Next time one of your Republican friends tells you how Benghazi is going to unravel the social fabric of society, remember that 99.9999999% don't know what they're talking about and do not care.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Jimmy Kimmel, confusion, Obama, IRS, Benghazi, Solyndra, boobs' to 'Jimmy Kimmel, confusion, Obama, IRS, Benghazi, Solyndra, boobs, jkl' - edited by lucky760

501(c)(4) is a status that non-profit social welfare organizations can apply for that exempts them from paying taxes, allows them to lobby without restriction, and allows them to take anonymous contributions. Raising money for political campaigns is not allowed for non-profits that work as 501(c)(4)s .

There was concern that some of these groups with blatantly political names were funneling illegal corporate cash to politicians, hence the IRS investigations out of Cincinnati. The GOP claimed that only conservative groups were targeted, which ended up being false. Liberal groups were targeted as well.

This story is a strategically smart move for the right wing media to play, because they can simultaneously smear the Obama campaign (which had absolutely nothing to do with this), intimidate the IRS from investigating illegal corporate campaign contributions in future elections, keep their base in a state of irrational fear and distract the public from the House quietly voting to take away overtime pay today.They even managed to get Jon Stewart to unwittingly help them out as a bonus.

I love Jon Stewart, but he got played here.

TL:DR: This story is manufactured bullshit, just like Benghazi and the AP email story.

Now we have Benghazi gate

Obama had emails and live video feed to the white house situation room during the attack. Then told Americans a lie for 2 weeks about a piss poor video upset some people which caused the violence.

Disgracefull

Timeline of events story by CBS...

Ok I'll bite,

Obama the great said acts of terror will not be tolerated. He did not say that Benghazi attack was an act of terror. The first day Obama Blamed the "video" for the reason for the attack. It took Obama weeks to admit that this was an act of terror. He just kept blaming the video, even to the point of spend $ for airtime in Libya to apologize to its citizen for the video.

The fact that the administration arrested the created the video is appalling. Even worse is that he has yet to be set free.>> ^bareboards2:

Here. let me help.
@quantumushroom, @bobknight33. @TangledThorns

>> ^KnivesOut:
I'm fucking serious, where are all those probie sock-puppets to comment on this video? Bk33? QM? TangledThorns? She's talking about you guys, don't you have a response?

I agree with or accept everything you say here except I'm not clear on your meaning re: socialism vs. fascism. I'm not sure where your reference to fascism comes from. Are you saying that the Western countries are fascist, or that Libya will become a fascist state now that Gaddafi's gone? Also, do you consider ruling as a dictator and militarily crushing dissent more like socialism or fascism? You can't have fascist democracy, so I'm not sure where you're going with this. And as I said before, the country is still oil-rich, and may choose to continue to distribute the wealth in the form of free health care and so on as before.

I have little respect for the UN myself, and don't support their intervention in this case, so no, I wouldn't be OK with getting the UN to militarily support reel groups in the US.>> ^marbles:
It's called imperialism. Wall Street-London oligarchs run the world. They use mafia tactics to take and do what they want. And if a country's leader doesn't fall in line, then they are taken out.
Is that what this is, self-determination of the Libyan people? No, it's the determination of NATO using violent ideological extremist groups cultivated over the last 30 years by US and British intelligence in the eastern cities of Darnah and Benghazi.
Nothing about this benefits "the West". It benefits big oil interests, defense contractors, and megabanks.
If you don't understand how socialism is better than fascism, then this is a wasted conversation.
I don't put a lot of stock in anything the UN does or says. Nor do I think it has the authority to decide what one country can do to another. But this is were NATO supposedly got their authority to terror bomb and back the rebels in their "civil war". (Even though it violates the UN charter) Basically picking and choosing what international laws to follow when it suites your agenda is what the UN is for.
Using the US and NATO's rationale, China or some other country has the authority to bomb the US governmnet and support dissenting groups here. Are you ok with that?

>> ^darkrowan:

For all the goofieness of this vid it does bring up a good question: Who's replacing them? Could be, like The Who said, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"?


Seems to be, unlike popular uprisings in some other countries which have resulted in the overthrow of a dictator by the people, this has been paid gangs of thugs backed by NATO airstrikes dealing with Qadhafi and any local resistance. What seems most worrisome is the National Transitional Councils decision to give policy decision making authority out to corporations, for example:
Monetary policy is handled by the Central Bank of Benghazi
http://www.ntclibya.org/english/meeting-on-19-march-2011/

..and oil policy is handled by... The Libyan Oil Company.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-21/libyan-rebel-council-sets-up-oil-company-to-replace-qaddafi-s.html

Pretty much the same as if Bank of America were given full authority to handle all policy decisions for America's banking system, or if Exxon Mobil got to make all fossil fuel and environmental policy.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^messenger:
I'd buy that the US and friends decided to back the rebels in Libya because they saw more financial benefit from it than, per your example, in Uganda. That doesn't mean that the Libyan people would have preferred not to have self-determination. Whatever perks they had under Gaddafi, they had only because Gaddafi himself decided they would, not because the people decided they would. And there's no reason after Gaddafi's gone that they can't still have them. The oil's still there, and it will still flow. If you're upset that this benefits the West, then OK, be upset, but don't conflate Western cynical gain with the new freedom of the Libyan people.
You're going to have to sell me on how having a dictator is better than having even a pseudo-democracy like we have.
Getting a human rights award from the UNHRC is the most cynical award possible. The council is a majority-decision court whose majority is made up of the worst human rights violators on the planet. It is dominated by countries who routinely commit gross human rights abuses against their own people, and have an understanding amongst themselves not to vote against one another, and can all avoid being held accountable.
It's called imperialism. Wall Street-London oligarchs run the world. They use mafia tactics to take and do what they want. And if a country's leader doesn't fall in line, then they are taken out.
Is that what this is, self-determination of the Libyan people? No, it's the determination of NATO using violent ideological extremist groups cultivated over the last 30 years by US and British intelligence in the eastern cities of Darnah and Benghazi.
Nothing about this benefits "the West". It benefits big oil interests, defense contractors, and megabanks.
If you don't understand how socialism is better than fascism, then this is a wasted conversation.
I don't put a lot of stock in anything the UN does or says. Nor do I think it has the authority to decide what one country can do to another. But this is were NATO supposedly got their authority to terror bomb and back the rebels in their "civil war". (Even though it violates the UN charter) Basically picking and choosing what international laws to follow when it suites your agenda is what the UN is for.
Using the US and NATO's rationale, China or some other country has the authority to bomb the US governmnet and support dissenting groups here. Are you ok with that?


You use words you don't understand the meaning of. You argue extensively for the benefits of socialism. You point repeatedly to Libya as a great example of it. You close by arguing for this as acceptable because the alternative is western based fascism.

Mussolini described fascism as something that "should more properly be called corporatism, for it is the merger of state and corporate power". In the west, the struggle continues between the power of the state and the power of corporations. The fight as separate entities each trying to influence one another. In Libya this was done away with, and corporations powers were nationalized into part of the state's power. You call that socialism, but Mussolini literally wrote the book on fascism and called it that instead.

>> ^messenger:

I'd buy that the US and friends decided to back the rebels in Libya because they saw more financial benefit from it than, per your example, in Uganda. That doesn't mean that the Libyan people would have preferred not to have self-determination. Whatever perks they had under Gaddafi, they had only because Gaddafi himself decided they would, not because the people decided they would. And there's no reason after Gaddafi's gone that they can't still have them. The oil's still there, and it will still flow. If you're upset that this benefits the West, then OK, be upset, but don't conflate Western cynical gain with the new freedom of the Libyan people.
You're going to have to sell me on how having a dictator is better than having even a pseudo-democracy like we have.
Getting a human rights award from the UNHRC is the most cynical award possible. The council is a majority-decision court whose majority is made up of the worst human rights violators on the planet. It is dominated by countries who routinely commit gross human rights abuses against their own people, and have an understanding amongst themselves not to vote against one another, and can all avoid being held accountable.

It's called imperialism. Wall Street-London oligarchs run the world. They use mafia tactics to take and do what they want. And if a country's leader doesn't fall in line, then they are taken out.

Is that what this is, self-determination of the Libyan people? No, it's the determination of NATO using violent ideological extremist groups cultivated over the last 30 years by US and British intelligence in the eastern cities of Darnah and Benghazi.

Nothing about this benefits "the West". It benefits big oil interests, defense contractors, and megabanks.

If you don't understand how socialism is better than fascism, then this is a wasted conversation.

I don't put a lot of stock in anything the UN does or says. Nor do I think it has the authority to decide what one country can do to another. But this is were NATO supposedly got their authority to terror bomb and back the rebels in their "civil war". (Even though it violates the UN charter) Basically picking and choosing what international laws to follow when it suites your agenda is what the UN is for.

Using the US and NATO's rationale, China or some other country has the authority to bomb the US governmnet and support dissenting groups here. Are you ok with that?

>> ^bcglorf: It seems silly, the link is to the page you are reading now!
Here's the quotes for the benefit of others so there's no risk of anyone falling for your foolishness.
1. I claimed You dismiss everything from CNN, BBC and citizen journalism all as pro American fabrications.
You've said the following to support this claim:
Unbiased? So no mainstream news media then? Which covers the CNN and BBC claim.
Of course they're blaming Assad, that's what foreign-funded activists are paid to say. Which covers the citizen journalism side.
2.I claimed You dismiss everything from Al Jazeera as American funded propaganda.
You've said the following to support this claim:
Al Jazeera is state owned by Qatar, the same government sending weapons to Libya's Benghazi rebels (al-Qeada) Seems that Al Jazeera is sinful by association with Qatar, which is supporting the Benghazi rebels like a good American puppet. For those new to this, the Al Qaeda claim is not only taking Gadhafi at his word, it is also stated in the belief that America or it's evil puppet masters support Al Qaeda, making Qatar's support of Al Qaeda proof it's all still part of the conspiracy.
Suffice it to say, you've soundly rejected Al Jazeera as biased against the Syrian public and part of some foreign sourced insurrection there.
3.My last claim was You ACCEPT everything from Bashir Al-Assad's regime's media outlets as truth.
You've said the following to support this claim:
Well to be fair, I'm pretty sure they kicked out all foreigners. Can't really blame them when Foreign Intelligence members are the main instigators of the rebellions.
And the best gem of them all:
The truth is we don't know who is killing the civilians.
All you seem to know is that Assad is the one making sure everyone is silenced and that no information gets out. How convenient you can then throw up your hands and say we just don't know who is killing who.
The truth is survivors and defectors that escape are all telling the same story, Assad's men are killing unarmed civilians and are shooting any soldiers refusing to fire on the unarmed civilians as well.




I didn't dismiss anything. Earlier in the thread, I made a dig at mainstream media in general when ali wanted an "unbiased" source. I've posted links from Reuters, Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, so you're not making any fucking sense.
And as far as "Assad's regime's media outlets", I have no idea what you're talking about.

In wars and armed conflicts you never know all the facts. You shouldn't accept any report from any news source at face value unless you can corroborate it with other sources. Even then you're likely only getting part of the truth. Al Jazerra repeatably makes disclaimers in this video that they don't know the facts.

Given the circumstances and Assad's short history, I don't buy that he's ordering his army to open fire on civilians. Al Jazerra nearly always has a pro-Western spin and given the fact that Qatar is openly supporting NATO in Libya, they are clearly going to be biased when reporting on Syria. There's little credibility to anything they choose to broadcast on the subject.

There was a story about a month ago or so, where the Syrian army was ambushed in one city and something like 120 army servicemen killed. Did unarmed civilians do that? I also remember first hearing about civilians being killed by snipers that were part of Assad's "secret police". So I guess it could be Assad's men, but why would he use covert police AND the military? Doesn't make any sense. The more likely scenario is that foreign agents dressed as Assad's security force are opening fire on civilians. They're probably even doing it behind the backs of the activists they recruited and organized to protest.

But even if it is Assad that's gunning down civilians, it's not our fight. It's an internal conflict. Aiding one side or the other only brings about wider conflict with more fighting and more death.

Are these also Assad's forces shooting indiscriminately from inside this car?

>> ^marbles:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^marbles:
>> ^bcglorf:
Of course they're blaming Assad, that's what foreign-funded activists are paid to say.
BTW, Al Jazeera is state owned by Qatar
As I guessed, you consider even Al Jazeera to be a right wing funded anti-arab propaganda machine...
You are insane.
For the sane people, it's Al Jazeera interviewing Syrian refugees in Turkey and reporting that Al-Assad's forces are deliberately and systematically killing unarmed protesters. Your insistent denial of this and refusal to acknowledge it is beyond sick, it's actively harmful. It's people like you that are the paid tools and sycophants of the worst murderous dictators in the world today.

Instead of trying to characterize me into something you don't like and attacking me, try attacking my argument.

You dismiss everything from CNN, BBC and citizen journalism all as pro American fabrications. Fine.
You dismiss everything from Al Jazeera as American funded propaganda. Crazy, but if you like tinfoil hats that's your choice.
You ACCEPT everything from Bashir Al-Assad's regime's media outlets as truth...
The above is the characterization you've painted for yourself, and it's infinitely worse than anything I could try and project onto you.

Please provide a citation for any and all of your claims if you wish to be taken seriously.


It seems silly, the link is to the page you are reading now!

Here's the quotes for the benefit of others so there's no risk of anyone falling for your foolishness.

1. I claimed You dismiss everything from CNN, BBC and citizen journalism all as pro American fabrications.
You've said the following to support this claim:
Unbiased? So no mainstream news media then? Which covers the CNN and BBC claim.
Of course they're blaming Assad, that's what foreign-funded activists are paid to say. Which covers the citizen journalism side.

2.I claimed You dismiss everything from Al Jazeera as American funded propaganda.
You've said the following to support this claim:
Al Jazeera is state owned by Qatar, the same government sending weapons to Libya's Benghazi rebels (al-Qeada) Seems that Al Jazeera is sinful by association with Qatar, which is supporting the Benghazi rebels like a good American puppet. For those new to this, the Al Qaeda claim is not only taking Gadhafi at his word, it is also stated in the belief that America or it's evil puppet masters support Al Qaeda, making Qatar's support of Al Qaeda proof it's all still part of the conspiracy.
Suffice it to say, you've soundly rejected Al Jazeera as biased against the Syrian public and part of some foreign sourced insurrection there.

3.My last claim was You ACCEPT everything from Bashir Al-Assad's regime's media outlets as truth.
You've said the following to support this claim:
Well to be fair, I'm pretty sure they kicked out all foreigners. Can't really blame them when Foreign Intelligence members are the main instigators of the rebellions.

And the best gem of them all:
The truth is we don't know who is killing the civilians.

All you seem to know is that Assad is the one making sure everyone is silenced and that no information gets out. How convenient you can then throw up your hands and say we just don't know who is killing who.

The truth is survivors and defectors that escape are all telling the same story, Assad's men are killing unarmed civilians and are shooting any soldiers refusing to fire on the unarmed civilians as well.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^marbles:
>> ^bcglorf:
I think there is a lot of grieved and disgruntled young Arab people who want freedom who are being manipulated and used by geopolitical forces outside their country.
You are insulting and demeaning those young Arab people. Who is using who among the Libyan rebels? As much as the UN is using the rebels, the rebels are equally using the UN sanctioned air support.
Much akin the the Kurd's while Saddam still ruled(presumably what you consider the good old days). As much as America used them to undermine Saddam, the Kurds equally used America's support to.... what for it.... undermine Saddam.
When two groups have the same goal and work together to achieve it, it is NOT the same as the smaller group being some helpless proxy puppet of the larger.
Let's be more open here Marbles, if the people of Iran and Syria actually DO want regime change, do you still vehemently oppose that happening solely because America shares that goal and offers assistance?

Yeah, much akin to the Kurds. Where did that get them? We encouraged them to support us in Desert Storm and then let hundreds of thousands get slaughtered after we pulled out. Saddam was our puppet. WE DID THAT. We armed Saddam with chemical weapons to fight Iran. We told Saddam to invade Kuwait after Kuwait was slant drilling and stealing oil. We told Saddam we would back him up. And then we get on our high horse and bitch slap Saddam around. WTF It's all bullshit, it always has been.
So now we're in Libya on a humanitarian mission? We're bombing civilians in Tripoli for humanitarian purposes? The groups that we're "working together" with in Libya is al-Qaeda linked rebels. Libya was a world leader in Al Qaeda suicide bomber recruitment during the Iraq war and North-eastern Libya has one of the greatest concentrations of jihadi terrorists anywhere in the world. Obama's humanitarian mission to protect "civilians" is a complete farce. He's aiding a rebel force of jihadi terrorists, the same terrorists that were killing US troops in Iraq.

That IS disgusting. We do know who is killing them. The refugees that have succeeded in fleeing to Turkey are telling us it was Assad's troops killing them. The SAME Assad that kicked out all journalists that didn't work directly for him. Defectors who've fled to Turkey have similarly reported witnessing first hand that Assad's secret service executed Syrian soldiers that refused orders to fire upon unarmed civilians.
We KNOW who is killing who. Your refusal to acknowledge it is sick.
---------

Your a piece of work. You understand nothing of the regions actual history. Instead, you've invented a fantasy built upon every single shred of anti-american propaganda being true and every shred of anything decent being said about them by anyone is utterly and blatantly false.
Go try following Al-Jazeera for awhile, you need some pro-western grounding to the perspective you've invented for yourself. I don't say that in jest either, I follow Al Jazeera more closely than any other news source, and the 'facts' you believe are 100% at odds and in contradiction to Al Jazeera's reporting on the region's activity.


Sorry, your support for foreign-funded sedition is disgusting. Of course they're blaming Assad, that's what foreign-funded activists are paid to say.

BTW, Al Jazeera is state owned by Qatar, the same government sending weapons to Libya's Benghazi rebels (al-Qeada) which is in direct violation of their own contrived UN Security resolution in 1973.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^bcglorf:
But there's a difference between caution and doing nothing. A genocide would already be underway were it not for the international, UN sanctioned mission.

Just stop saying that please. Stop thinking the world is black and white it just isn't. You saying that we know there would be a genocide is just stupid. You saying you BELIEVE there would be a genocide is reasonable. Do you understand the difference?

I understand how it can make you uncomfortable, but it must be said.
Gaddafi announced he would commit a genocide.
Gaddafi's historically brutal methods meant we should take that threat seriously.
Gaddafi's immediate actions following his statement make it almost impossible to ignore his threat.
Gaddafi's advance on Benghazi and his own deputy to the UN's warning make it irresponsible to deny his threat was real, credible and unfolding before our eyes.
Gaddafi intended to commit a genocide, and was within hours of seizing the control he needed to do it. Our actions stopped that genocide.
Sure terrible things may still happen, there's still a war going on against a maniacal dictator. The fact of the matter is, how could the world in good conscience stand back and watch a genocide unfold without at least attempting to stop it?

I don't know what else to say except that you don't know if your information is faulty or not. You get your information from where? That matters, you seem to not believe in doubt at all. Do you just believe what everyone tells you about their assessment of a situation immediately or do you want to save some doubt for other possibilities? In other words have you ever taken a science class...apply that same thinking here.

I am confidant because I spend so much time studying multiple separate and independent sources. Al Jazeera being one of the ones that seems to be 'better' by and large. It's their own article here that references Gaddafi's own deputy ambassador to the UN. Admittedly he had defected from the regime at the point he said this, but clearly he isn't just some nobody he doesn't understand the situation.
"In the coming hours we will see a real genocide if the international community does not act quickly"
Ibrahim Dabbashi,
Deputy Libyan UN ambassador
You can have doubts about some things, but when the evidence is overwhelming you eventually have to act on it.


How about this...have you read history. The history of the US...the history of NATO? My guess is you have...a watered down history that doesn't point to the war crimes we've committed. Yet you're just fine saying without all the information that we're doing the right thing. I'm merely pointing that we SHOULD FUCKING WAIT before just applauding ourselves like idiots.

I hope we did the right thing...however saying we know everything and that the evidence is overwhelming at this stage is just stupid. Your confidence means nothing to me, express some doubt or you're just another moron saying that God exists and there's no such thing as Global Warming.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^bcglorf:
But there's a difference between caution and doing nothing. A genocide would already be underway were it not for the international, UN sanctioned mission.

Just stop saying that please. Stop thinking the world is black and white it just isn't. You saying that we know there would be a genocide is just stupid. You saying you BELIEVE there would be a genocide is reasonable. Do you understand the difference?

I understand how it can make you uncomfortable, but it must be said.
Gaddafi announced he would commit a genocide.
Gaddafi's historically brutal methods meant we should take that threat seriously.
Gaddafi's immediate actions following his statement make it almost impossible to ignore his threat.
Gaddafi's advance on Benghazi and his own deputy to the UN's warning make it irresponsible to deny his threat was real, credible and unfolding before our eyes.
Gaddafi intended to commit a genocide, and was within hours of seizing the control he needed to do it. Our actions stopped that genocide.
Sure terrible things may still happen, there's still a war going on against a maniacal dictator. The fact of the matter is, how could the world in good conscience stand back and watch a genocide unfold without at least attempting to stop it?

I don't know what else to say except that you don't know if your information is faulty or not. You get your information from where? That matters, you seem to not believe in doubt at all. Do you just believe what everyone tells you about their assessment of a situation immediately or do you want to save some doubt for other possibilities? In other words have you ever taken a science class...apply that same thinking here.


I am confidant because I spend so much time studying multiple separate and independent sources. Al Jazeera being one of the ones that seems to be 'better' by and large. It's their own article here that references Gaddafi's own deputy ambassador to the UN. Admittedly he had defected from the regime at the point he said this, but clearly he isn't just some nobody he doesn't understand the situation.

"In the coming hours we will see a real genocide if the international community does not act quickly"

Ibrahim Dabbashi,
Deputy Libyan UN ambassador

You can have doubts about some things, but when the evidence is overwhelming you eventually have to act on it.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^bcglorf:
But there's a difference between caution and doing nothing. A genocide would already be underway were it not for the international, UN sanctioned mission.

Just stop saying that please. Stop thinking the world is black and white it just isn't. You saying that we know there would be a genocide is just stupid. You saying you BELIEVE there would be a genocide is reasonable. Do you understand the difference?

I understand how it can make you uncomfortable, but it must be said.
Gaddafi announced he would commit a genocide.
Gaddafi's historically brutal methods meant we should take that threat seriously.
Gaddafi's immediate actions following his statement make it almost impossible to ignore his threat.
Gaddafi's advance on Benghazi and his own deputy to the UN's warning make it irresponsible to deny his threat was real, credible and unfolding before our eyes.
Gaddafi intended to commit a genocide, and was within hours of seizing the control he needed to do it. Our actions stopped that genocide.
Sure terrible things may still happen, there's still a war going on against a maniacal dictator. The fact of the matter is, how could the world in good conscience stand back and watch a genocide unfold without at least attempting to stop it?


I don't know what else to say except that you don't know if your information is faulty or not. You get your information from where? That matters, you seem to not believe in doubt at all. Do you just believe what everyone tells you about their assessment of a situation immediately or do you want to save some doubt for other possibilities? In other words have you ever taken a science class...apply that same thinking here.