Talk:2012 Benghazi attack

	This Conspiracy theories related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Hypocrisy?

I've read in some places that the reason the security was reduced there was because of cuts in the security budget forced in by... *drumroll* the Republican Party!. I'm not sure if it is true, but, perhaps, someone could check that? RationalSpanish (talk) 09:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

That's part of the case, if a bit hard to quantify. There hasn't been an accurate source (news article) that can put a proper figure on it that I have seen. Got one? Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 05:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I get that it's cool to hate Republicans and all...

Nonetheless, one might expect a bit more than 4 sentences on the Obama administration's handling of the situation. As much as it may pain the people who compulsively blame TEH EVUHL REPUBLICANS for all the world's problems, in this case everything initially stemmed from the president and his state department being completely unable to get their shit together. This is one where both sides came out looking awful and accordingly deserve an equal blasting, which is definitely not what the page looks like now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

And...what would you add? Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 23:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Mostly a bit about the wildly inconsistent initial reports that came from the government. I'm reading up on it now, and I put this here partially as a reminder to myself to come back when I've read what I need to and can work out the wording. I'm thinking maybe another paragraph or two. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Obama administration response

My revision was undone with the reason "Conspiracy website used as a source"

Judicial Watch is not known as a conspiracy website and the state department documents that prove their stated claims are there for all to see.--68.2.64.15 (talk) 17:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow that was hard. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 19:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

And how does that disprove the allegations that you are disputing? Did you even read the source I used? This is a smoking gun. Defense department documents: http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pgs.-394-398-396-from-JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version2.pdf --68.2.64.15 (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I have changed the source to something considered more reliable.

SpecialFrog: I noticed you have reverted my revision with the reason "Not what the source actually says" Can you please clarify what you mean by this? The source says that the Al-Qaeda-Benghazi link was known the day after the attack, and that it was planned 10 days in advance, according to a report by the Defense Intelligence Agency. The source doesn't explicitly say that the Obama administration was aware of it (which is not really necessary) but it implies this conclusion and that is spoken about in the quotes.--68.2.64.15 (talk) 23:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

How exactly does switching from a first hand claim from Judicial Watch to USA today citing Judicial Watch make for a better source? Also, the source doesn't either say or imply that the Obama administration knew, but that one agency made the conclusion and that a conservative claims this is a smoking gun. In other words, conjecture, allegations and claims (note the headline of USA Today: "New report claims al-Qaeda-Benghazi link known day after attack" (my underlining)). That's why it was reverted (again). ScepticWombat (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Storify

https://storify.com/cochran2c739294/benghazi-rationalwiki-truth FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 01:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Meh. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 02:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Good old unrational wiki

"Thousands of American soldiers died in Bush's pointless war in Iraq"

Ignoring that it was actually Bill Clinton who commanded to invide Iraq is fair and very rational :)

"but the real issue is that 4 soldiers died in Benghazi!"

So, just because thousands of people died during 9/11, 4 dead people on Benghazi don't matter at all? No wonder why the entire internet hates your far left-wing SJW wiki.^{— Unsigned, by: 107.178.33.21 / talk}

No they don't, most of the internet hasn't heard of us. We've only got 314 active users (compared to Wikipedia's 132,530 active registered users, couldn't find directly comparable statistics). Christopher (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 22:07, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

There is a big difference between active users of your wiki and readers / visitors. You are widely discussed outside your site, and the fact that you are mocking the four dead people on Benghazi only encourages me to agree with those people who criticize you. Your wiki will remain irrational and dishonest, no matter how much the guys, like LeftyGreenMario, try to deny it or create response articles to improve their sense of self-importance^{— Unsigned, by: 5.167.190.255 / talk}

I couldn't find page view statistics, here's a comparison of Google searches for RationalWiki, Wikipedia and Wiki. I'm going to remove one of the paragraphs you complained about (the "4 people dying doesn't matter" one) because it's bullshit. Christopher (talk) 10:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Using google statistics isn't a proof that nobody is discussing you. There' several videos where people are openly criticizing your wiki, like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaNhi800KT8 or this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpmmP_1gFJo. Ignoring this only confirms your irrationality more. "I'm going to remove one of the paragraphs you complained about (the "4 people dying doesn't matter" one) because it's bullshit." No. It isn't. If you really worried about the lives of these four people, you would not remind your readers about the events of September 9th, which have nothing to do what happened on Benghazi, to belittle the importance of the events on Benghazi^{— Unsigned, by: 5.167.190.255 / talk}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you.

I never said no one discusses us, I said the statement "No wonder why the entire internet hates your far left-wing SJW wiki" is patently absurd. I think you misunderstood what I meant by "I'm going to remove one of the paragraphs you complained about (the "4 people dying doesn't matter" one) because it's bullshit", I was agreeing with you that 9/11 is completely irrelevant which is why that paragraph isn't in the article anymore. Christopher (talk) 11:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion would've been more productive if you laid off the "bruh irrational denying far-left SJW" buzzwords. You should know that those phrases are completely meaningless. If you're here to complain about the content, do it more helpfully. If you just don't like the wiki and don't want it to improve or just assume we don't want to improve, then don't waste your time. I know I'm open to improvement but I want more civility and less labels and assumptions. Just assume good faith. I do think that sentence is a bit of deflection, but it can be better worded to criticize the baseless obsession with Benghazi. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 19:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)