Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Insane whack-a-doo @ Santorum event: Obama tried to nuke Charleston (Original Post) HughBeaumont Mar 2015 OP
Charleston, SC? Cooley Hurd Mar 2015 #1
Snopes has this covered. Kablooie Mar 2015 #2
Ohhh, I'm well aware she's full of bat guano and other preservatives . . . HughBeaumont Mar 2015 #3
Explanation from Snopes - Generals in charge of the Nukes got in trouble underpants Mar 2015 #4
The video doesn't show his response. Chiyo-chichi Mar 2015 #5
Holy crap!!!!!! nt Jenny Red Eye Mar 2015 #6
Just think . . . . HughBeaumont Mar 2015 #7
Huh? Does he have something against shrimp and grits? KamaAina Mar 2015 #8
That is some crazy word salad there. liberal N proud Mar 2015 #9

Kablooie

(18,612 posts)
2. Snopes has this covered.
Thu Mar 19, 2015, 11:23 AM
Mar 2015

Origins: This October 2013 article about President Obama supposedly firing "four top ranking military officers" after they refused to detonate a nuclear device "in or near" Charleston, South Carolina, isn't a real news item. And neither is its follow-up which posited that Russia had successfully test-fired a ballistic missile in "direct response to President Barack Obama's attempt to destroy Charleston" as part of a "false flag attack."

Both items are just more fictional "Sorcha Faal" sensationalism originating with a single disreputable source, the http://whatdoesitmean.com political conspiracy site, of which RationalWiki says:
Sorcha Faal is the alleged author of an ongoing series of "reports" published at WhatDoesItMean.com, whose work is of such quality that even other conspiracy nutters don't think much of it.

Each report resembles a news story in its style but usually includes a sensational headline barely related to reality and quotes authoritative high-level Russian sources (such as the Russian Federal Security Service) to support its most outrageous claims. Except for the stuff attributed to unverifiable sources, the reports don't contain much original material. They are usually based on various news items from the mainstream media and/or whatever the clogosphere is currently hyperventilating about, with each item shoehorned into the conspiracy narrative the report is trying to establish.

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/charleston.asp#YsXOyvRMjPMYp32j.99

HughBeaumont

(24,461 posts)
3. Ohhh, I'm well aware she's full of bat guano and other preservatives . . .
Thu Mar 19, 2015, 11:26 AM
Mar 2015

. . . I just thought her delivery was funny. Almost comical. That pronounced hellfire-and-brimstone delivery is the stuff of Brother Love!

(thanks for the backstory, BTW).

underpants

(182,628 posts)
4. Explanation from Snopes - Generals in charge of the Nukes got in trouble
Thu Mar 19, 2015, 11:29 AM
Mar 2015
http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/charleston.asp


For several scandals including rampant cheating on tests. The RW whackos extrapolated it into Charleston SC almost getting nuked by Obama to ..... uh .... create a new war. Sorry my brain rejected the thought of trying to explain these dumbasses.
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Insane whack-a-doo @ Sant...