#Login Register


  • 4 Vote(s) - 3 Average
Home 


Top 5 Myths About the Benghazi Attack
01-04-2014, 10:03 AM #1
Not Sure Member
Posts:28 Threads:4 Joined:Dec 2012
İmage

Myth No. 1: The ‘Consulate’ Was a Diplomatic Mission

...As reported by the Wall Street Journal back in November of last year, “The U.S. effort in Benghazi was at its heart a CIA operation, according to officials briefed on the intelligence. Of the more than 30 American officials evacuated from Benghazi following the deadly assault, only seven worked for the State Department. Nearly all the rest worked for the CIA, under diplomatic cover, which was a principal purpose of the consulate, these officials said.”

...

Myth No. 2: The Attack Had Nothing to do With the anti-Islam Video

While it has since proven true that there was not a protest outside the facility precipitating the attack, the notion that the attack had absolutely nothing to do with the YouTube video (a clip showing an excerpt from the anti-Islam film “The Innocence of Muslims” that sparked protests and riots in dozens of countries, many of which outside U.S. diplomatic missions) is simply not supported by the facts. In reality, many witnesses who were interviewed shortly after the attack said that the militants from the Ansar al-Sharia brigade were chanting about the video during the assault on the facility.

As reported in the L.A. Times, “Witnesses said members of the group that raided the U.S. mission specifically mentioned the video, which denigrated the prophet Muhammad.”

The Associated Press reported, “There was no sign of a spontaneous protest against an American-made movie denigrating Islam’s Prophet Muhammad. But a lawyer passing by the scene said he saw the militants gathering around 20 youths from nearby to chant against the film. Within an hour or so, the assault began, guns blazing as the militants blasted into the compound.”

The New York Times reported the month after the attack: “To Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers, there is little doubt what occurred: a well-known group of local Islamist militants struck the United States Mission without any warning or protest, and they did it in retaliation for the video. That is what the fighters said at the time, speaking emotionally of their anger at the video without mentioning Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or the terrorist strikes of 11 years earlier.”

This doesn’t mean that the video served as the only reason for the attack. There is some evidence to suggest that perhaps the attack also served as retaliation for the death of Libyan militant and al-Qaeda associate Abu Yahya al-Libi who was killed in a U.S. drone strike three month earlier. But the claims that the attack had nothing whatsoever to do with the video do not comport with the evidence.

Myth No. 3: The Attack Was Pre-Planned and Not Spontaneous

A reporter from Foreign Policy arrived in Benghazi on Sept. 13, spoke with locals, surveyed the facility site and concluded that the “attack was haphazard, poorly planned, and badly executed,” and points out that most of the Americans were able to get away by simply using an armored jeep to escape through the front gate and take off down the road which was not blocked—not exactly the hallmarks of a carefully planned assault.

Bloomberg reported that “accounts from U.S. intelligence officials and Benghazi residents, along with evidence in the burned-out American diplomatic compound, point to a hasty and poorly organized act by men with basic military training and access to weapons widely available in Libya.”

And the Washington Post quoted an intelligence source, saying, “There isn’t any intelligence that the attackers pre-planned their assault days or weeks in advance,” adding, “The bulk of available information supports the early assessment that the attackers launched their assault opportunistically after they learned about the violence at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.”.

...

Myth No. 4: Changing the Talking Points Amounts to a ‘Coverup’

The administration recently released a trove of more than 100 pages of emails showing internal discussion of the talking points concerning the attack going through a dozen different revisions by the State Department and CIA. These are not the emails that were doctored by Republicans and leaked to ABC News, but the actual emails.

...

Myth No. 5: There Were Military Response Teams That Could Have Reached Benghazi in Time to Save Those Who Were Killed

Some have claimed that a response team was at the-the-ready to respond to the Benghazi attack while Americans were being killed but were told to stand down, implying that perhaps the stand-down order was politically motivated—though to what end is unclear.

Gregory Hicks testified that a four-person team was ready to fly to Benghazi but was unable to get the proper clearance for the mission. However, even Hicks acknowledges that the team would not have reached the attack site in time, and Stevens and the other three Americans were already dead at that point.

In fact, according to the ARB report, the U.S. embassy in Tripoli immediately began to mobilize a response once they received word of the attack and did send a seven-person team to Benghazi. Unfortunately the team arrived just as the second attack began at the nearby CIA annex, as mortar rounds struck the roof and killed Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.

The four-person team to which Hicks was referring was a second team that would have arrived hours after the first, at a time when the four Americans had already been killed. Hicks believes the second team could have helped with the wounded and prevent any further attacks, which is perhaps true.

...


Bonus Myth: The Attack Was Carried Out by al-Qaeda


The reporting on this issue is varied, but most agree that the attack was carried out primarily by members of the Ansar al-Sharia militant group, which is a Libyan organization made up of former anti-Gaddafi rebels with limited, tangential connections to al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM). Part of the confusion here perhaps stems from the fact that there are two organizations that go by the name “Ansar al-Sharia”, and the other one operates out of Yemen and has direct connections to AQAP.


CNN reported that at least 3 attackers of the 150 men who stormed the facility were AQAP members, though how exactly they were involved has not been determined. The article reads, “Another source briefed on the Benghazi investigation said Western intelligence services suspect the men may have been sent by the group specifically to carry out the attack. But it’s not been ruled out that they were already in the city and participated as the opportunity arose.”

...


Source: http://www.heavy.com/news/2013/05/myths-...factcheck/

50% rule compliant
01-04-2014, 10:25 AM #2
KILLUMINATI Made Ya Look!!
Posts:4,764 Threads:1,046 Joined:Jun 2012
Why do you believe everything the .gov says I mean what reason do you have that makes you think that they tell the truth?

Do you believe the official stories from Waco, Ruby Ridge, Oklahoma City, 911, Gulf of Tolkin, Pearl Harbor, TWA flight 800 etc... or is it just this administration that you believe is now telling us the whole truth????
01-04-2014, 01:39 PM #3
Not Sure Member
Posts:28 Threads:4 Joined:Dec 2012
(01-04-2014, 10:25 AM)KILLUMINATI Wrote:  Why do you believe everything the .gov says I mean what reason do you have that makes you think that they tell the truth?

Do you believe the official stories from Waco, Ruby Ridge, Oklahoma City, 911, Gulf of Tolkin, Pearl Harbor, TWA flight 800 etc... or is it just this administration that you believe is now telling us the whole truth????

Sure is a lot of source links that don't all lead back to the white house.

The examples you list all have corroborating evidence that their was conspiracy.. where is that evidence regarding Benghazi? that isn't just made up twisted crap that hasn't already been debunked by this very fact check thread? ...or inconsequential details blown out of proportion by GOP bullshit artists?
01-04-2014, 02:21 PM #4
Not Sure Member
Posts:28 Threads:4 Joined:Dec 2012
The only conspiracy I see being covered up is in regards to the purpose of this "consulate" that was staffed almost entirely by CIA ...and regardless of whether that reason is good or bad it is a matter of national security and classified which is why the WH has not necessarily come forward with details relating to this.

The reality is that the facility was a U.S. intelligence outpost operating under State Department cover and that most of the 30-plus people working there were employed by the CIA.

As reported by the Wall Street Journal back in November of last year, “The U.S. effort in Benghazi was at its heart a CIA operation, according to officials briefed on the intelligence. Of the more than 30 American officials evacuated from Benghazi following the deadly assault, only seven worked for the State Department. Nearly all the rest worked for the CIA, under diplomatic cover, which was a principal purpose of the consulate, these officials said.”


From the very beginning of this thing I, like any others with commons sense regarding the reality of how shït like this goes down, knew that any delay in response was do to such response being too little too late and would only put more lives in danger... especially considering that it was assumed the attack was over (cause the first one was) not long after it begun and secure evacuation routes were in place and successfully used.

What if soldiers were sent in unprepared in time to rescue the two who did not evacuate and more lives were lost?(it was already too late for the Ambassador and the other diplomat, no response could have been fast enough to save them) There would be even a larger cry and an actual justified reason to accuse the administration of mismanagement... and they did receive backup for the first attack from the nearby CIA annex building. It was the retaliatory attack against that building many hours later that was unexpected and all but two were evacuated as they gave their lives to cover their escape. They did their duty and did it admirably. It could have been much worse... there were 125-150 attackers many of them militants that were heavily armed.
01-04-2014, 06:49 PM #5
KILLUMINATI Made Ya Look!!
Posts:4,764 Threads:1,046 Joined:Jun 2012
(01-04-2014, 01:39 PM)Not Sure Wrote:  
(01-04-2014, 10:25 AM)KILLUMINATI Wrote:  Why do you believe everything the .gov says I mean what reason do you have that makes you think that they tell the truth?

Do you believe the official stories from Waco, Ruby Ridge, Oklahoma City, 911, Gulf of Tolkin, Pearl Harbor, TWA flight 800 etc... or is it just this administration that you believe is now telling us the whole truth????

Sure is a lot of source links that don't all lead back to the white house.

The examples you list all have corroborating evidence that their was conspiracy.. where is that evidence regarding Benghazi? that isn't just made up twisted crap that hasn't already been debunked by this very fact check thread? ...or inconsequential details blown out of proportion by GOP bullshit artists?

I can make a list of sources that are not the Whitehouse about 9/11 corroborating the official story so to say its independent when the media is controlled is very naive. I think you truly believe that this administration is not lying but I dont know why when tey have done nothing but lie.

The only info about Benghazi is coming from the Whitehouse or .gov controlled intelligence agencies so can sit there and you can spin it but thats the only source unless you've been to Benghazi asking questions you're taking their word for it.
01-05-2014, 12:22 AM #6
Not Sure Member
Posts:28 Threads:4 Joined:Dec 2012
(01-04-2014, 06:49 PM)KILLUMINATI Wrote:  
(01-04-2014, 01:39 PM)Not Sure Wrote:  
(01-04-2014, 10:25 AM)KILLUMINATI Wrote:  Why do you believe everything the .gov says I mean what reason do you have that makes you think that they tell the truth?

Do you believe the official stories from Waco, Ruby Ridge, Oklahoma City, 911, Gulf of Tolkin, Pearl Harbor, TWA flight 800 etc... or is it just this administration that you believe is now telling us the whole truth????

Sure is a lot of source links that don't all lead back to the white house.

The examples you list all have corroborating evidence that their was conspiracy.. where is that evidence regarding Benghazi? that isn't just made up twisted crap that hasn't already been debunked by this very fact check thread? ...or inconsequential details blown out of proportion by GOP bullshit artists?

I can make a list of sources that are not the Whitehouse about 9/11 corroborating the official story so to say its independent when the media is controlled is very naive. I think you truly believe that this administration is not lying but I dont know why when tey have done nothing but lie.

The only info about Benghazi is coming from the Whitehouse or .gov controlled intelligence agencies so can sit there and you can spin it but thats the only source unless you've been to Benghazi asking questions you're taking their word for it.

Obviously you have not bothered to read any of the information in the fact check article... and to use 911 and a WH controlled by that idiot Bush who was party to it is a horrible example.

Where is this lie? What is this lie? ...there has to be something tangible to back your claim that the whitehouse was lying ...and you have to also consider that they don't always get it right. Initial reports don't always tell the full story and then press releases can be inaccurate. Like the whole thing about a pprotest before the attack... which was a position changed when more information came in ...the militants used the anti-islam video to rally more to attack. This was witnessed independently of reporting agencies.

As reported in the L.A. Times, “Witnesses said members of the group that raided the U.S. mission specifically mentioned the video, which denigrated the prophet Muhammad.”
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/19/...k-20121020

The Associated Press reported, “There was no sign of a spontaneous protest against an American-made movie denigrating Islam’s Prophet Muhammad. But a lawyer passing by the scene said he saw the militants gathering around 20 youths from nearby to chant against the film. Within an hour or so, the assault began, guns blazing as the militants blasted into the compound.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-5754...zi-attack/

The New York Times reported the month after the attack: “To Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers, there is little doubt what occurred: a well-known group of local Islamist militants struck the United States Mission without any warning or protest, and they did it in retaliation for the video. That is what the fighters said at the time, speaking emotionally of their anger at the video without mentioning Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or the terrorist strikes of 11 years earlier.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/world/...ation.html


Lies typically can be seen for what they are as they will always contain holes just as we see with 911 ...the only lies with holes regarding Benghazi is the ones the GOP has been telling ...with the exception of the few protecting classified information regarding the purpose of this CIA run "diplomatic mission" This of course is a matter of national security ...like I said before. Whether good or bad the public is not privy to everything. If there is tangible information regarding this aspect of the conspiracy ...and this "mission" is not in the best interest of the United States and her citizenry ...then we have a problem.

The administration recently released a trove of more than 100 pages of emails showing internal discussion of the talking points concerning the attack going through a dozen different revisions by the State Department and CIA. These are not the emails that were doctored by Republicans and leaked to ABC News, but the actual emails.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57...-reported/

The truth rings from many angles while lies prove themselves dull and shallow.
01-05-2014, 02:24 AM #7
Below Average Genius Member
Posts:1,886 Threads:148 Joined:Apr 2013
(01-04-2014, 10:03 AM)Not Sure Wrote:  İmage

Myth No. 1: The ‘Consulate’ Was a Diplomatic Mission

...As reported by the Wall Street Journal back in November of last year, “The U.S. effort in Benghazi was at its heart a CIA operation, according to officials briefed on the intelligence. Of the more than 30 American officials evacuated from Benghazi following the deadly assault, only seven worked for the State Department. Nearly all the rest worked for the CIA, under diplomatic cover, which was a principal purpose of the consulate, these officials said.”

...

Myth No. 2: The Attack Had Nothing to do With the anti-Islam Video

While it has since proven true that there was not a protest outside the facility precipitating the attack, the notion that the attack had absolutely nothing to do with the YouTube video (a clip showing an excerpt from the anti-Islam film “The Innocence of Muslims” that sparked protests and riots in dozens of countries, many of which outside U.S. diplomatic missions) is simply not supported by the facts. In reality, many witnesses who were interviewed shortly after the attack said that the militants from the Ansar al-Sharia brigade were chanting about the video during the assault on the facility.

As reported in the L.A. Times, “Witnesses said members of the group that raided the U.S. mission specifically mentioned the video, which denigrated the prophet Muhammad.”

The Associated Press reported, “There was no sign of a spontaneous protest against an American-made movie denigrating Islam’s Prophet Muhammad. But a lawyer passing by the scene said he saw the militants gathering around 20 youths from nearby to chant against the film. Within an hour or so, the assault began, guns blazing as the militants blasted into the compound.”

The New York Times reported the month after the attack: “To Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers, there is little doubt what occurred: a well-known group of local Islamist militants struck the United States Mission without any warning or protest, and they did it in retaliation for the video. That is what the fighters said at the time, speaking emotionally of their anger at the video without mentioning Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or the terrorist strikes of 11 years earlier.”

This doesn’t mean that the video served as the only reason for the attack. There is some evidence to suggest that perhaps the attack also served as retaliation for the death of Libyan militant and al-Qaeda associate Abu Yahya al-Libi who was killed in a U.S. drone strike three month earlier. But the claims that the attack had nothing whatsoever to do with the video do not comport with the evidence.

Myth No. 3: The Attack Was Pre-Planned and Not Spontaneous

A reporter from Foreign Policy arrived in Benghazi on Sept. 13, spoke with locals, surveyed the facility site and concluded that the “attack was haphazard, poorly planned, and badly executed,” and points out that most of the Americans were able to get away by simply using an armored jeep to escape through the front gate and take off down the road which was not blocked—not exactly the hallmarks of a carefully planned assault.

Bloomberg reported that “accounts from U.S. intelligence officials and Benghazi residents, along with evidence in the burned-out American diplomatic compound, point to a hasty and poorly organized act by men with basic military training and access to weapons widely available in Libya.”

And the Washington Post quoted an intelligence source, saying, “There isn’t any intelligence that the attackers pre-planned their assault days or weeks in advance,” adding, “The bulk of available information supports the early assessment that the attackers launched their assault opportunistically after they learned about the violence at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.”.

...

Myth No. 4: Changing the Talking Points Amounts to a ‘Coverup’

The administration recently released a trove of more than 100 pages of emails showing internal discussion of the talking points concerning the attack going through a dozen different revisions by the State Department and CIA. These are not the emails that were doctored by Republicans and leaked to ABC News, but the actual emails.

...

Myth No. 5: There Were Military Response Teams That Could Have Reached Benghazi in Time to Save Those Who Were Killed

Some have claimed that a response team was at the-the-ready to respond to the Benghazi attack while Americans were being killed but were told to stand down, implying that perhaps the stand-down order was politically motivated—though to what end is unclear.

Gregory Hicks testified that a four-person team was ready to fly to Benghazi but was unable to get the proper clearance for the mission. However, even Hicks acknowledges that the team would not have reached the attack site in time, and Stevens and the other three Americans were already dead at that point.

In fact, according to the ARB report, the U.S. embassy in Tripoli immediately began to mobilize a response once they received word of the attack and did send a seven-person team to Benghazi. Unfortunately the team arrived just as the second attack began at the nearby CIA annex, as mortar rounds struck the roof and killed Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.

The four-person team to which Hicks was referring was a second team that would have arrived hours after the first, at a time when the four Americans had already been killed. Hicks believes the second team could have helped with the wounded and prevent any further attacks, which is perhaps true.

...


Bonus Myth: The Attack Was Carried Out by al-Qaeda


The reporting on this issue is varied, but most agree that the attack was carried out primarily by members of the Ansar al-Sharia militant group, which is a Libyan organization made up of former anti-Gaddafi rebels with limited, tangential connections to al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM). Part of the confusion here perhaps stems from the fact that there are two organizations that go by the name “Ansar al-Sharia”, and the other one operates out of Yemen and has direct connections to AQAP.


CNN reported that at least 3 attackers of the 150 men who stormed the facility were AQAP members, though how exactly they were involved has not been determined. The article reads, “Another source briefed on the Benghazi investigation said Western intelligence services suspect the men may have been sent by the group specifically to carry out the attack. But it’s not been ruled out that they were already in the city and participated as the opportunity arose.”

...


Source: http://www.heavy.com/news/2013/05/myths-...factcheck/

50% rule compliant

[ahem] Relying on 'news sources' like the LA Times and CNN is like relying on the WH itself. 95% of the media are mouth pieces for the WH. You can hear it in their news coverage daily. The identical "talking points" will be covered by a dozen different 'news' outlets, from the networks on down to local TV stations.

Then there is the spin. It is irrelevant that two of the four were dead before our military could have gotten there. We and they did not know how long the attack would go on.

We most certainly had assets that could get there perhaps in time to save the remaining two who were murdered.

The ONLY person who can order military assets to cross borders is the commander-in-chief. When Obama left it to the secretary of defense and the secretary of state to make decisions, there was no choice but to stand down.

IOW, this rests squarely on Obama who made the decision by not giving the order.

Then they lied for two weeks about it, just like Obama lied about keeping your insurance and your doctor for about 4 years. He lied 36 times about that one. So nothing that comes out of his mouth is believable.

Of course, even the dimmest of dim wit bulbs in Libya picked up on the WH lie and blamed the attack on the video. Thus such interviews are less than worthless in determining the reasons for the attack.

You might have fooled yourself into believing the baloney you put forward, but you didn't fool us.

Pray for me. hug.gif
01-05-2014, 02:56 PM #8
j browsing Member
Posts:5,158 Threads:1,098 Joined:Jul 2012
The U.S. government is trying to apprehend an al Qaeda terrorist wanted for his role in the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack that killed four Americans.

The suspect, Muhammad Jamal, was imprisoned in Egypt last fall and in September was being held by the Egyptian government. His current whereabouts could not be confirmed, said U.S. officials who spoke on condition of anonymity. One official said Jamal remains in Egyptian custody, contrary to reports that he was in Yemen.

Jamal was labeled a designated terrorist by the United Nations Oct. 18, identifying him and the group he formed, the Muhammad Jamal Network, as linked to the Sept. 11, 2012, Benghazi attack.

Four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, were killed during an assault on a diplomatic compound and a nearby CIA facility in the Libyan port city.

The identification of Jamal as an al Qaeda member linked to the Benghazi attack contradicts a recent New York Times investigative report that concluded there was no evidence al Qaeda or foreign terrorists were behind the Benghazi attack that is currently the subject of several congressional inquiries.

A CIA spokesman declined to comment when asked if al Qaeda is linked to the Benghazi attack.

A FBI spokesman declined to comment. An Egyptian Embassy spokesman declined to comment on whether Jamal remained in Egyptian government custody and referred to a State Department press release of Oct. 7 that said that Jamal had been arrested by Egyptian authorities in November 2012.http://freebeacon.com/u-s-seeking-al-qae...zi-attack/

"when life gives you lemons..throw them at someone"...Grumpy Cat good.png
01-05-2014, 03:03 PM #9
j browsing Member
Posts:5,158 Threads:1,098 Joined:Jul 2012
PALM BEACH GARDENS, Fla., December 30, 2013 — The story of what happened that night when Americans were abandoned in Benghazi to die will not go away. Despite the appearance of Susan Rice on 60 Minutes two weeks ago, and a New York Times article yesterday reviving the fable that a video was to blame, disturbing questions remain.

Why was U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens in Benghazi on 9-11? It should be standard practice that high value targets do not move around in hostile terrorist territory, which Benghazi was on that day.


When the message came that the consulate was under attack, why were all immediate resources not allocated? As a former career Soldier who sat on the House Armed Services Committee, I am well aware of security protocols. Why weren’t they followed?


Where was President Obama the evening of the attack? We were treated to all the White House situation room pictures of the raid on Osama bin Laden — but where are the photos from that night?


According to the president, he ordered Secretary of Defense Panetta and CJCS General Dempsey to get the Americans in Benghazi the support they needed. If true, then who disobeyed the president’s order, and why did Obama never follow up with Panetta and Dempsey?


Who came up with the video scapegoat excuse, and why was the U.N. ambassador called out for the Sunday shows and not the person responsible, the secretary of state?


Ambassador Stevens had met with a Turkish representative in Benghazi, but why were his requests for additional security denied, and by whom?



Read more: http://communities.washingtontimes.com/n...z2pWb4W8H6
Follow us: @wtcommunities on Twitter

"when life gives you lemons..throw them at someone"...Grumpy Cat good.png
01-05-2014, 03:17 PM #10
j browsing Member
Posts:5,158 Threads:1,098 Joined:Jul 2012
In its clumsy attempt to absolve President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from responsibility for the deadly attack in Benghazi, Libya, the New York Times has reignited intense scrutiny and debate over the fiasco and the administration’s lies and cover-ups in its aftermath.

On December 28, the Times opened a new chapter in the ongoing furor over “Benghazigate” with an extensive, 7,000-word article by David D. Kirkpatrick entitled, “A Deadly Mix in Benghazi.” According to Kirkpatrick, his article is the result of “months of investigation by The New York Times,” which “turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.” Moreover, he says, the September 11, 2012 attack, which resulted in the murder of four Americans — Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Tyrone Woods — “was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.”

It is not surprising that the Times, which has staunchly supported both President Obama and Hillary Clinton, would come to their aid once more, producing a piece that echoes and affirms the administration’s Benghazi talking points, even though the facts have discredited those talking points.







A number of critics have already pointed out that Kirkpatrick’s latest article is contradicted by earlier Times reports which acknowledge the al-Qaeda ties of some of the Libyan jihadist militias (that the Obama administration, incidentally, was supporting). See, for instance, Aaron Klein at World Net Daily here and here, and Thomas Joscelyn at The Weekly Standard here.

It is also contradicted by a detailed report prepared by the Library of Congress entitled, Al-Qaeda in Libya: A Profile, issued in August, 2012, the month before the fatal Benghazi attack.http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/for...on-coverup

"when life gives you lemons..throw them at someone"...Grumpy Cat good.png



Home 




 



DISCLAIMER / Terms of Service (TOS):
Kritterbox.com - Socialize anonymously, commentary, discussion, oddities, technology, music and more!  This website is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. kritterbox.com shall not be liable for any damages whatsoever, including, without limitation, those resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether or not advised of the possibility of damage, and on any theory of liability, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of this site or other documents which are referenced by or linked to this site.
This website exists solely for the purposes of exchange of information, communication and general entertainment. Opinions from posters are in no way endorsed by kritterbox.com. All posts on this website are the opinion of the authors and are not to be taken as statements of fact on behalf of kritterbox.com. This site may contain coarse language or other material that kritterbox.com is in no way responsible for. Material deemed to be offensive or pornographic at the discretion of kritterbox.com shall be removed. kritterbox.com reserves the right to modify, or remove posts and user accounts on this website at our discretion. kritterbox.com disclaims all liability for damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of any material on this website. Fictitious posts and any similarity to any person living or dead is coincidental.
All users shall limit the insertion of any and all copyrighted material to portions of the article that are relevant to the point being made, with no more than 50%, and preferably less of the original source material. A link shall be visible in text format, embedded directly to the original source material without exception.
No third party links, i.e. blogs or forums will be accepted under any circumstances, and will be edited by staff in order to reflect the original source of copyrighted material, or be removed at the sole discretion of kritterbox.com.
Fair Use Notice:
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Users may make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science, and technology. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for educational and/or research purposes.
This Disclaimer is subject to change at any time at our discretion.
Copyright © 2011 - 2017 kritterbox.com