adm to obfuscate or "cover-up" the truth of the Libyan attacks.

2) didn't occur in a temporal framework that made it even possible they could have motivated the Libyan attacks.

3) wouldn't have occurred at all unless the Obama adm hadn't brought attention to them with their PSAs.

That is the case I am challenging.

The terrorists may have taken advantage of the "movie" controversy, and it may have given them even more impetus, but I generally agree with you their motivation came from the general Islamist reasons that generated the 9/11/01 attacks. (Although I think that some of the reasons you cite are a bit fanciful.)

As far as my suitability for a jury, I would hope that all jurists would exhibit more respect for detail and facts than AU Raptor does. I think his conclusions are more politically-based than fact-based.

[homersapien 12,353]

1. You implied that you did not want to take yourself down to Raptor's level.
   
2. That would currently place you above Raptor's level.
   
3. My contention is that you are not above Raptor's level.
   
4. Having to explain this to you is further proof.
   
5. Thank you for making my case.
   

1. I don't.
   
2. I am.
   
3. You are entitled to your opinion.
   
4. Hardly.
   
5. Your welcome.
   

[japantiger 4,185]

Homer, your mistake is trying to come up with some kind of "cause and effect" relationship to any of this (they only did it because of that terrible video or because of the Crusades or whatever nonsensical past trauma). They attacked that compound because they hate us or lust for conquest like they did when they invaded Europe in 711; the same reason they attacked us on 9/11/2011 in the first place; or attacked the USS Cole, or attacked the WTC the 1st time; or attacked the embassy in Kenya, or ...ad infinitum, ad nauseum. They attacked it on Sept 11 for obvious reasons. To look beyond the obvious is absurd. When I see this behavior in people I suddenly understand where they found the OJ Trial jurors.

Sorry but I think you misunderstand my position.

I haven't argued the Libyan attacks were in fact, motivated by the "movie riots". To the contrary, my argument is that the "movie riots" occurred independently and (were ultimately) determined to be unrelated to the Libyan attacks.

Even so, I have also argued that the presumption the Libyan attacks were motivated by the "movie riots" was not unreasonable at the time, even if the presumption was ultimately proven wrong.

AU Raptor is making the case that the movie riots:

1) were used from the beginning in a calculating way by the Obama adm to obfuscate or "cover-up" the truth of the Libyan attacks.

2) didn't occur in a temporal framework that made it even possible they could have motivated the Libyan attacks.

3) wouldn't have occurred at all unless the Obama adm hadn't brought attention to them with their PSAs.

That is the case I am challenging.

The terrorists may have taken advantage of the "movie" controversy, and it may have given them even more impetus, but I generally agree with you their motivation came from the general Islamist reasons that generated the 9/11/01 attacks. (Although I think that some of the reasons you cite are a bit fanciful.)

As far as my suitability for a jury, I would hope that all jurists would exhibit more respect for detail and facts than AU Raptor does. I think his conclusions are more politically-based than fact-based.

Sorry Homer...that's what I get for going to just the last page of the posts and trying to jump in...not sure which of my reasons are fanciful...I really only made one...and used multiple attacks as examples that there was no "reason" other than they hate. As you point out, the video acknowledgment and the PSA were after the fact...not prior. So can't blame them for stirring blood (as much as I love to bash his-worship...can't make that one work).

[homersapien 12,353]

Homer, your mistake is trying to come up with some kind of "cause and effect" relationship to any of this (they only did it because of that terrible video or because of the Crusades or whatever nonsensical past trauma). They attacked that compound because they hate us or lust for conquest like they did when they invaded Europe in 711; the same reason they attacked us on 9/11/2011 in the first place; or attacked the USS Cole, or attacked the WTC the 1st time; or attacked the embassy in Kenya, or ...ad infinitum, ad nauseum. They attacked it on Sept 11 for obvious reasons. To look beyond the obvious is absurd. When I see this behavior in people I suddenly understand where they found the OJ Trial jurors.

Sorry but I think you misunderstand my position.

I haven't argued the Libyan attacks were in fact, motivated by the "movie riots". To the contrary, my argument is that the "movie riots" occurred independently and (were ultimately) determined to be unrelated to the Libyan attacks.

Even so, I have also argued that the presumption the Libyan attacks were motivated by the "movie riots" was not unreasonable at the time, even if the presumption was ultimately proven wrong.

AU Raptor is making the case that the movie riots:

1) were used from the beginning in a calculating way by the Obama adm to obfuscate or "cover-up" the truth of the Libyan attacks.

2) didn't occur in a temporal framework that made it even possible they could have motivated the Libyan attacks.

3) wouldn't have occurred at all unless the Obama adm hadn't brought attention to them with their PSAs.

That is the case I am challenging.

The terrorists may have taken advantage of the "movie" controversy, and it may have given them even more impetus, but I generally agree with you their motivation came from the general Islamist reasons that generated the 9/11/01 attacks. (Although I think that some of the reasons you cite are a bit fanciful.)

As far as my suitability for a jury, I would hope that all jurists would exhibit more respect for detail and facts than AU Raptor does. I think his conclusions are more politically-based than fact-based.

Sorry Homer...that's what I get for going to just the last page of the posts and trying to jump in...not sure which of my reasons are fanciful...I really only made one...and used multiple attacks as examples that there was no "reason" other than they hate. As you point out, the video acknowledgment and the PSA were after the fact...not prior. So can't blame them for stirring blood (as much as I love to bash his-worship...can't make that one work).

No problem.

Fyi, the "fanciful" remark came from: "they hate us or lust for conquest like they did when they invaded Europe in 711;"

[AURaptor 1,137]

homer - 9-11 is all you need to know. That says it all right there. No need to over think this stuff.

[homersapien 12,353]

homer - 9-11 is all you need to know. That says it all right there. No need to over think this stuff.

Certainly not in your case.

[AURaptor 1,137]

homer - 9-11 is all you need to know. That says it all right there. No need to over think this stuff.

Certainly not in your case.

Or in anyone's case. It is what it is. Radical Muslims tell us what they're gonna do ( that's kill us or convert us ) , they kill us, and still many sheeple want to dismiss it as just a 'fringe' sect, or call it 'work place violence', and refuse to call a duck a duck.

[homersapien 12,353]

homer - 9-11 is all you need to know. That says it all right there. No need to over think this stuff.

Certainly not in your case.

Or in anyone's case. It is what it is. Radical Muslims tell us what they're gonna do ( that's kill us or convert us ) , they kill us, and still many sheeple want to dismiss it as just a 'fringe' sect, or call it 'work place violence', and refuse to call a duck a duck.

Well I don't know what qualifies as "fringe" for you, but there are 2.2 billion Muslims in the world. You can do your own math.

But like I said, all religious extremists are evil IMO, regardless of the particular religion in question.

Oh, and while simplistic thinking is no doubt very comfortable, I prefer to at least try to see reality for what it often is, complex, nuanced and distinctly uncomfortable.

Which reminds me, Got any more claims to make regarding the role "Innocence of Muslims" played in the Benghazi attacks?

[japantiger 4,185]

Homer, your mistake is trying to come up with some kind of "cause and effect" relationship to any of this (they only did it because of that terrible video or because of the Crusades or whatever nonsensical past trauma). They attacked that compound because they hate us or lust for conquest like they did when they invaded Europe in 711; the same reason they attacked us on 9/11/2011 in the first place; or attacked the USS Cole, or attacked the WTC the 1st time; or attacked the embassy in Kenya, or ...ad infinitum, ad nauseum. They attacked it on Sept 11 for obvious reasons. To look beyond the obvious is absurd. When I see this behavior in people I suddenly understand where they found the OJ Trial jurors.

Sorry but I think you misunderstand my position.

I haven't argued the Libyan attacks were in fact, motivated by the "movie riots". To the contrary, my argument is that the "movie riots" occurred independently and (were ultimately) determined to be unrelated to the Libyan attacks.

Even so, I have also argued that the presumption the Libyan attacks were motivated by the "movie riots" was not unreasonable at the time, even if the presumption was ultimately proven wrong.

AU Raptor is making the case that the movie riots:

1) were used from the beginning in a calculating way by the Obama adm to obfuscate or "cover-up" the truth of the Libyan attacks.

2) didn't occur in a temporal framework that made it even possible they could have motivated the Libyan attacks.

3) wouldn't have occurred at all unless the Obama adm hadn't brought attention to them with their PSAs.

That is the case I am challenging.

The terrorists may have taken advantage of the "movie" controversy, and it may have given them even more impetus, but I generally agree with you their motivation came from the general Islamist reasons that generated the 9/11/01 attacks. (Although I think that some of the reasons you cite are a bit fanciful.)

As far as my suitability for a jury, I would hope that all jurists would exhibit more respect for detail and facts than AU Raptor does. I think his conclusions are more politically-based than fact-based.

Sorry Homer...that's what I get for going to just the last page of the posts and trying to jump in...not sure which of my reasons are fanciful...I really only made one...and used multiple attacks as examples that there was no "reason" other than they hate. As you point out, the video acknowledgment and the PSA were after the fact...not prior. So can't blame them for stirring blood (as much as I love to bash his-worship...can't make that one work).

No problem.

Fyi, the "fanciful" remark came from: "they hate us or lust for conquest like they did when they invaded Europe in 711;"

So which one of these is fanciful and why? Do you disagree that they hate us and our way of life? Do you disagree with their lust for conquest that played out over 600 years between their various invasions of Europe, Turkey, Italy, etc. between 711 and ~1400? What is an alternative reason?

[homersapien 12,353]

Homer, your mistake is trying to come up with some kind of "cause and effect" relationship to any of this (they only did it because of that terrible video or because of the Crusades or whatever nonsensical past trauma). They attacked that compound because they hate us or lust for conquest like they did when they invaded Europe in 711; the same reason they attacked us on 9/11/2011 in the first place; or attacked the USS Cole, or attacked the WTC the 1st time; or attacked the embassy in Kenya, or ...ad infinitum, ad nauseum. They attacked it on Sept 11 for obvious reasons. To look beyond the obvious is absurd. When I see this behavior in people I suddenly understand where they found the OJ Trial jurors.

Sorry but I think you misunderstand my position.

I haven't argued the Libyan attacks were in fact, motivated by the "movie riots". To the contrary, my argument is that the "movie riots" occurred independently and (were ultimately) determined to be unrelated to the Libyan attacks.

Even so, I have also argued that the presumption the Libyan attacks were motivated by the "movie riots" was not unreasonable at the time, even if the presumption was ultimately proven wrong.

AU Raptor is making the case that the movie riots:

1) were used from the beginning in a calculating way by the Obama adm to obfuscate or "cover-up" the truth of the Libyan attacks.

2) didn't occur in a temporal framework that made it even possible they could have motivated the Libyan attacks.

3) wouldn't have occurred at all unless the Obama adm hadn't brought attention to them with their PSAs.

That is the case I am challenging.

The terrorists may have taken advantage of the "movie" controversy, and it may have given them even more impetus, but I generally agree with you their motivation came from the general Islamist reasons that generated the 9/11/01 attacks. (Although I think that some of the reasons you cite are a bit fanciful.)

As far as my suitability for a jury, I would hope that all jurists would exhibit more respect for detail and facts than AU Raptor does. I think his conclusions are more politically-based than fact-based.

Sorry Homer...that's what I get for going to just the last page of the posts and trying to jump in...not sure which of my reasons are fanciful...I really only made one...and used multiple attacks as examples that there was no "reason" other than they hate. As you point out, the video acknowledgment and the PSA were after the fact...not prior. So can't blame them for stirring blood (as much as I love to bash his-worship...can't make that one work).

No problem.

Fyi, the "fanciful" remark came from: "they hate us or lust for conquest like they did when they invaded Europe in 711;"

So which one of these is fanciful and why? Do you disagree that they hate us and our way of life? Do you disagree with their lust for conquest that played out over 600 years between their various invasions of Europe, Turkey, Italy, etc. between 711 and ~1400? What is an alternative reason?

First, they don't all hate us. They aren't all radical extremists.

Second, Yes, I disagree with the hypothesis that Muslims have an inherent "lust" for conquest simply because they expanded their empire 1300 years ago just as I would disagree that Italians have an inherent "lust" of conquest as proven by the Roman empire.

Thus my "fanciful" remark.

And if you really want to reach back that far, you have the Crusades, which one could argue proves that the West has always wanted to suppress Islam. But that would also be "fanciful" IMO.

But considering more recent history, I would concede there may be some lingering feelings of persecution derived from the Western colonization of the middle-east and subsequent "gerrymandering" of the region by the British to insure the resulting states would remain relatively weak due to internal political strife.

And I suspect a lot of Muslims feel their prosperity and standard of living has been suppressed from this continuing outside influence/interference. (See modern history of Iran and Iraq, for example).

And there is the West's support of Israel in displacing Muslims from their homelands. I am sure that has engendered a lot of radicalism.

Finally of course, there is the xenophobia built into their religious beliefs. But that is hardly unique.

[japantiger 4,185]

Homer, your mistake is trying to come up with some kind of "cause and effect" relationship to any of this (they only did it because of that terrible video or because of the Crusades or whatever nonsensical past trauma). They attacked that compound because they hate us or lust for conquest like they did when they invaded Europe in 711; the same reason they attacked us on 9/11/2011 in the first place; or attacked the USS Cole, or attacked the WTC the 1st time; or attacked the embassy in Kenya, or ...ad infinitum, ad nauseum. They attacked it on Sept 11 for obvious reasons. To look beyond the obvious is absurd. When I see this behavior in people I suddenly understand where they found the OJ Trial jurors.

Sorry but I think you misunderstand my position.

I haven't argued the Libyan attacks were in fact, motivated by the "movie riots". To the contrary, my argument is that the "movie riots" occurred independently and (were ultimately) determined to be unrelated to the Libyan attacks.

Even so, I have also argued that the presumption the Libyan attacks were motivated by the "movie riots" was not unreasonable at the time, even if the presumption was ultimately proven wrong.

AU Raptor is making the case that the movie riots:

1) were used from the beginning in a calculating way by the Obama adm to obfuscate or "cover-up" the truth of the Libyan attacks.

2) didn't occur in a temporal framework that made it even possible they could have motivated the Libyan attacks.

3) wouldn't have occurred at all unless the Obama adm hadn't brought attention to them with their PSAs.

That is the case I am challenging.

The terrorists may have taken advantage of the "movie" controversy, and it may have given them even more impetus, but I generally agree with you their motivation came from the general Islamist reasons that generated the 9/11/01 attacks. (Although I think that some of the reasons you cite are a bit fanciful.)

As far as my suitability for a jury, I would hope that all jurists would exhibit more respect for detail and facts than AU Raptor does. I think his conclusions are more politically-based than fact-based.

Sorry Homer...that's what I get for going to just the last page of the posts and trying to jump in...not sure which of my reasons are fanciful...I really only made one...and used multiple attacks as examples that there was no "reason" other than they hate. As you point out, the video acknowledgment and the PSA were after the fact...not prior. So can't blame them for stirring blood (as much as I love to bash his-worship...can't make that one work).

No problem.

Fyi, the "fanciful" remark came from: "they hate us or lust for conquest like they did when they invaded Europe in 711;"

So which one of these is fanciful and why? Do you disagree that they hate us and our way of life? Do you disagree with their lust for conquest that played out over 600 years between their various invasions of Europe, Turkey, Italy, etc. between 711 and ~1400? What is an alternative reason?

First, they don't all hate us. They aren't all radical extremists. My reference was to the ones that attacked us; not all Muslims. However, I would like to see one mainstream Muslim organization or leader denounce radical Muslim philosophies.

Second, Yes, I disagree with the hypothesis that Muslims have an inherent "lust" for conquest simply because they expanded their empire 1300 years ago just as I would disagree that Italians have an inherent "lust" of conquest as proven by the Roman empire. R I think the ones that systematically attacked and pillaged Europe for 600 years did in fact "lust" for conquest. Yes, just like the Roman's lusted for Empire and conquest...I don't think either of these are fanciful. Have they now stopped their "lust" for conquest? Well, the Italians only lust for good wine, pasta and soccer now...as for radical Muslims, I don't know...they have proven generally ineffective at conquest; but they are effective at killing innocent civilians globally for some imagined past affront or because their religion calls them to do so...

Thus my "fanciful" remark.

And if you really want to reach back that far, you have the Crusades, which one could argue proves that the West has always wanted to suppress Islam. But that would also be "fanciful" IMO. I broI brought up the Muslim invasion of Europe to show the fallacy of the radical Muslim argument that we somehow started all this...and that's it's all payback for the Crusades...the Muslim invasion of Europe predated the Crusades by 3 Centuries and lasted 600 years...the occupation of Southern Spain not ending until after 1400. So frankly, the Crusades are a bit irrelevant to all this...

But considering more recent history, I would concede there may be some lingering feelings of persecution derived from the Western colonization of the middle-east and subsequent "gerrymandering" of the region by the British to insure the resulting states would remain relatively weak due to internal political strife. Gotta love the Brits.

And I suspect a lot of Muslims feel their prosperity and standard of living has been suppressed from this continuing outside influence/interference. (See modern history of Iran and Iraq, for example). Maybe if they'd spent the middle ages developing their civilization instead of killing Christians and themselves they'd have a sustained culture built on hundreds of years of accomplishments; like Western civilization....and would have learned how to exploit their own resources...instead of blaming others for their own ignorance.

And there is the West's support of Israel in displacing Muslims from their homelands. I am sure that has engendered a lot of radicalism. There's always another reason/excuse isn't there...how about they just hate. Evil exists and they are the embodiment of it. They are not the only embodiment of it; but they are one the leading global poster children. If we're playing this game, see 1st point...they invaded the West 1st....it's their own damn fault. See reference below to Karma....

Finally of course, there is the xenophobia built into their religious beliefs. But that is hardly unique. I wanted to let this one go, but just can't... I really can't think of another of the major religions that teaches it's OK; well not just OK, but encourages it's members, to kill everyone not in their religion in the name of "holy war"...Christians, nope...in fact, love your enemies and associate with them in the hopes of showing them by example the goodness of God, Hindu's, nope, Buddhist's, nope, Shinto's, nope...(Karma says not a good idea in these 3 religions) , Jews, uuggghhh, nope again....

[homersapien 12,353]

First, they don't all hate us. They aren't all radical extremists.

My reference was to the ones that attacked us; not all Muslims.

However, I would like to see one mainstream Muslim organization or leader denounce radical Muslim philosophies.

Well, I just assumed when you said "Do you disagree that they hate us and our way of life?" , "they" included Muslims in general, since it's rather obvious that the radicals hate us, isn't it?

And when you followed that up with "Do you disagree with their lust for conquest that played out over 600 years between their various invasions of Europe, Turkey, Italy, etc. between 711 and ~1400?" "their" would naturally refer to Muslims in general since you were referring to large historical events that happen so long ago. I guess I didn't realize that Muslims were always differentiated by radicals or mainstream Muslims and the latter didn't participate in conquests.

Sorry for my "misunderstanding". :-\

I plan to use this same defense the next time I get challenged for criticizing Christianity by referring to atrocities Christians committed in the past. It's always been the radicals (aka true believers) who cause the problems.

And regarding your desire to "to see one mainstream Muslim organization or leader denounce radical Muslim philosophies" may I suggest searching [muslims against terrorism]. That should help.

[homersapien 12,353]

But considering more recent history, I would concede there may be some lingering feelings of persecution derived from the Western colonization of the middle-east and subsequent "gerrymandering" of the region by the British to insure the resulting states would remain relatively weak due to internal political strife.

Gotta love the Brits.

Not sure how to take this. If you are serious, then you prove my point.

[homersapien 12,353]

And I suspect a lot of Muslims feel their prosperity and standard of living has been suppressed from this continuing outside influence/interference. (See modern history of Iran and Iraq, for example).

Maybe if they'd spent the middle ages developing their civilization instead of killing Christians and themselves they'd have a sustained culture built on hundreds of years of accomplishments; like Western civilization....and would have learned how to exploit their own resources...instead of blaming others for their own ignorance.

This is an incredibly ignorant and ethno-centric perspective. The Islamic "golden age" occurred during the Middle Ages.

Secondly, the idea that the achievements of any given empires were functions of the religion they practiced is simply wrong.

Otherwise, one would have to concede that Christianity represents the practices of every empire for which that was the dominate faith. While I am not a Christian, I don't think I would want that if I were. It would be the equivalent of saying freedom and democracy represents genocide since that's what America practiced to become the country it is.

And I wouldn't get too cocky about the accomplishments of "Western Civilization" as the ideal standard. Western civilization produced quite a few evil institutions and events along with the good. In fact, one can make the argument that much of what we think of as western civilization was built on the success of various empires, which is to say, the exploitation of militarily weaker societies by stronger ones.

[homersapien 12,353]

And there is the West's support of Israel in displacing Muslims from their homelands. I am sure that has engendered a lot of radicalism.

There's always another reason/excuse isn't there...how about they just hate. Evil exists and they are the embodiment of it....

I imagine if someone bulldozed the house your family has lived in for generations and relocated you to a ghetto you'd work up a good "hate" too.

I know I would. And I wouldn't have to be "evil" to do so.

[homersapien 12,353]

Evil exists and they are the embodiment of it. They are not the only embodiment of it; but they are one the leading global poster children.

Presumably, we are back to talking about the radicals instead of all Muslims?

If we're playing this game, see 1st point...they invaded the West 1st....it's their own damn fault. See reference below to Karma....

Seriously, the crusades aren't really relevant, but now, it's "their own damn fault" because "they invaded the West first"?

That's rather inconsistent (to put it politely). :-\

[homersapien 12,353]

Finally of course, there is the xenophobia built into their religious beliefs. But that is hardly unique.

I wanted to let this one go, but just can't... I really can't think of another of the major religions that teaches it's OK; well not just OK, but encourages it's members, to kill everyone not in their religion in the name of "holy war"...Christians, nope...in fact, love your enemies and associate with them in the hopes of showing them by example the goodness of God, Hindu's, nope, Buddhist's, nope, Shinto's, nope...(Karma says not a good idea in these 3 religions) , Jews, uuggghhh, nope again....

Seriously? You "can't think of another religion" that promotes xenophobia or violence (in the minds of it's practitioners)? Maybe it's because you haven't bothered to look.

So the Bible has never been used as justification by Christians or Jews to conquer or kill people of another faith?

And while I agree that some religions, like Hindu and Buddhism have a less violent history than Christianity (for example) there are examples of violence perpetuated by Hindus and Buddhists on those of differing religions.

I won't bother to provide specific examples, just look up Hindu violence against Muslims and Buddhist violence against Muslims.

Shinto may be your best case for a religion that doesn't justify or sanction violence (in the minds of its practitioners) for any given circumstance. If so, that is undoubtedly due to the fact they have no single sacred text that does so. On the other hand, the history of Japan would suggest that Shintos have no problem with violence in the pursuit of empire. Perhaps they simply don't invoke their religion when doing so.

[homersapien 12,353]

And I thought this thread was about Benghazi. It seems we have drifted rather far afield.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Which reminds me, Got any more claims to make regarding the role "Innocence of Muslims" played in the Benghazi attacks?

I'll type slowly so that you can follow along this time.

It played no part in the attack in Benghazi.

Our intel knew as much, but the administration, desperate to promote the narrative that Obama was universally loved, and that the Taliban ( islamic radicalism ) had been all but eliminated by the killing of UBL, none the less went on a full court press to convince the world ( and more importantly the US voters ) that it was all because of the video.

This administration purposefully lied, to avoid any pre-election negativity.

Clear enough for ya ?

[homersapien 12,353]

Which reminds me, Got any more claims to make regarding the role "Innocence of Muslims" played in the Benghazi attacks?

I'll type slowly so that you can follow along this time.

It played no part in the attack in Benghazi.

Our intel knew as much, but the administration, desperate to promote the narrative that Obama was universally loved, and that the Taliban ( islamic radicalism ) had been all but eliminated by the killing of UBL, none the less went on a full court press to convince the world ( and more importantly the US voters ) that it was all because of the video.

This administration purposefully lied, to avoid any pre-election negativity.

Clear enough for ya ?

OK that's a fair response.

I should have worded that differently

But before I rephrase the question, let's back up for confirmation/clarification.

Is the following a fair representation of your position:

"AU Raptor is making the case that the "movie riots":

1) were used from the beginning in a calculating way by the Obama adm to obfuscate or "cover-up" the truth of the Libyan attacks.

2) didn't occur in a temporal framework that made it even possible they could have motivated the Libyan attacks.

3) wouldn't have occurred at all unless the Obama adm hadn't brought attention to them with their PSAs. "

[Aufan59 168]

Maybe if they'd spent the middle ages developing their civilization instead of killing Christians and themselves they'd have a sustained culture built on hundreds of years of accomplishments; like Western civilization.

Maybe if Muslims were the first to the new world to escape religious prosecution, they'd have sustained a culture built on hundreds of years of accomplishments.

America's greatness has been built on freedom, not religion. Christianity would be the same s***ty mess that is Islam if not for America. We saw the same abuses of humanity in the name of Christianity that we see with Islam right now. The only difference is the discovery of the new world by Christians.

[alexava 6,977]

Maybe if they'd spent the middle ages developing their civilization instead of killing Christians and themselves they'd have a sustained culture built on hundreds of years of accomplishments; like Western civilization.

Maybe if Muslims were the first to the new world to escape religious prosecution, they'd have sustained a culture built on hundreds of years of accomplishments.

America's greatness has been built on freedom, not religion. Christianity would be the same s***ty mess that is Islam if not for America. We saw the same abuses of humanity in the name of Christianity that we see with Islam right now. The only difference is the discovery of the new world by Christians.

bingo

[homersapien 12,353]

Which reminds me, Got any more claims to make regarding the role "Innocence of Muslims" played in the Benghazi attacks?

I'll type slowly so that you can follow along this time.

It played no part in the attack in Benghazi.

Our intel knew as much, but the administration, desperate to promote the narrative that Obama was universally loved, and that the Taliban ( islamic radicalism ) had been all but eliminated by the killing of UBL, none the less went on a full court press to convince the world ( and more importantly the US voters ) that it was all because of the video.

This administration purposefully lied, to avoid any pre-election negativity.

Clear enough for ya ?

OK that's a fair response.

I should have worded that differently

But before I rephrase the question, let's back up for confirmation/clarification.

Is the following a fair representation of your position:

"AU Raptor is making the case that the "movie riots":

1) were used from the beginning in a calculating way by the Obama adm to obfuscate or "cover-up" the truth of the Libyan attacks.

2) didn't occur in a temporal framework that made it even possible they could have motivated the Libyan attacks.

3) wouldn't have occurred at all unless the Obama adm hadn't brought attention to them with their PSAs. "

Bump