Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw
seemed more likely "apples and oranges" than "brilliant observation"  ...good thing those two independent thinking far leftists don't represent the majority  |
Exactly. "apples and oranges".
One video was supposed to have caused something. The other exposed something. The only resemblance was the fact that they were both videos. Whatever that proves.
As for: "Yet it was completely impossible not a snow balls chance in Hell .. that a Video could outrage people or have any influence what happen in Benghazi.. or any other place in the world"--that's typical leftist straw man argument. No one is saying that the video could not outrage people. But as for its "influence", the problem is trying to characterize the attack as a spontaneous reaction to the video. It was known from the very beginning that it was an organized terrorist attack. The violence and threats had been going on in Libya well before the video was introduced. British and other Western embassies were pulling out of Libya. Their countries had nothing to do with the video. For that matter, neither did the U.S. government. Jihadist fatwas are usually against specific offenders. Salmon Rushdie was, and is, a target for his transgression. Britain was not a target because of his sin.
Could the video have been used as a gimmick motivation by Jihadists. Sure. It could be another "grievance" to add to the pile of other little motivational "tools" Jihadists throw against the wall. Why that video, at that time. There were hundreds (at least) of other outrageous anti-Muslim videos available. Any of them could have been used if it was necessary to help motivate an attack. And the pile of motivational "tools" includes everything the West does and is. Even the very fact that non-Muslims are in their countries and imposing Western ideas.
To say that the video was the reason for the attack, a spontaneous one to boot, is more than highly suspect. It supposes that the attack would not have occurred if that video had not been made.
NONSENSE.
I suppose we are to assume that it is "impossible" to think that the video was used as a prop to deflect from what actually went wrong at Benghazi.
The Planned Parenthood video, on the other hand, did not cause, or was not the reason for, what it purportedly exposed. And the way wdmso worded it is the very kind of "going crazy" reaction that he objects to. "Funny the Conservatives got caught hook line and sinker and went berserk for week over the edited videos."
The "conservatives" got caught? And "went berserk or a week"? So all the conservatives got caught and went berserk. Really? And the videos were edited? How do we know that? Because Planned Parenthood said so?
One thing is similar in both videos. Both video makers were indicted for wrong doing. I suppose "Conservatives" are guilty, and "Liberals" didn't do anything wrong. It would be "completely impossible not a snow balls chance in Hell" as wdmso put it, to think otherwise.