Musician Forum - Band Discussion Board - BandMix

if it is true the whitehouse knew within a day this was not a reaction to a film, yet spent the subsequent week(s) claiming it was, and if this is not headline news blasted all over t.v. for the next month as it should be given it was another 9/11 terrorist attack, I think it should be clear the media is turning a blind eye for reasons other than ratings. And it would be quite the irony that the U.K. has better reporting on U.S. events than the U.S. does - haha.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... tacks.html

SirJamsalot wrote:if it is true the whitehouse knew within a day this was not a reaction to a film, yet spent the subsequent week(s) claiming it was, and if this is not headline news blasted all over t.v. for the next month as it should be given it was another 9/11 terrorist attack, I think it should be clear the media is turning a blind eye for reasons other than ratings. And it would be quite the irony that the U.K. has better reporting on U.S. events than the U.S. does - haha.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... tacks.html

Probably true. I was telling one of my colleagues (A Navy retiree) my own theory. We both agreed that In today's turmoil, psy-ops is the fare of the day...
My theory is that The attacks were planned well in advance. Knowing how insurgents use 'face' to justify acts of aggression, the film was made as a prop to smoke screen the Aljazeera press and other press agencies.

If you think about it, they knew that the ensuing violence, is not something the gen Population in the middle east condones (Not because they like us...They dont... , but Because they are well aware and even fearful of US backlash) . So, the gen Pop would not support and fund arbitrary acts of aggression...UNLESS they were made to believe they had been discgraced by the adversary. Enter : B-Movie Ackbar Productions...need I say more?

SirJamsalot wrote:if it is true the whitehouse knew within a day this was not a reaction to a film, yet spent the subsequent week(s) claiming it was, and if this is not headline news blasted all over t.v. for the next month as it should be given it was another 9/11 terrorist attack, I think it should be clear the media is turning a blind eye for reasons other than ratings. And it would be quite the irony that the U.K. has better reporting on U.S. events than the U.S. does - haha.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... tacks.html

Duh! can anyone say "Obama media"?

no dis-respect meant toward you SirJamsalot

My understanding is that the ambassadorial visit was "secret", and the mentioned video was released around that time. You'd have to believe the video release was planned as part of the attack then because you can't plan a 9/11 attack with the intention of using the possibility of an inflammatory video release as a scape goat. Seems to be a little more insidiousness going on behind the scenes "at face value". Guess we just wait for the shake out - doubtful the results of the shakeout will break news though if all the pieces are true.

-- no, I'm not saying the video was part of a co-plot - I'm saying it would have to be if the attack were waiting for something to give the masses reason to back the attack given what you stated. But again, I don't know.

PaperDog wrote:

SirJamsalot wrote:if it is true the whitehouse knew within a day this was not a reaction to a film, yet spent the subsequent week(s) claiming it was, and if this is not headline news blasted all over t.v. for the next month as it should be given it was another 9/11 terrorist attack, I think it should be clear the media is turning a blind eye for reasons other than ratings. And it would be quite the irony that the U.K. has better reporting on U.S. events than the U.S. does - haha.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... tacks.html

Probably true. I was telling one of my colleagues (A Navy retiree) my own theory. We both agreed that In today's turmoil, psy-ops is the fare of the day...
My theory is that The attacks were planned well in advance. Knowing how insurgents use 'face' to justify acts of aggression, the film was made as a prop to smoke screen the Aljazeera press and other press agencies.

If you think about it, they knew that the ensuing violence, is not something the gen Population in the middle east condones (Not because they like us...They dont... , but Because they are well aware and even fearful of US backlash) . So, the gen Pop would not support and fund arbitrary acts of aggression...UNLESS they were made to believe they had been discgraced by the adversary. Enter : B-Movie Ackbar Productions...need I say more?

J-HALEY wrote:

SirJamsalot wrote:if it is true the whitehouse knew within a day this was not a reaction to a film, yet spent the subsequent week(s) claiming it was, and if this is not headline news blasted all over t.v. for the next month as it should be given it was another 9/11 terrorist attack, I think it should be clear the media is turning a blind eye for reasons other than ratings. And it would be quite the irony that the U.K. has better reporting on U.S. events than the U.S. does - haha.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... tacks.html

Duh! can anyone say "Obama media"?

no dis-respect meant toward you SirJamsalot

none taken. I know there's bias in the mainstream, but people tend to not see the bias because the bias isn't in what IS reported, but rather what is NOT reported. Just trying to point that out with this prime example (if all the pieces are true). The media gets to choose what is important, and ignore what they feel isn't - but why do they feel it isn't? Preference for who the information could stain?

Yes Preference for whom the information could stain IMO! There are pic. of ambassador Stevens circulating around the internet! I have them but REFUSE to post them because they are morbid and disrespectful to his family! They are pics of him being drug around and paraded through the streets while he is BARELY alive. If you saw the pics. you would KNOW the TRUE HATRED AND DISDAIN these "peaceful muslims" have for us!

it's also notable that most of the people involved in the making of the film are suspiciously anonymous or absent.

Kramerguy wrote:it's also notable that most of the people involved in the making of the film are suspiciously anonymous or absent.

It's also notable they arrested the guy responsible to appease the muslims!

J-HALEY wrote:

Kramerguy wrote:it's also notable that most of the people involved in the making of the film are suspiciously anonymous or absent.

It's also notable they arrested the guy responsible to appease the muslims!

probably nothing mroe than a scapegoat, but think about it-

Yell FIRE! in a crowded theater, mass exodus, 4 people die in the stampede. You WILL be arrested and charged with murder and inciting a riot.

Yell GUN! in an airport and you will likely not see freedom for the rest of your life, regardless if people die or not.

The movie was obviously created with the sole purpose of inciting violence against americans in general. How can anyone not consider that a crime. If nothing else, it's criminal negligence in it's most basic form, according to the law.

Kramerguy wrote:

J-HALEY wrote:

Kramerguy wrote:it's also notable that most of the people involved in the making of the film are suspiciously anonymous or absent.

It's also notable they arrested the guy responsible to appease the muslims!

probably nothing mroe than a scapegoat, but think about it-

Yell FIRE! in a crowded theater, mass exodus, 4 people die in the stampede. You WILL be arrested and charged with murder and inciting a riot.

Yell GUN! in an airport and you will likely not see freedom for the rest of your life, regardless if people die or not.

The movie was obviously created with the sole purpose of inciting violence against americans in general. How can anyone not consider that a crime. If nothing else, it's criminal negligence in it's most basic form, according to the law.

With all that said, it still is NO EXCUSE for murder of innocent Americans! I have not seen the movie so I can't comment on what it's purpose is. Have you seen the movie Kramer?

It has been said that the riots may have been in response to some of "Fearless Leaders" comments made on one of his apology tours.

Regardless of the motive of the riots, the planned attack was discovered and reported several, as many as three days, before it happened. This was reported in a good many countries but not by the puppet liberal news media in America.

Fearless Leaders administration had more than enough warning yet they did nothing about it. I believe it was blamed on the movie for political gain in order that "fearless leader" would not look like the complete ineffective moronic boob that he truly is. At the time of the riots it was reported that nobody had even seen the movie.

It was a Muslim news cast that brought attention to the movie that had been on the net for some time and it had been completely ignored by all. It was "fearless leader" that promoted the movie excuse. Lies lies lies are the only area where "fearless leader" excels.

So if the liberal press reports that it was all due to a movie and that it had nothing to do with the anniversary of 9/11, as they did, you can rest assured that whatever they said is a cover up and as far from the truth as it can get, as is everything they report concerning such matters. Only the liberal carp swallow that media sludge.

But it has been given for them to do so for the truth is not in them.

He who accepts a prophet receives that propjhsts reward.