Reuters: White House TOLD OF militant claim two hours after LIBYA ATTACK, emails show

Superfreak said:
Please quote the portion of the article that states they claimed the attack was due to the video, because I am not seeing it upon first read. Thanks.
Click to expand...

That was not the point of that article. The article was to establish that this group acts violently to defend their radical brand of Islam.

Ansar al Sharia claimed it was in response to the video when they claimed responsibility for the attack. When they later retracted they still showed sympathy and support for defending the honor of the prophet.

Is this gonna be one of those cases where you cherry pick and ignore the pieces of info that don't fit your preconceived narrative? Of course, the answer is always yes.
 
TheRocketSurgeon said:
That was not the point of that article. The article was to establish that this group acts violently to defend their radical brand of Islam.

Ansar al Sharia claimed it was in response to the video when they claimed responsibility for the attack. When they later retracted they still showed sympathy and support for defending the honor of the prophet.

Is this gonna be one of those cases where you cherry pick and ignore the pieces of info that don't fit your preconceived narrative? Of course, the answer is always yes.
Click to expand...


Good points. I forgot that the same group (1) in claiming responsibility referenced the video and (2) later disclaimed responsibility altogether.
 
TheRocketSurgeon said:
That was not the point of that article. The article was to establish that this group acts violently to defend their radical brand of Islam.

Ansar al Sharia claimed it was in response to the video when they claimed responsibility for the attack. When they later retracted they still showed sympathy and support for defending the honor of the prophet.

Is this gonna be one of those cases where you cherry pick and ignore the pieces of info that don't fit your preconceived narrative? Of course, the answer is always yes.
Click to expand...

No, this is one of those cases where when you make a claim, I ask you to back it up. You stated they claimed it was in response to the video and then you posted a link. I read the link and nowhere in it did they state it was in response to a video. Which is why I asked you to point it out to me if I was missing it. If your claim is not backed up by that link, then perhaps you would be kind enough to link us up to where they claimed the attack was based on the video. Thanks.
 
Dungheap said:
It says protests. The initial reports were that the Benghazi attack grew out of protests that were inspired by protests in Cairo, which were about the video.
Click to expand...

From what I am reading (and I am not even going to pretend to have all the relevant information like some of the idiot right wingers on here will do) it seems this group intended to attack the embassy, planned it quickly and were moved to act due to what had happened in Cairo. That is, it was not really a protest that got out of hand, but neither was it some long planned operation lead by Al Quaida. The latter does not fit with the facts and it is not necessary.

It would be nice if this could be discussed intelligently, but I am guessing it's gonna all be partisan poo flinging.

Obviously, the embassies are vulnerable and it does not take much to overrun them. Also, there is no amount of security that will make them impenetrable without destroying their purpose.
 
I dont understand the point of this story. I understood it to be a terrorist attack all along. If it was a reaction to a movie, it was still a terrorist attack. If it was not a reaction to a movie it was still a terrorist attack. Clearly the President referred to it as a terrorist attack the day after.

Its not necessarly one or the other.

Now why not take time to investigate and figure out what happened before attacking right and left?
 
Superfreak said:
No, this is one of those cases where when you make a claim, I ask you to back it up. You stated they claimed it was in response to the video and then you posted a link. I read the link and nowhere in it did they state it was in response to a video. Which is why I asked you to point it out to me if I was missing it. If your claim is not backed up by that link, then perhaps you would be kind enough to link us up to where they claimed the attack was based on the video. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Again, that was not the point of the link. Again, the link was intended to show that this group has a history of violently acting to defend the honor of their prophet.

I will see what I can find on their claim of responsibility but it has been reported before and that is what the CIA referenced as detailed in post 8.

Don't pretend to read my mind.
 
Last edited:
Jarod said:
I dont understand the point of this story. I understood it to be a terrorist attack all along. If it was a reaction to a movie, it was still a terrorist attack. If it was not a reaction to a movie it was still a terrorist attack. Clearly the President referred to it as a terrorist attack the day after.

Its not necessarly one or the other.

Now why not take time to investigate and figure out what happened before attacking right and left?
Click to expand...

It seems to me that they want to make a political issue out of this so they can help the terrorists to have a bigger impact.
 
TheRocketSurgeon said:
Ansar al Sharia claimed it was in response to the movie but more likely and directly they took action after seeing what was happening in Cairo, which was pretty obviously due to the movie. This group operates within Lybia and has acted violently in support of their radical application of Islam before.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/09/12/the_battle_of_the_shrines
Click to expand...

that poses an interesting question....apparently we all agree that Ansar al Sharia claimed it was responsible for the attack.....are you saying you have information that they gave the movie as their reason?........do you have a link to a copy of it?......
 
TheRocketSurgeon said:
From what I am reading (and I am not even going to pretend to have all the relevant information like some of the idiot right wingers on here will do)
Click to expand...

LMAO... you claim you want to discuss this intelligently, AFTER you insult the 'idiot right wingers'??? You do realize that there are many on the left who continue to pretend they know what happened as well?

it seems this group intended to attack the embassy, planned it quickly and were moved to act due to what had happened in Cairo.
Click to expand...

What are you basing this on?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/12/world/africa/libya-attack-jihadists/index.html

"According to our sources, the attack against the consulate had two waves. The first attack led to U.S. officials being evacuated from the consulate by Libyan security forces, only for the second wave to be launched against U.S. officials after they were kept in a secure location."
Click to expand...

According to the above, that doesn't sound like something that was planned quickly. For them to have known where the safe house was and to coordinate the attacks on both locations, that tends to suggest it was not something planned quickly.

That is, it was not really a protest that got out of hand, but neither was it some long planned operation lead by Al Quaida. The latter does not fit with the facts and it is not necessary.
Click to expand...

Actually the facts do suggest longer term planning was done. Whether it was by Al Queda or not is unknown. But given the call for action after the death of an Al Queda leader in June, the timing of the attacks on the compound and safe house and the fact that it happened on 9/11... that suggests more detailed planning than you are suggesting.

It would be nice if this could be discussed intelligently, but I am guessing it's gonna all be partisan poo flinging.
Click to expand...

you mean like starting a post talking about idiot right wingers? That kind of partisan poo flinging?

Obviously, the embassies are vulnerable and it does not take much to overrun them. Also, there is no amount of security that will make them impenetrable without destroying their purpose.
Click to expand...

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/12/world/africa/libya-consulate-attack-scene/index.html

Within 15 minutes of the first gunshots, the attackers were able to enter the main compound of the consulate complex and set it ablaze.
Click to expand...

While I agree we cannot make them impenetrable, the embassy was obviously severely lacking in security. How many of the terrorists died during the attack?
 
TheRocketSurgeon said:
Again, that was not the point of the link. Again, the link was intended to show that this group has a history of violently acting to defend the honor of their prophet.
Click to expand...

ok... that part was understood.

I will see what I can find on their claim of responsibility but it has been reported before and that is what the CIA referenced as detailed in post 8.
Click to expand...
ok


Don't pretend to read my mind.
Click to expand...

No worries, I am not a fan of short stories. ;)
 
Here we go with the ridiculous over parsing so superfragile can make himself seem important by finding some little out of context fragment on which to save face. Not interested, douchebag. I will respond to the few points you made and I am going to ignore all your ego trip bs where you try to turn this into some sort of contest between us.

I based what I said about Ansar al Sharia's motivations on their own statements. There is NO proof that THEY were part of any longer term planning. But their claims of responsbility were later discredited and it does seem that ANOTHER more organaized group, with stronger ties to Al Quaida was actually responsible for the attack or brought in the heavy guns. You are mixing up the facts and cherry picking the ones you like. It is quite likely that both groups played a role.

Obama mentioned this almost immediately. There is no proof of a coverup or any sort of sinister plot by the administration. That they are not omniscient is a known fact and not surprising to any rational person.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57538689/emails-detail-unfolding-benghazi-attack-on-sept-11/

Fourteen hours after the attack, President Obama sat down with Steve Kroft of "60 Minutes" for a previously scheduled interview and said he did not believe it was simply due to mob violence.


"You're right that this is not a situation that was -- exactly the same as what happened in Egypt and my suspicion is that there are folks involved in this who were looking to target Americans from the start," Mr. Obama said.

You seemed to accept the information in post 8 as a reliable source on the early infromation available and claims of Ansar al Sharia. Are you now going back on that?

It is not obvious that this embassy was severely lacking in security. The one in Cairo was overrun by people using their bare hands. Many diplomats have come forward and state that the security measures are too tight and counterproductive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top