General Debate 2 May 2014

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment252

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (252)

Login to comment or vote

Kimbo

“Yes, I know. However it is clear from both, and many other theologians, that the Law here is the Ten Commandments only.”

Um, no. Or at least in the case of Calvin, YES in the sense that the 10 commandemenst SUM UP all the details of Mosaic Law. But the details of the law are still very important for how Calvin tried to re-order Geneva.

For example, Calvin bases his teaching on covenantal baptism on the practice of circumcison as related (in the case of Abraham) or explicitly commanded (in the case of Moses) which are both contained WITHIN the 5 books of Moses.

Also, his doctrine of rulership of the Church by elders (and not bishops) is taken from the example of Moses ognaising the rulership of Isreal in the Torah.

But YES, your central point The Law in relation to Christian life can only be viewed through Christ Himself and His teaching. is bang on the money. And that is something a non-Christian can only ever sit on the sideline and loo from the outside in some sense. Just like I can only sit on the sideline when it comes to participation in Islam and Judaism. The existential matters are their’s alone.

Mind you, it still doesn’t mean the Christian Church can’t get it awfully wrong. It is one thing the Medieval Church in its ignorance and superstition getting it wrong. But for a man as intelligent and usually insightful as Calvin (IMHO) to willingly agree to the execution of Servetus for heresy as per the Old Testament command is appalling. You can try and soften the blow by saying he tried to dissuade the Geneva City Council against burning at the stake in favour of a more humane method, but those are just straws in the wind. I know Calvin TOO was a man of his times…as we all are when applying any ethical code.

Still, it does give you time to pause and reflect. Not that “getting rid of religion” would solve the problem (it may help in SOME cases), but human nature is what it is.

That to me was always the weakness in Christopher Hitchens, “god is not great: how religion poisons everything”, and why ultimately it fails to deliver (IMHO).
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 2, 2014 4:56pm
ShawnLH

“Clearly the Old Testament is to be abided by until the end of human existence itself. None other then Jesus said so.”

Actually He says: “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished.”

On the Cross the last words He utters are “It is accomplished.” Thus the Law/Torah was fulfilled on the Cross, and Jesus teaches about this several times.
1 5
Log in to Reply
Report
May 2, 2014 4:57pm
wat dabney

“Atheism is a religion. ”

Are you a child?

“Women are leaders in my church ”

Do they mime?

‘Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.’ 1 Corinthians 14:34
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 2, 2014 4:59pm
ShawnLH

” Or at least in the case of Calvin,”

Clavin’s take on the Law, and many other issues, was quite different to most other churches. Not a fan of Calvinism myself.
0 2
Log in to Reply
Report
May 2, 2014 5:00pm
ShawnLH

“‘Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.’ 1 Corinthians 14:34

1 Corinthians is dealing with a problem in one particular church, when women influenced by a local Goddess religion were standing up and interrupting the service. In other places Paul makes it clear that women prophets in the Church should speak and have authority, and there are several examples of women leaders in early churches, and Paul promoted one or two that we know of as leaders to be respected.
0 3
Log in to Reply
Report
May 2, 2014 5:03pm
ShawnLH

““Atheism is a religion. ”

“Are you a child?”

You know where I got that from? A secular university religious studies paper. The first thing we discussed is the difficulty of defining religion, and our lecturer, again, not a believer himself, used a number of philosophies as evidence of religion being more than the obvious, including atheism, and of course Marxism.
0 3
Log in to Reply
Report
May 2, 2014 5:07pm
Kimbo

So he called Jesus a liar, based on his personal interpretation. And you agree Jesus lied.

That’s one possibility.

Or the other is that your questions are of the order of “have you stopped beating your wife?”

However, given that the Church for 2000 years has adopted various positions that all ultimately acknowledge SOME point of dis-continuity between the Old and New Testaments (while also affirming points of continuity in others – and debating continually where and those points are, and HOW they are to be applied)

…I think it unlikely your on-going campaign of text-proofing followed by accusations of semantics when anyone attempts to examine those proof-texts, all apparently designed to reduce Christians to gibbering wrecks who acknowledge,

…”YES!! You are RIGHT, Kea!! Why didn’t we SEE it like you are telling us all along?!?

…is likely to be unsuccessful

…especially as more brilliant, succinct and charitable minds than yours, Kea, have sought to do so unsuccessfully througout the ages.

Just a thought.

But far be it from me to suggest you are wasting your time 🙂
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 2, 2014 5:08pm
Kimbo

Not a fan of Calvinism myself.

Your loss 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 2, 2014 5:09pm
ShawnLH

Kimbo,

“Mind you, it still doesn’t mean the Christian Church can’t get it awfully wrong.”

I agree with that 100%

One of the reasons I am a Protestant is that Protestantism recognises that the Church is fallible and get things wrong. Semper Ecclesia Reformanda, the Church is always in need of reform.
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
May 2, 2014 5:09pm
ShawnLH

“Your loss”

Perhaps, but I generally prefer Luther and the Anglican Divines.

Having said that, there are a number of current Reformed theologians I like.
0 2
Log in to Reply
Report
May 2, 2014 5:12pm
wat dabney

“Atheism is a religion. ”

You are arguing that, for example, not believing in Santa Claus is logically no different from believing in him.

Perhaps you should try thinking for yourself rather than simply regurgitating what you learnt at school?

As for women in the Bible, its vile misogyny is legendary:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 2, 2014 5:15pm
ShawnLH

“You are arguing that, for example, not believing in Santa Claus is logically no different from believing in him'”

No, I’m arguing that when people stop believing in Santa Clause, they replace him with another belief.

“As for women in the Bible, its vile misogyny is legendary:”

Legendary being the right word.
0 4
Log in to Reply
Report
May 2, 2014 5:19pm
ShawnLH

Anyway, out for the evening.
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
May 2, 2014 5:20pm
Judith

No, I’m arguing that when people stop believing in Santa Clause, they replace him with another belief.

What do you mean ‘stop believing in Santa Claus’ (no e) ???? This argument has reached a new low!

Santa Claus isn’t a belief – he’s a fact – just ask my granddaughter!
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 2, 2014 5:28pm
Kimbo

@ Kea

You are of course lying about me pleading on behalf of Muslims…I dislike all religion. What you see me doing is attacking the suspension of reason and hypocrisy of theists. Not taking sides.

Apologies for misrepresenting you. I trust you will amend your comment from “lying” to “mistaken due to inadequate research” 🙂

For the record I don’t think atheism is a religion. Like all aspects of human thought (including religion) it can share similarities. Especially in its extreme forms (Marxism) is it is quasi-religion. But it is an unfair straw man IMHO.

You make some good points and write clearly. However you are squirming like a salted slug to avoid the meaning of clear words in the bible.

That has long been the accustion Judaism has made against Christianity. However, the key word you omit is “ALL (the) clear words in the Bible”.

You are obviously satisfied the texts you have quoted are the end of the matter. For Christians they are good, and valid, but paint an INCOMPLETE picture that must be supplemented with the REST of the New Testament.

And that is the beginning of the long and exhaustive process of translation, exegesis, hermeneutics, the formulation of biblical and systematic theology, ethical formulation and application…and then start again and complete continually as more knowledge and reflection comes to light.

Now, in the light of the breadth and depth of scholarship that continue to study the texts you have mentioned in far greater depth than you can possibly accomplish here, I’d suggest your attempt is futile.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 2, 2014 5:29pm
nasska

Bad news for the Godaddled. 🙂

Ref: https://www.dropbox.com/s/fo7m8muu6f9vp4z/Religionutters%203.jpg
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
May 2, 2014 5:50pm
kowtow

Ban news for Bruneians (or whatever they call themselves)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2616585/Brunei-East-Asian-country-adopt-Sharia-law-alcohol-punished-whipping-adulterers-stoned-death.html
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 2, 2014 5:54pm
itstricky

Mr Garrett

Itstricky: (since you are so sensitive about your silly ‘handle’):

I don’t care that much about my handle either. I was mearly pointing out that your self worth seems to be so low that you have to call people names to get a thrill, or score a point.

because in the context of the times in which the movie is set – England in the 1940′s – calling a black animal “Nigger” was not only commonplace but perfectly acceptable

I wasn’t talking about time periods because the human race has moved on from that. What may have been appropriate in the 40s isn’t now. As ‘bc’ succinctly noted. When I say context I mean the context of the conversation at that point in time. And the words can have different meanings, right now, depending on who is uttering them.
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 2, 2014 6:32pm
Left Right and Centre

Mayday, mayday . . .

Porridge with cut up bananas x 3, apples x 4, kiwifruit x2, strawberries, peaches, pineapple.

I’ve created a monster. I’ve lost control of the food. It has become self-aware. It’s growing itself in readiness to annihilate all humanity. I’m typing from a secret location. Please send help – this is not a drill. This is happening. It might be too late for me – but if we all band together – we can beat back and destroy these delicious whole food groups. Back to hell where they belong. Shhhh . . quiet . . . I hear something – something suspiciously slippery with a delicate consistency . . . OH NOOOOOOOOO !!
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 2, 2014 6:40pm
UglyTruth

UT, 4.04PM, how does one eat Jesus. Like they eat on “Supernatural”?

It’s symbolic, not literal.

The bread refers to the body of his teaching work and the wine to the way of the teacher.

That’s a reasonable interpretation.

Yes those who participated in the original sin of the false claim of knowledge of God …

It wasn’t a false a false claim, the forbidden fruit was from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Knowledge of Elohim is something else entirely.

UT 4.21pm, no not really, for the separation of Jew from Gentile, clean from unclean, was to end.

No, the new covenant is with the houses of Israel and Judah, it is not universal.

Behold, the days come, saith YHWH, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:31
0 2
Log in to Reply
Report
May 2, 2014 6:41pm
nasska

itstricky

Whoever controls the language controls the debate.
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 2, 2014 6:47pm
nasska

It’ll be Goldilocks at the door LR&C. 🙂
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 2, 2014 6:52pm
UglyTruth

On the Cross the last words He utters are “It is accomplished.” Thus the Law/Torah was fulfilled on the Cross, and Jesus teaches about this several times.

No, the prophecy was fulfilled. John 19:30 misidentifies the crucified man, but describes the final act:

When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.
John 19:30

“The late Aramaic Bible researcher George Lamsa claimed that the traditional “forsaken” interpretation is a mistake in the Aramaic scribing that was transferred to later transcriptions. Lamsa claimed that “the correct translation from Aramaic should be “Eli, Eli, lemana shabakthani” or “My God, my God, for this [purpose] I was spared!” or “…for such a purpose have you kept me!”)”
http://www.thenazareneway.com/why_hast_thou_forsaken_me.htm

The prophecy that was fulfilled was:

They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.
Psalm 69:21
1 2
Log in to Reply
Report
May 2, 2014 6:53pm
Viking2

I think I will go get a big black dog. The last one I had like that was great and we called him Nigger.
Think I will call the next one Nigger as well.
Probably get the SPCA spooks wound up but they need to sell their dogs so it will be worth the fun.

Used to say to him, “come on you black bastard get your arse up the hill.”
Johnboy and naaska will understand. you poncy townies with your PC degrees will choke and rightly so. Make it a slow death.

😆 😆
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 2, 2014 7:08pm
Viking2

Well, I have another scenario;

Maurice W gives a gay rainbow speech.
He goes to extreme lengths to help a Chinese man.
This man then has a domestic dispute with his wife…

You read between the lines.

In politics they have always said it’s career ending to be caught with a dead girl or a live boy…
hattip Davo36.http://www.propertytalk.com/forum/showthread.php?28938-Chinese-Investors-spending-up-big-in-NZ/page13
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 2, 2014 7:14pm
Left Right and Centre

It’ll be Goldilocks at the door LR&C

It was Goldilocks. And she has rescued me from the evil porridge in a fitting modern day gender role reversal with her girls-can-do-anything Kiwi ~~lardass~~ lass eating capacity. The porridge is often licked, but never beaten. I’ll be ~~baked~~back. How is it possible that a being who lives in a fabled land far, far away could see so easily the fate of a lowly swozzler ?

This being . . . can it be . . . ‘The One’ ?

Come with me Goldilocks . . . what are you doing chick ? I meant we shall travel together to seek the wisdom and power of the only True One who can save us all from mutated grain based cereal products. Follow the yellow brick road to Eketamecca (if time allows stop off at Mastermaccas, the one cleverly disguised as someone’s weatherboard home to fool the enemy). The One will defeat our oaty nemesis with fearless super working dogs . . . herding the gruel into a mighty pen that stretches chain after chain, furlong . . for a long way. Try to stab and cut and tear this menace meal to ribbons – it will only thicken on standing. For once again it will prove to be – the pen is mightier than the sword . . . Amen.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 2, 2014 7:30pm
stephieboy

kowtow, Brunei adopting Sharia Law with whipping for alcohol and stoning for adultery.?
kea will be rapt.!

Could UT and others take their tedious hair splitting and nit picking religious issues to the special thread that DPF has taken the trouble to create. !
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 2, 2014 7:37pm
cha

In politics they have always said it’s career ending to be caught with a dead girl or a live boy…

I doubt Maurice is in Edwin Edwards’ league.

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/03/edwin_edwards_congress_announc.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Edwards
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 2, 2014 7:39pm
nasska

Whenever two drovers get together there is the inevitable argument about who has the best Australian Sheepdog. So the merits of their respective dogs was the subject of the debate at the bar.
“My dog’s so smart,” said one, “I can give him five instructions at the same time and he will carry them out to perfection.”
“That’s nothing,” said his mate. “I only whistle and point and Rover anticipates the whole exercise.”
Finally they decided to put their dogs to the test. The first drover whistled his dog and told him to dash to the sale yards, select the oldest ram, bring him back into town and load it into the truck which was parked outside the pub.
The dog sped off in a cloud of dust and ten minutes later was seen bringing a large ram down the main street. He jumped into the truck, dropped the tail gate and herded the ram in.
“Well that’s not bad,” conceded the second drover. “But watch this.”
“Rover, what about some tucker?”
In a cloud of dust Rover streaked down the main street to a farm five Kilometres out of town. Rover raced into the chook house, nudged a hen off the nest and gently picked up an egg.
The dog then sped back to town and gently placed the egg at his master’s feet. But without waiting for a pat on the head the dog gathered a few sticks and lit a fire, grabbed a billy in his teeth and dashed to the creek, set the billy on the fire and dropped the egg into the simmering water.
After exactly three minutes, Rover rolled the billy off the fire, laid the boiled egg at his master’s feet and stood on his head.
“Well, that beats all,” conceded the first drover, “but why is he standing on his head?”
“Well he knows I haven’t got an egg cup,” said the proud owner.
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 2, 2014 8:00pm
wat dabney

“No, I’m arguing that when people stop believing in Santa Claus, they replace him with another belief.”

A completely false, not to say utterly ludicrous, argument.

A rational absence of belief in fairies means just that, and nothing more.

A rational absence of belief in goblins means just that, and nothing more.

A rational absence of belief in Thor, Ra, Yahweh, Allah, Apollo and Tony the Frosties tiger means just that, and nothing more.
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 2, 2014 8:56pm
HB

interesting local story for those of you who have been discussing the Jeremy Clarkson story today.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/10002825/Telecom-cops-flak-over-racist-ad

“Telecom’s new “giganaire” ad campaign has been accused of being a racist parody of hip-hop culture.

The television ad depicts a middle-aged father rapping about being a “giganaire”, a word invented by Telecom that refers to someone who has a large amount of internet data.

The man refers to himself as “giga rich” – a term that resembles “nigga rich”, an offensive slur sometimes directed at minority groups….”Nigga rich” was a derogatory term for minorities who made poor financial decisions, he said.

“It implies that certain people lack intelligence when it comes to money matters.”

The ad reflected poorly on New Zealand, and suggested ignorance about the impact and history of the word “nigga”, Kamariera said”
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 2, 2014 9:10pm
Fletch

New emails re: Benghazi, directly contradict the story about a protest caused by a video that Obama, Hillary, Susan Rice, and Jay Carney told the American people.

A newly-emerged government email directly “contradicts the message that President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice and White House press secretary Jay Carney repeated publicly” in the immediate aftermath of the attack in Benghazi.
Per Sharyl Attkisson dot com, the “email is titled “Libya update from Beth Jones.” Beth Jones served as Assistant Secretary of State to Hillary Clinton at the time. The email documents a conversation between Jones and Libya’s Ambassador at 9:45am on Sept. 12, 2012 not long after the attacks.
This below contradicts the White House and State Department’s story that they believed a video led to what was thought to be a spontaneous attack.

“When [the Libyan Ambassador] said his government suspected that former Qaddafi regime elements carried out the attacks, I told him the group that conducted the attacks—Ansar Al Sharia—is affiliated with Islamic extremists,” Jones reports in the email.

There is no uncertainty assigned to the assessment, which does not mention a video or a protest. The State Department provided the email to Congress in Aug. of 2013 under special conditions that it not be publicly released at that time. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) sought and received permission to release it Thursday.

http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2014/05/01/Benghazi-Email-Hillary-Clinton-Deputy-Names-Islamic-Extremists-Not-YouTube

The photocopy of the email itself.

http://chaffetz.house.gov/sites/chaffetz.house.gov/files/US%20Department%20of%20State%20-%20Beth%20Jones%20emails_0.pdf

So, it was all bullshit to protect the president on the lead-up to the election.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 2, 2014 9:25pm
stephieboy

Fletch,

The full Senate Non Partisan review report the Benghazi attacks released Jan 15 2014,

Fox Benghazi Myths Dispelled By New Bipartisan Review
Research January 15, 2014 4:28 PM EST ››› THOMAS BISHOP & TYLER HANSEN

484

On January 15, 2014, the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released a bipartisan review of its findings in an investigation of the September 11, 2012, attacks on an American diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya. Much of the report dispels myths perpetuated by Fox News over the last sixteen months.

Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Releases Bipartisan Review

Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Releases Review On September 11, 2012 Attack On A Diplomatic Facility In Benghazi, Libya. A January 15, 2014 U.S. Senate Select Committee investigation released a review of the September 11, 2012 attack in Benghazi and made recommendations to prevent future attacks on American interests around the world. [Review Of The Terrorist Attacks On U.S. Facilities In Benghazi, Libya, September 11-12, 2012, U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 1/15/14]

Fox Benghazi Myth: “Stand Down” Order Was Given To Benghazi Response Teams

Fox Pushed Myth That Forces In Libya Were Given A “Stand Down” Order At Least 85 Times. In the ten months following the Benghazi attacks, Fox News claimed at least 85 times that troops in Tripoli, Libya, were ordered to “stand down” and not assist those under attack that night in Benghazi. [Media Matters, 6/27/13]

Senate Review: No Evidence Of A “Stand Down” Order

Senate Select Committee On Intelligence: Committee Found No Evidence Of Intentional Delay Or Obstruction By The Chief Of Base Or Any Other Party. A Senate Committee on Intelligence review of the Benghazi attacks found no evidence of a “stand down” order given to responding units during the attack:

The Committee explored claims that there was a “stand down” order given to the security team at the Annex. Although some members of the security team expressed frustration that they were unable to respond more quickly to the Mission compound, 12 the Committee found no evidence of intentional delay or obstruction by the Chief of Base or any other party. The Committee has reviewed the allegations that U.S. personnel, including in the IC (Intelligence Community) or DoD, prevented the mounting of any military relief effort during the attacks, but the Committee has not found any of these allegations to be substantiated.

[…]

The Committee has reviewed the allegations that U.S. personnel, including in the IC or DoD, prevented the mounting of any military relief effort during the attacks, but the Committee has not found any of these allegations to be substantiated. [Review Of The Terrorist Attacks On U.S. Facilities In Benghazi, Libya, September 11-12, 2012, U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 1/15/14]

Fox Benghazi Myth: Obama Administration Ignored Benghazi Threats

Fox’s Jennifer Griffin: The Declassified Transcripts Show A “Woefully Ill Prepared And Ill Postured Military.” On the January 14 edition of Fox News’ America’s Newsroom, Fox national security correspondent Jennifer Griffin reported that the declassified transcript of Benghazi hearings revealed that the military was “ill prepared” to respond to the attacks on the U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi. [Fox News, America’s Newsroom, 1/14/14, via Media Matters]

Fox Host Kilmeade: “The U.S. Government Knew An Attack Was Imminent And Didn’t Do A Thing About It.” On the October 28 edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade claimed that “the U.S. government knew an attack was imminent [in Benghazi] and didn’t do a thing about it.” [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 10/28/13, via Media Matters]

Senate Review: No “Tactical Warning” Predicting An Attack

Senate Select Committee On Intelligence: “There Was No Singular ‘Tactical Warning’ In The Intelligence Reporting Leading Up To The Events On September 11, 2012, Predicting An Attack On U.S.” The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence review found that no specific warnings predicted the attack in Benghazi (emphasis added):

There was no singular “tactical warning” in the intelligence reporting leading up to the events on September 11, 2012, predicting an attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi on the 9/11 anniversary, although State and the CIA both sent general warning notices to facilities worldwide noting the potential security concerns associated with the anniversary. Such a specific warning should not have been expected, however, given the limited intelligence collection of the Benghazi area at the time.

To date, the Committee has not identified any intelligence or other information received prior to September 11, 2012, by the IC or State Department indicating specific terrorist planning to attack the U.S. facilities in Benghazi on September 11, 2012.

Although it did not reach the U.S. Intelligence Community until after the attacks, it is important to note that a former Transitional National Council (TNC) security official in Benghazi, had received information of a possible imminent attack against the Mission facility in advance. The official said that approximately four hours prior to the attack, he attempted to notify the Libyan Intelligence Service (LIS) that an attack was expected, but he was unable to reach two contacts he had in the LIS as they were out of the country. [Review Of The Terrorist Attacks On U.S. Facilities In Benghazi, Libya, September 11-12, 2012, U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 1/15/14]

Fox Benghazi Myth: Obama Administration Engaged In Cover-Up Over Benghazi

Hannity: “We Are Witnessing A Widespread Cover-Up Based On Flat-Out Lies.” Hannity began his September 20, 2012, Fox News show by airing a montage of Obama administration officials speaking about the Benghazi attacks, then said:

HANNITY: All right now, how this event can evolve from an impromptu riot about a YouTube video to a premeditated terrorist attack in the span of a week — well, that can be explained in one of three ways. Number one, this administration is stupid, simple as that. Number two, this administration is on the receiving end of some of the worst intelligence in American history. Or number three, we are witnessing a widespread cover-up based on flat-out lies, all aimed to protect a president who happens to be running for reelection. I’m going with number three, and in a moment, I’m going to show you the evidence to back it up. [Fox News, Hannity, 9/20/12, via Media Matters]

Van Susteren: “Incompetence, Or Cover-Up, Or Something Else?” On her September 20, 2012, Fox News show, Greta Van Susteren introduced a segment on Benghazi with former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich by asking, “Why does the Obama administration keep changing its tune? Incompetence, or cover-up, or something else?” [Fox News, On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, 9/20/12, via Media Matters]

Chris Wallace: “Did The Obama Administration Play Down What Happened” In Benghazi? Host Chris Wallace asked then-Obama adviser Robert Gibbs, “Specific question, because this is looking at the bottom line: Did the Obama administration play down what happened in Libya, what happened in Cairo, because it would make Obama foreign policy look better?” [Fox Broadcasting Co., Fox News Sunday, 9/23/12, via Media Matters]

Senate Review: No Effort By Obama Administration To Cover-Up Or Alter Facts

Senate Select Committee On Intelligence: “There Were No Efforts By The White House Or Any Other Executive Branch Entities To ‘Cover-Up’ Facts Or Make Alterations For Political Purposes.” The Senate Committee on Intelligence review determined there was no effort by the administration to cover-up or alter the facts for political purposes:

The Majority concludes that the interagency coordination process on the talking points followed normal, but rushed coordination procedures and that there were no efforts by the White House or any other Executive Branch entities to “cover-up” facts or make alterations for political purposes. Indeed, former CIA Director David Petraeus testified to the Committee on November 16, 2012, “They went through the normal process that talking points-unclassified public talking points-go through.” In fact, the purpose of the National Security Council (NSC) is to coordinate the many national security agencies of the government, especially when information about a terrorist attack is flowing in and being analyzed quickly-and the NSC used this role appropriately in the case of the talking points coordination. Furthermore, such coordination processes were also standardized, often at the urging of Congress, following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks with the explicit goal of reducing information “stovepipes” between and among agencies. [Review Of The Terrorist Attacks On U.S. Facilities In Benghazi, Libya, September 11-12, 2012, U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 1/15/14]

Fox Benghazi Myth: No Link To Anti-Muslim YouTube Video

Hannity: Anti-Muslim Film Is “Convenient Excuse” To Avoid Admitting Attack Was Terrorism. During the September 17 edition of Hannity, host Sean Hannity said the Obama administration is blaming the anti-Islam video for attacks on our consulate to avoid admitting it was a terrorist attack. From the segment:

HANNITY: Wasn’t that part of the whole spin, that it had to do with the movie trailer? Well, that’s a convenient excuse, considering the movie trailer was released back in July. So it’s a convenient excuse. It gets them off the hook. Now they had to admit, because the evidence has been overwhelming and incontrovertible — granted, our media in this country, they don’t do their job. So now there’s some culpability here. And I think there’s some fair questions. [Fox News, Hannity, 9/17/12, via Media Matters]

Megyn Kelly: Susan Rice Linked Benghazi Attacks To Anti-Muslim Video, “Which We Know Now Was Not The Case.” America Live host Megyn Kelly said, “I think now all of our viewers know [Rice], because she’s the one who went on all the Sunday talk shows and told us that everything that happened in Benghazi was linked to this video, which we now know was not the case. Can she possibly ascend into the Cabinet, into this position in the Cabinet, given that?” [Fox News, America Live, 11/13/12, via Media Matters]

Senate Review: Reports Suggested Link To Inflammatory YouTube Video

Senate Select Committee On Intelligence: Intel Reports Linked Inflammatory Video To Benghazi Attack. A Senate Select Committee on Intelligence found that “some intelligence suggests” an inflammatory video linked to violent protests around the region led terror groups to conduct “similar attacks with advanced warning”:

It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attacks or whether extremist group leaders directed their members to participate. Some intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order, following that day’s violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video, suggesting that these and other terrorist groups could conduct similar attacks with little advance warning. [Review Of The Terrorist Attacks On U.S. Facilities In Benghazi, Libya, September 11-12, 2012, U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 1/15/14]

Fox Benghazi Myth: Obama Left Americans To Die In Benghazi

Fox’s Johnson Suggests Obama Admin May Have “Sacrificed Americans” As A “Political Calculation” During Benghazi Attacks. On the October 25 edition of Fox & Friends, Fox News legal analyst Peter Johnson, Jr. asked if there was a “political calculation that was made to sacrifice Americans on the ground so we didn’t kill innocents in front of the consulate.” [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 10/25/12, via Media Matters]

Fox’s McFarland: “It Was Probably A Political Decision Not To Rescue Them.” Fox News national security analyst K.T. McFarland claimed the supposed absence of aid to the consulate was “probably” politically motivated. From America Live:

ALISYN CAMEROTA (guest host): K.T., who is responsible for answering all of these questions?

McFARLAND: Well, that’s the question you want to know. I mean, here’s what’s happened is, bad stuff happened, all right? So what is the administration doing? They’re throwing a lot of dust up in the air to try to make sure you’re not sure quite what happened, who to blame. Is it the movie’s fault? Is it the intelligence community? Is it the security? Is it the State Department diplomats? We don’t know the answers to that. I’ve got a guess that it’s something that was a political decision. And not only a political decision not to give them the kind of security they wanted, but it was probably a political decision not to rescue them. And finally, is it a political decision to try to put a lot of blue smoke and mirrors in front of everybody so they don’t know what really happened, and they won’t know what really happened until after the election? [Fox News, America Live, 10/10/12, via Media Matters]

Senate Review: Response Saved Lives, No Military In Position

Senate Select Committee On Intelligence: “The Committee Interviewed U.S. Personnel In Benghazi That Night, And They Credited Their Lives Being Saved To The Personnel Who Responded To The Attacks.” The Senate Committee on Intelligence review found that the groups responding to the Benghazi attack were credited with saving lives of the personnel in diplomatic facility:

Although there was no formal written agreement about how security should be handled between the two facilities in Benghazi, there was a common understanding that each group would come to the other’s aid if attacked, which is what happened the night of September 11, 2012.102 IC personnel immediately came to the aid of their colleagues at the Temporary Mission Facility, and fought bravely to secure TMF [The Mission Facility] personnel and their own Annex facility. The Committee interviewed U.S. personnel in Benghazi that night, and they credited their lives being saved to the personnel who responded to the attacks. [Review Of The Terrorist Attacks On U.S. Facilities In Benghazi, Libya, September 11-12, 2012, U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 1/15/14]

Senate Select Committee On Intelligence: “There Were No U.S. Military Resources In Position To Intervene In Short Order In Benghazi To Help Defend The Temporary Mission Facility.” A Senate Committee on Intelligence found that military assets were not in place to respond in time:

According to Major General Darryl Roberson, Vice Director of Operations for the Joint Staff: There were no ships available to provide any support that were anywhere close to the facility at Benghazi. The assets that we had available were Strike Eagles loaded with live weapons that could have responded, but they were located in Djibouti, which is the equivalent of the distance between here [Washington D.C.] and Los Angeles. The other fighters that might have been available were located in Aviano, Italy. They were not loaded with weapons. They were not on an alert status. We would’ve had to build weapons, load weapons, get tankers to support it, and get it there. There was no way that we were going to be able to do that. Unfortunately, there was not a carrier in the Mediterranean that could have been able to support; the assets that we mobilized immediately were the only assets we had available to try to support.

[…]

There have been congressional and public questions about why military assets were not used from the U.S. military base in Souda Bay, Crete. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on February 7, 2013, that (1) the military asset in Souda Bay, Crete, “wasn’t the right tool for the particular threat we faced;” (2) ” … the aircraft were not among the forces that we had at heightened alert;” and (3) the “boots-on-the ground capabilities” that DoD deployed would have arrived too late, so they did not deploy to Benghazi. [Review Of The Terrorist Attacks On U.S. Facilities In Benghazi, Libya, September 11-12, 2012, U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 1/15/14]

Short Link

Posted in
Government, International Conflicts, National Security & Foreign Policy, Terrorism, The Senate
Network/Outlet
Fox News Channel
Stories/Interests
Libya

http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/01/15/fox-benghazi-myths-dispelled-by-new-bipartisan/197609
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 2, 2014 9:52pm
stephieboy

Benghazi testimony derails Fox’s ” incredibly damning ” Attack on Obama ,

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/05/01/benghazi-testimony-derails-foxs-incredibly-damn/199116
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 2, 2014 10:00pm
Fletch

stephie, the Obama administration DEFINITELY DID take part in a cover up. They blamed it on an internet video which spawned a spontaneous protest. Obama, Hillary, Susan Rice, and Jay Carney all blamed this “despicable video” for two weeks after the event, when they knew it was no such thing. And these latest emails prove it beyond a doubt. It was known 24 hours after that it was a terrorist attack.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFf0dUH3OtU

It can’t be denied. It’s there on video.
1 2
Log in to Reply
Report
May 2, 2014 10:22pm
Fletch

Congress questions Greg Hicks, WHO WAS THERE.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct_PHtLkgWw
1 2
Log in to Reply
Report
May 2, 2014 10:29pm
stephieboy

Fletch,

Again read more carefully the Non Partisan Review report I posted in full but 5 Myths about Benghazi including the following,

Myth No. 2: The Attack Had Nothing to do With the anti-Islam Video

‘Protesters rip apart the US flag during a protest against the anti-Islam film, “Innocence of Muslims,” in front of the U.S. embassy in Malaysia, part of the protests that occurred in dozens of countries against the film. (Getty Images)
While it has since proven true that there was not a protest outside the facility precipitating the attack, the notion that the attack had absolutely nothing to do with the YouTube video (a clip showing an excerpt from the anti-Islam film “The Innocence of Muslims” that sparked protests and riots in dozens of countries, many of which outside U.S. diplomatic missions) is simply not supported by the facts. In reality, many witnesses who were interviewed shortly after the attack said that the militants from the Ansar al-Sharia brigade were chanting about the video during the assault on the facility.

As reported in the L.A. Times, “Witnesses said members of the group that raided the U.S. mission specifically mentioned the video, which denigrated the prophet Muhammad.”

The Associated Press reported, “There was no sign of a spontaneous protest against an American-made movie denigrating Islam’s Prophet Muhammad. But a lawyer passing by the scene said he saw the militants gathering around 20 youths from nearby to chant against the film. Within an hour or so, the assault began, guns blazing as the militants blasted into the compound.”

The New York Times reported the month after the attack: “To Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers, there is little doubt what occurred: a well-known group of local Islamist militants struck the United States Mission without any warning or protest, and they did it in retaliation for the video. That is what the fighters said at the time, speaking emotionally of their anger at the video without mentioning Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or the terrorist strikes of 11 years earlier.”

This doesn’t mean that the video served as the only reason for the attack. There is some evidence to suggest that perhaps the attack also served as retaliation for the death of Libyan militant and al-Qaeda associate Abu Yahya al-Libi who was killed in a U.S. drone strike three month earlier. But the claims that the attack had nothing whatsoever to do with the video do not comport with the evidence.’

Myth No. 2: The Attack Had Nothing to do With the anti-Islam Video

Protesters rip apart the US flag during a protest against the anti-Islam film, “Innocence of Muslims,” in front of the U.S. embassy in Malaysia, part of the protests that occurred in dozens of countries against the film. (Getty Images)
While it has since proven true that there was not a protest outside the facility precipitating the attack, the notion that the attack had absolutely nothing to do with the YouTube video (a clip showing an excerpt from the anti-Islam film “The Innocence of Muslims” that sparked protests and riots in dozens of countries, many of which outside U.S. diplomatic missions) is simply not supported by the facts. In reality, many witnesses who were interviewed shortly after the attack said that the militants from the Ansar al-Sharia brigade were chanting about the video during the assault on the facility.

As reported in the L.A. Times, “Witnesses said members of the group that raided the U.S. mission specifically mentioned the video, which denigrated the prophet Muhammad.”

The Associated Press reported, “There was no sign of a spontaneous protest against an American-made movie denigrating Islam’s Prophet Muhammad. But a lawyer passing by the scene said he saw the militants gathering around 20 youths from nearby to chant against the film. Within an hour or so, the assault began, guns blazing as the militants blasted into the compound.”

The New York Times reported the month after the attack: “To Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers, there is little doubt what occurred: a well-known group of local Islamist militants struck the United States Mission without any warning or protest, and they did it in retaliation for the video. That is what the fighters said at the time, speaking emotionally of their anger at the video without mentioning Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or the terrorist strikes of 11 years earlier.”

This doesn’t mean that the video served as the only reason for the attack. There is some evidence to suggest that perhaps the attack also served as retaliation for the death of Libyan militant and al-Qaeda associate Abu Yahya al-Libi who was killed in a U.S. drone strike three month earlier. But the claims that the attack had nothing whatsoever to do with the video do not comport with the evidence.’

http://www.heavy.com/news/2013/05/myths-benghazi-attack-coverup-factcheck/

And the truth and myths behind Gregory Hicks and his testimony,

//mediamatters.org/print/research/2013/05/11/the-truth-about-the-rights-latest-benghazi-atta/194021
1 2
Log in to Reply
Report
May 2, 2014 10:47pm
stephieboy

The truth and myths behind Gregory Hicks and his testimony ,

http://mediamatters.org/print/research/2013/05/11/the-truth-about-the-rights-latest-benghazi-atta/194021
1 2
Log in to Reply
Report
May 2, 2014 10:53pm
stephieboy

And Gregory Hicks contradicts himself whilst pushing Benghazi Myths,

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/09/08/on-abcs-this-week-gregory-hicks-contradicts-him/195772
1 2
Log in to Reply
Report
May 2, 2014 10:59pm
Reid

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/05/01/us-become-worse-police-state-orwell-imagine/

stephie, you’ll never get it. Benghazi was obvious since day one by the way the available defence forces an hour away were prevented from responding by stand-down orders. Parroting the official obfuscations of the critical facts and outright denials from their hired sycophants doesn’t prove it didn’t happen. All it proves is that there are powerful vested interests involved in covering it up.

As I’ve said repeatedly but you never absorb, if you want the truth and you seem to be genuine in that, then you need to look at what the sources of the allegations say in detail first before you turn to the rebuttals of those allegations. Only then will you realise that the rebuttals are (almost always) full of shit, in that they purport to address the allegations but they actually don’t because for example, they don’t mention aspects of the allegations or they pretend the allegations say “x” and “x” isn’t true, whereas in fact, the allegations actually and always have, said “y.” BUT YOU WILL NEVER KNOW THAT IF ALL YOU READ ARE THE (PURPORTED) REBUTTALS and then assume you have been thus informed of the facts.
1 2
Log in to Reply
Report
May 2, 2014 11:11pm
Reid

Interesting analysis of the Russian military posture.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/04/30/uk-ukraine-crisis-russia-military-idUKKBN0DG12620140430
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 2, 2014 11:16pm
stephieboy

Reid, can you explain how Paul Craig Roberts has become a victim of what he claims is the” US becoming a police state than Orwell could ever imagine.” ?
How is he become the victim of the alleged Thought Police.? I would of thought his blog and participation on other similar blogs would give an utter lie to that extravagant and extraordinary polemic and claim of his.
Is Robert’s under some kind of detention, house arrest or sent off to an alleged FEMA concentration camp.?
Its like another silly and stupid claim of his that China has a freer media and Press than his home country.
I think your not the one who needs to be more appraised of the facts or is it in your case , ( and Robert’s ) factoids.?
1 2
Log in to Reply
Report
May 2, 2014 11:26pm
stephieboy

Paul Craig Roberts” The Mask of Desperastion,

http://ladylibertyslamp.wordpress.com/2010/07/29/paul-craig-roberts-and-the-mark-of-desperation/

and leaving the crazy Jonestown,

http://leavingalexjonestown.blogspot.co.nz/2010/04/buh-bye-to-paul-craig-roberts.html

I personally have utter contempt for the guy.!
1 2
Log in to Reply
Report
May 2, 2014 11:36pm
Reid

can you explain how Paul Craig Roberts has become a victim of what he claims is the” US becoming a police state than Orwell could ever imagine.”

You’ve been using the random word generator again haven’t you. Where in that article say he’s a victim? Apart from the fact it’s a guest post from another writer. And the other writer didn’t mention it, either.

What you need to do with this stephie is just look at it and think: is it possible? Is what that article is alleging, possible? Yes or no?

And if it’s no, then forget it. And remember, the word is possible, not probable. And that particular article discusses technology so the possible question re: that particular article is: can technology be used like that, yes or no?

I happen to work in technology in particular I’ve worked on biometric technology as well as some of the other stuff it talks about so I happen to know that yes, it is possible.

The next question is: will it be used as the article describes. And that’s where your worldview comes into play.

But you need to learn stephie to look at the questions relevant to the thing you’re reading and not step off into some other fantasy you’ve got going in your own head about the owner of the site or anything else.

Otherwise you’ll keep going in circles and I sense you’re genuine in that you want to make progress. In that sense you’re not like Shawn who’s so arrogant about his own relatively small intellect he thinks he already knows everything worthwhile, but you’re not like that.

So that’s what you need to do.

OTY.

Over and out for tonight.

I personally have utter contempt for the guy.!

Then you’re a fool because you don’t get to be Assistant Treasury Secretary of the USA if you’re an idiot. This doesn’t mean he’s always correct, it means you should not dismiss him so lightly just because he says things which cause you discomfort.
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
May 2, 2014 11:42pm
SPC

One can only speculate as to the number of refugees there will be in Ukraine.

Already we can see how those supporting Ukraine unity have been attacked by pro Russia nationalists, and Reid’s above link shows Russian military capability is deterring Ukraine protection for these civilians.

In the Crimea, the leader of the Tartar community, Mustafa Dzhemilev, was banned from returning to the annexed territory for five years.

How many people loyal to Ukraine unity will be allowed to remain in Russian controlled areas (once set up)?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 2, 2014 11:43pm
cha

Interesting analysis of the Russian military posture.

Beria and the old boss are back?.

https://twitter.com/adagamov/status/461831951767597056/photo/1

https://twitter.com/KenGOlsen/status/461988191428292608/photo/1
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 2, 2014 11:55pm
Fletch

stephie, we also know (from the emails just released, and which were purposely held back by the administration), that Susan Rice was prepped with the video lie before she went on those 5 talk shows, and that all mention of Al Qaeda was stripped from the talking points. These are facts. The Benghazi attack was well planned in advance, and not the result of some spontaneous demonstration. This was known hours after the attack. It is all political.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/042914-698891-benghazi-emails-white-house-prepped-susan-rice.htm
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 2, 2014 11:59pm
cha

While you waste your time citing wing nut butt hurt 2016 will roll around Fletch, Clinton gets herself elected and Barry rides off into the sunset.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 3, 2014 12:15am
SPC

Does anyone have any info as to whether the Benghazi attack was planned for the time it occurred?

Or whether planning allowed for implementation on the occasion that an opportunity presented itself, such as the demonstration?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 3, 2014 12:16am
Kea

“Heh, no, you really don’t.”

Shawnette, We would probably get on just fine in real life. Sorry 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 3, 2014 12:36am
Kea

stupidboy, why so many words ?

Just say it like it is. Anything Jews do is holly. You are too wordy.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 3, 2014 12:41am
SPC

Kea, Barry and Hilary are Jewish?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 3, 2014 12:58am

More comments:

‹
1
2
3

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« A young conman

The Australian fiscal crisis »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Highlights

The Kiwis are fleeing
Inflation by term
Houston we have a problem
Our immunisation disaster

Never miss a post

Email Address

Links

Ian Bradford: Is any of the material we are fed by the climate alarmists’ reliable?
Breaking Views
"Late-Stage Anti-Capitalism"
Not PC
Coastal Court Action Flies Under the Radar
NZCPR
The Battle of Doiran – Turmoil In The French Army I THE GREAT WAR Week 144
Utopia
Cuddly
No Minister
Word of the day
Hompaddock
Policing protests.
Kiwipolitico
Open letter to Hon Paul Goldsmith
Point of Order
The Working Group Weekend Politics with David Seymour, Chris Penk and Damien Grant
The Daily Blog
This is fine
The Standard
THE WAY THINGS WERE
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
"Comity" versus the rule of law
No Right Turn
Jacinda’s legacy – Increasing number of abortions
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
United Rugby Championship Predictions for Week 15
Stats Chat
Despair - construction consenting edition
Offsetting Behaviour
Tougher than that
Croaking Cassandra
ABs stripped of 2011 title after try disallowed
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz

editor@kiwiblog.co.nz

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d