rickyp wrote:ray

There were Christians in 1 CE (AD) or is that part of the joke?

mary ?
joseph?
the three wise men?

rickyp wrote:ray

There were Christians in 1 CE (AD) or is that part of the joke?

mary ?
joseph?
the three wise men?

freeman3 wrote:Two things I heard on the radio this morning: Republicans complaining about the IRS, Obamacare, the VA, the IRS and Benghazi. It would be news if they didn't...Christians: telling people what to do since 1 AD...

rickyp wrote:Luke 1:26-38

rickyp wrote:Luke 1:26-38

bbauska wrote:

rickyp wrote:Luke 1:26-38

Are you saying Jesus was cognitive and teaching in the womb of Mary?

I would think this has repercussions on the abortion debate...

Great passage, but it does not defend your historical blunder. There were no Christians in 1 AD. None. Zero. Zip. Cero.

Mary, as the first human to kiss the face of God and the first to believe in Jesus as her Savior, took her place in Salvation History as the first Christian.

rickyp wrote:fate

Great passage, but it does not defend your historical blunder. There were no Christians in 1 AD. None. Zero. Zip. Cero.

rickyp

Mary, as the first human to kiss the face of God and the first to believe in Jesus as her Savior, took her place in Salvation History as the first Christian.

http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/document ... istory.htm

But we digress....

danivon wrote:So, is DF saying that the US should have cut and run in Libya because of terrorist threats?

Is DF saying that we should make public classified CIA information that may potentially impact current activities?

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:So, is DF saying that the US should have cut and run in Libya because of terrorist threats?

Gee, at the risk of "poor form," I'll ask anyway: did Britain cut and run

Look, you either can defend your people or you can't. It was already known that the compound could not be defended, so . . . what were we doing there? It had been attacked on a few recent occasions and the attackers had left written notice they were going to do it again. So, there's a choice to be made: enhance security or leave.

The United States, under the tepid leadership of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, chose neither path. As a result, 4 Americans died.

No one has been held accountable for the failure to decide on an actual course of action. We don't know who introduced the false narrative re the video. If it was the CIA, bring him or her to testify behind closed doors. If it was someone in the White House, shouldn't we know that? If not, why not?

Why was nothing done to prepare for 9/11?

Is DF saying that we should make public classified CIA information that may potentially impact current activities?

I doubt that is the case. Are we still using Libya to run weapons to Syria? I find that a questionable notion. If you have any evidence, I'd be fascinated to read it.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:So, is DF saying that the US should have cut and run in Libya because of terrorist threats?

Gee, at the risk of "poor form," I'll ask anyway: did Britain cut and run

yes, but that's not the point (I am not defending or attacking my government's actions on Benghazi). The point is what should the US have done. It seems you think they should have followed our lead and withdrawn.

Look, you either can defend your people or you can't. It was already known that the compound could not be defended, so . . . what were we doing there? It had been attacked on a few recent occasions and the attackers had left written notice they were going to do it again. So, there's a choice to be made: enhance security or leave.

those are the only choices that should have been considered?

The United States, under the tepid leadership of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, chose neither path. As a result, 4 Americans died.

No, as a result of a terrorist attack, 4 Americans died.

No one has been held accountable for the failure to decide on an actual course of action. We don't know who introduced the false narrative re the video. If it was the CIA, bring him or her to testify behind closed doors. If it was someone in the White House, shouldn't we know that? If not, why not?

Don't all of these things relate to events after the attack started (and most of them after it finished). The people most 'accountable' are those who killed the '4 Americans'. I think that they will be happy that the US is turning on itself over the episode.

Why was nothing done to prepare for 9/11?

Because they were too busy focusing on the 'threat' from Iraq? Not sure it's really relevant...

Is DF saying that we should make public classified CIA information that may potentially impact current activities?

I doubt that is the case. Are we still using Libya to run weapons to Syria? I find that a questionable notion. If you have any evidence, I'd be fascinated to read it.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:So, is DF saying that the US should have cut and run in Libya because of terrorist threats?

Gee, at the risk of "poor form," I'll ask anyway: did Britain cut and run

yes, but that's not the point (I am not defending or attacking my government's actions on Benghazi). The point is what should the US have done. It seems you think they should have followed our lead and withdrawn.

Yes I do.

Look, you either can defend your people or you can't. It was already known that the compound could not be defended, so . . . what were we doing there? It had been attacked on a few recent occasions and the attackers had left written notice they were going to do it again. So, there's a choice to be made: enhance security or leave.

those are the only choices that should have been considered?

Given the circumstances, I think so. I'm a big believer in this maxim: job 1 is safety. I practiced that for more than 20 years. I don't think keeping consular/ambassador folks in an unsafe situation was a reasonable approach.

As a result of a terrorist attack that reasonably could have been anticipated by the people in the employ of President Obama and Secretary Clinton, 4 Americans were murdered. Look, I've been responsible for the lives of others. If I knew a location was dangerous because we had been attacked there before, and I took no serious remedial action, I would feel responsible for whatever happened. Those 4 should not have been in such danger.

No one has been held accountable for the failure to decide on an actual course of action. We don't know who introduced the false narrative re the video. If it was the CIA, bring him or her to testify behind closed doors. If it was someone in the White House, shouldn't we know that? If not, why not?

Don't all of these things relate to events after the attack started (and most of them after it finished). The people most'accountable' are those who killed the '4 Americans'. I think that they will be happy that the US is turning on itself over the episode.

Oh, and btw, how is it possible that none of them have been brought to justice?

That's a failure of leadership up and down the chain of command. It's not "turning on (ourselves)" to hold those who failed to act accountable for their failures.

The attack on Benghazi was on 9/11. Historically, AQ and other terrorists have sought to attack on familiar dates. So, there is no excuse for us not having contingency plans on 9/11 in a Muslim country in an area known to be crawling with Islamic extremists and terrorists.

Is DF saying that we should make public classified CIA information that may potentially impact current activities?

I doubt that is the case. Are we still using Libya to run weapons to Syria? I find that a questionable notion. If you have any evidence, I'd be fascinated to read it.

...

I still doubt that is the case and I'd still be fascinated to read any evidence supporting the trial balloon you're floating.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:So, is DF saying that the US should have cut and run in Libya because of terrorist threats?

Gee, at the risk of "poor form," I'll ask anyway: did Britain cut and run

yes, but that's not the point (I am not defending or attacking my government's actions on Benghazi). The point is what should the US have done. It seems you think they should have followed our lead and withdrawn.

Yes I do.

See, now, that wasn't hard.

Look, you either can defend your people or you can't. It was already known that the compound could not be defended, so . . . what were we doing there? It had been attacked on a few recent occasions and the attackers had left written notice they were going to do it again. So, there's a choice to be made: enhance security or leave.

those are the only choices that should have been considered?

Given the circumstances, I think so. I'm a big believer in this maxim: job 1 is safety. I practiced that for more than 20 years. I don't think keeping consular/ambassador folks in an unsafe situation was a reasonable approach.

Apparently Stevens twice declined offers of more security for Benghazi in the form of a special security team from the US. Should he have been overruled, and by whom?

As a result of a terrorist attack that reasonably could have been anticipated by the people in the employ of President Obama and Secretary Clinton, 4 Americans were murdered. Look, I've been responsible for the lives of others. If I knew a location was dangerous because we had been attacked there before, and I took no serious remedial action, I would feel responsible for whatever happened. Those 4 should not have been in such danger.

One of whom was Stevens, who declined offers of more security.

No one has been held accountable for the failure to decide on an actual course of action. We don't know who introduced the false narrative re the video. If it was the CIA, bring him or her to testify behind closed doors. If it was someone in the White House, shouldn't we know that? If not, why not?

Don't all of these things relate to events after the attack started (and most of them after it finished). The people most 'accountable' are those who killed the '4 Americans'. I think that they will be happy that the US is turning on itself over the episode.

It's trite to say the terrorists are alone responsible.

It would indeed be trite to say that. It would also be dishonest to say that is what I was saying. I have emphasised the relevant text in the text of mine you quoted.

Oh, and btw, how is it possible that none of them have been brought to justice?

Because Libya is a large and unstable country which is easy to hide in?

That's a failure of leadership up and down the chain of command. It's not "turning on (ourselves)" to hold those who failed to act accountable for their failures.

It is, however, to spend nearly two year raking over every tiny detail, in an attempt to focus blame on a single person (the President), accepting at face value any outlandish allegations and using it for internal political reasons. I'm sure that the Democrats are not blameless either, but that's not the point - a house divided against itself cannot stand.

The attack on Benghazi was on 9/11. Historically, AQ and other terrorists have sought to attack on familiar dates. So, there is no excuse for us not having contingency plans on 9/11 in a Muslim country in an area known to be crawling with Islamic extremists and terrorists.

Maybe they thought they had enough contingency with the heavily armed CIA guys minutes away. It's easy with hindsight to suggest that there should have been loads of extra security and back-up all over the place, but that may still not have been sufficient to contain such an attack.

Is DF saying that we should make public classified CIA information that may potentially impact current activities?

I doubt that is the case. Are we still using Libya to run weapons to Syria? I find that a questionable notion. If you have any evidence, I'd be fascinated to read it.

...

I still doubt that is the case and I'd still be fascinated to read any evidence supporting the trial balloon you're floating.

How would I have evidence concerning classified CIA information? Neither of us should know what it is (I never mentioned Syria, btw). I am not floating any balloons about what that classified information is, just asking whether you are really saying we should make it public (not yourself knowing what it is). You seem to be prejudging the content, but avoiding my actual question.