BF2S Forums DAST Chat

...

No way that's Petraeus.

Not enough medals.

M.O.A.B wrote:

No way that's Petraeus.

Not enough medals.

Dat stack

sounds like a westpoint O got pissed that another westpoint O was mean to him

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Diplomatic security isn't the CIA's function. It never would've come to him. There was plenty of security at the CIA facility...they just weren't authorized to intervene.

But in the case of Benghazi the CIA had responsibility did they not?
Security embedded in the consulate, a neighbouring building with more CIA security guys who were expected to provide security.

No, CIA was not responsible for consulate security at Benghazi. That's why the diplomatic security service exists.

And it's those CIA security guys in the "neighboring building" that weren't given clearance to engage.

No. It really isn't.

However, I'm not a big believer in the "cover up" theory on this one. I think they were working off incomplete/conflicting intelligence. Attribution of an act against us is always problematic. You want to immediately pay whoever did it back, but you don't want to schwack the wrong person.

The delay/lack of defending the consulate is more problematic to me than "who knew what when." That's what resulted in 4 deaths, not what we called it afterwards.

I can believe the Rice was given unclassified talking points that were based on the best information they had at the time. Personally, I think they should've just said it was a horrible event and that they were getting to the bottom of what caused it; they have several theories they are investigating, ranging from a spontaneous event due to protests of the film in question to an organized, planned terrorist attack.

I find it interesting that those who are defending Rice excoriated Powell for doing the same thing...and those who defended Powell are excoriating Rice. It's like the "I'm gonna secede/go to Canada" crap. Happened 12 (and 8) years ago, too, but the tables have turned and those who are protesting are being called unamerican/unpatriotic by those who did the same thing back then and were called unamerican/unpatriotic by those doing it today.

Hypocrisy and partisan divisiveness have worked wonders so far...let's keep it up!

Dilbert_X wrote:

You want to immediately pay whoever did it back

Which is beyond stupid. In the long run its often counterproductive.

Which is why it's not normally done. I was talking about the desire to respond, which is a human nature thing, not a cultural or political thing. It's rarely--if ever-- done. Hence the comment about attribution.

Hahaha brilliant

FEOS wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

You're missing the point.

Mutantbear wrote:

FEOS wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

rofl did you really just post that

No.

Thought I'd throw some "serious" into the debate.

Shit just got real.

The fuck?

Dilbert_X wrote:

If a muslim set fire to the Stars and Stripes on Independence day would the police find something to detain him for?

British law is different, there are consequences to being offensive.

Burning a flag is covered under freedom of speech.

You're supposed to be offensive, that's why it's called freedom of speech. If right wing religious nutbags said teaching evolution is offensive to them in a science classroom, you'd really want it to be removed because you offended some asshole?