Gitmo Guy Leads Libyan Attack That Kills US Ambassador

Raees wrote: LOL. You think a crowd of rioting people, or terrorists follow the rules of the Geneva Convention? We don't follow the Geneva Convention, why should they? What war were they participating in, BTW?

You are mixing Unicorn farts with reality; if the perpetrator was recently released from Gitmo he was in there for reasons other than the supposed protest and subsequent over run of the Benghazi Consulate. Spin some more, it's expected. Don't be surprise when I stop responding because you can't get your facts straight.

And keep ignoring my questions. I wouldn't expect your to answer with something that made sense.

Well, that response was fact filled and full of truth and sunshine. Could you at least just once admit your side could be wrong? OF COURSE NOT!

You first.

"You first."

What a steeled , defensive responsive retort. If you haven't any facts to support a response then perhaps you could spare the rest of us the waste of keystrokes and viewing time that it takes to rad and reply to your asinine posts?

otisptoadwater wrote: "You first."

What a steeled , defensive responsive retort. If you haven't any facts to support a response then perhaps you could spare the rest of us the waste of keystrokes and viewing time that it takes to rad and reply to your asinine posts?

He has to say something , he is paid by the post.

otisptoadwater wrote: "You first."

What a steeled , defensive responsive retort. If you haven't any facts to support a response then perhaps you could spare the rest of us the waste of keystrokes and viewing time that it takes to rad and reply to your asinine posts?

My response was to ask you why terrorists or street thugs should follow the Geneva Convention? My response was to ask you what war was being fought that the Geneva Convention comes in play? My response was to ask you why you would expect them to follow the Geneva Convention when the U.S. does not follow it?

Rather than respond, you chose to take us on a merry ride around Otisville.

So Raees, when the killing of Chris Stevens and 3 others is found to be a pre-planned and coordinated terrorist attack, will you conceed that the story this administration is trying to feed us is bullshit? And you know why they wanted it to be because of a "spontaneous protest".. right?

FredHayek wrote: Looks like we shouldn't have let him go, eh?

By the way, the last US ambassador to die in the line of duty was 1979 when the US last had another weak Dem President.

Remind me which weak president let this guy go... :Whistle

Raees wrote:

FredHayek wrote: Looks like we shouldn't have let him go, eh?

By the way, the last US ambassador to die in the line of duty was 1979 when the US last had another weak Dem President.

What you fail to mention is the terrorists who kidnapped him demanded the release of their leader and the U.S. president (the weak Dem President, as you say), refused to negotiate with them.

The U.S. has a long-standing policy of not negotiating with terrorists.

Oh please. Carter did nothing but negotiate with the Iranians for the release of the hostages they held. He spent so much time trying to get them to be reasonable that by the time he finally decided that the military option should be taken the sandstorm season was already underway.

In April 1980, after months of negotiations failed to result in the release of the hostages, the United States broke off diplomatic relations with Iran. Carter approved a hostage rescue mission by an elite paramilitary unit, the American commandos led by Colonel Charles Beckwith.6 It was a dismal failure. Several military helicopters broke down in the desert, and eight commandos died when two aircraft collided during the hasty retreat. The abortive mission seemed to many Americans a symbol of U.S. military weakness in the post-Vietnam era. Carter’s popularity plunged to 20 percent, even lower than Nixon’s during the Watergate scandal.7
http://www.whitehousehistory.org/whha_c ... arter.html

Now I'm going to have to reassess what was before your time once again. I figured it was going to be a safe bet that everything after Eisenhower would be something you were at least familiar with, and less than 10 minutes later I find out that isn't the case at all.