Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Tweet Battle: Raimondo versus Campaign for Liberty

Justin Raimondo takes on Campaign for Liberty as the  Romney-izing of C4Liberty continues.

19 comments:

  1. Fit for a Shakespearean play: Much Ado...

    ReplyDelete
  2. There is no evidence the video was involved. Why should America believe the video had anything to do with Benghazi?

    ReplyDelete
  3. There is no evidence a video was involved. What makes anyone think one was? Letters don't mention any demonstration or video. Therefore, video is irrelevant until proven otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. the video was mentioned by Obama's press secretary Jay Carney in his statements after the attack on 9/11/12. that's why it seems even more like a cover up. "It was this video that sparked the attack, we knew nothing about it, nobody asked for ramped up security on 9/11, it has nothing to do w/ foreign policy, etc"

      Delete
  4. I am actually kinda split on whether or not the video led to the consulate attack or whether it was premeditated. Nevertheless, I still believe that regardless of the motive, this attack was another case of blowback that has come to harm the United States due to the unintended consequences of bombing Libya and intervening in their internal affairs. The solution to this is to draw all interference and intervention from that country while simply trading with them. Noninterventionism and neutrality will bring peace and prosperity, if that is what we seek.

    ReplyDelete
  5. actually, it would seem that if the attack were a response to the video as opposed to american foreign policy, that would support neocon theory that muslims hate americans because of some religious dispute rather than american foreign policy. Robert Pape has suggested that most terrorist attacks are motivated by geopolitical factors, however his research is focused on suicide terrorism. While this is a general theory, each instance has its own particular circumstances. I don't know enough about the attacks at the US embassy in Libya, however, it is more likely that they were politically motivated rather than religiously motivated. I'd be curious to hear people's thoughts on this.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The left is beginning to loose their minds over this. Obama lied, people died.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, but that is ridiculous. Your basic premise that they had minds to lose in the first place is flawed.

      Delete
  7. While I find C4L to be poorly managed and bit more on the conservative side than I'd like, Raimondo has jumped the shark on this one.

    Which is a more likely scenario: a violent mob attacking the US Embassy in Benghazi over a 10 minute YouTube video that no one knew about until 9/10, or a coordinated attack on the Benghazi embassy on the anniversary of the largest terrorist attack perpetrated against the US after months of US & UN bombing of Libya that killed hundreds of civilians while helping the "rebels" oust Qaddafi.

    In all honesty, Raimondo equating the Benghazi attack with the video isn't much different than the standard neo-con line that "they hate us for our freedoms." Both have to ignore US foreign policy, not to mention portray Muslims as nothing but barbarians, just to be considered plausible.

    It's ludicrous.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or the whole thing could have been a false flag attack. I always assume that's what it's probably was since it's happened enough times. I know it pisses some people off that I and others like me think this way but I don't care. The government is like the boy who cried wolf when it comes to terrorism, there's no reason to believe anything they say other than wanting it to be true.

      Delete
  8. If C4L was doing its job it would be commenting on the travesty of our policy of overseas intervention in general and how this is yet another example of the blowback it creates...regardless of the "tip off" event.(video or 9/11 anniversary)

    Instead, as Raimondo notes, it's focused on White House attacks(that naturally help Romney) instead of the actual larger problem that is independent of party.

    Yet another reinforcement that I did the right thing when I stopped giving to C4L.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Seriously disappointing to me that Campaign For Liberty has apparently been corrupted. It kind of reminds me of the newsletter thing. It seems like running organizations and campaigns is not Ron Paul's strong suit, where as speaking truth to power directly and inspiring people is. I'm more interested in what the Mises Institute is doing than any other organization as of now.

      Delete
  9. Doesn't it seem silly to anyone else that a country with barely any internet access would get riled up over a YouTube video?

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-never-anti-american-protest-benghazi-only-planned-attack_652761.html <-- Witnesses said there was no protest in Benghazi, just a planned attack.

    What do you think is more likely: Al-Qaeda launching an attack over a YouTube video or Al-Qaeda launching an attack in response to US foreign policy?

    Raimondo is smoking something...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's because it wasn't due to a fucking video. Raimondo is so twisted when it comes to this stuff it isn't funny. Why can't both parties just agree that it was due to our horrible, horrible foreign policy.

      Delete
    2. Actually, if you've read Raimondo on this issue, he's saying that it was our foreign policy channels that made and distributed the video, knowing it would provoke a reaction.

      Delete
    3. Look at who was behind that video, it was the fucking Zionists as usual. They know how to get the Arabs all riled up over things. It's their specialty.

      Delete
  10. I checked out the video after the Egyptian embassy blamed it for the protest that occurred there. I checked out the stats on the page. There was barely any traffic for the video until just a few hours before I logged on. You can still see this to be the case if you go there now. Before 9/11, nothing in terms of traffic. I was within the first few thousand viewers. Video to blame my left nub.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You must be referring to the original, not the Arabic translation. The English version was up for months without much attention but an Arabic version appeared 9/8/12 and that's when it went viral.

      Delete
  11. The problem here is the Raimondo thinks people have more than a very basic understanding of the situation in Libya (or al-Qaeda for that matter).

    First, if you think of al-Qaeda as some structured organization -- and I don't mean this as an insult -- you should be reading instead of commenting (unless you're asking questions). Al-Qaeda is a banner for those that share similar goals or support a similar cause to operate under. If you understand how anonymous is structured (it's not -- although groups that operate under the anonymous banner -- like lulzsec did -- do have structure) then you have a good understanding of how al-Qaeda is structured.

    That's why when these various militant groups fight against US interests as in Iraq, Afghanistan part 2, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, etc., the western political class and media refers to them using the al-Qaeda banner. When these groups fight on the same side as the US as in Libya, Syria, Bosnia, Afghanistan part 1, etc., the western political class and media avoid the al-Qaeda label. All of these groups have different causes, goals and motivations. Some are nationalist, some are tribalist, some are Islamist, and even that is being overly general. Hopefully you get the picture but, if not, this is an easy topic to research.

    You should also know that there had been many attacks by local militant groups on US interests -- including this same compound -- leading up to the attack on 9/11/2012. When Justin says the motivation was the video, he's not saying the video caused a bunch of people to start hating the US and attack Americans. He's saying that a group or groups that has fought both for and against the US government and has been attacking US interests in Libya since Gaddafi's murder, was motivated by this video. The video isn't why they are against the US or why they attack US interests. The video didn't create a protest that turned into this attack. The video was the motivation for this specific attack.

    If you understand all of these issues, what Justin is saying is uncontroversial (and correct). But, if all you have to go on is the tweets and the corporate media, I can see how what you think Justin is saying seems silly.

    ReplyDelete