Create new account | My Profile | My Journal | My Account | My Inbox | Help | Log in

Google search

Advanced search

HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Al-Qaeda says ‘meticulous...

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 04:38 PM

Star Member DonViejo (4,548 posts)

Al-Qaeda says ‘meticulously executed’ Benghazi attack ‘revenge’ for number two’s death

Source: Raw Story/AF-P

Al-Qaeda said the deadly attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya was in revenge for the killing of the network’s number two Sheikh Abu Yahya al-Libi, SITE Intelligence Group reported Saturday.

“The killing of Sheikh Abu Yahya only increased the enthusiasm and determination of the sons of (Libyan independence hero) Omar al-Mokhtar to take revenge upon those who attack our Prophet,” Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula said in a statement, quoted by the US-based monitoring group.

Al-Qaeda’s Yemen-based offshoot did not claim direct responsibility for Tuesday’s attack on the US consulate in Benghazi that killed the US ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, and three other Americans.

But it stressed that “the uprising of our people in Libya, Egypt and Yemen against America and its embassies is a sign to notify the United States that its war is not directed against groups and organisations … but against the Islamic nation that has rebelled against injustice.”

Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/15/al-qaeda-says-meticulously-executed-benghazi-attack-revenge-for-number-twos-death/

30 replies, 3287 views

Thread informationRemove bookmarkTrash this thread

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 30 replies Author Time Post
Reply Al-Qaeda says ‘meticulously executed’ Benghazi attack ‘revenge’ for number two’s death (Original post)
 DonViejo Sep 2012 OP
LineReply Yeah, they gunned down harmless diplomats. Really brave. nt/
 Akoto Sep 2012 #1
LineLineReply Same could be said of US drone attacks which kill innocent civilians.
 dipsydoodle Sep 2012 #12
LineLineLineReply Most do.
 joshcryer Sep 2012 #16
LineLineLineReply Nothing excuses murdering diplomats. Two wrongs do not = right. n/t
 Akoto Sep 2012 #18
LineLineLineReply "Not all of Libya supports their government." Of course not, but if the attackers were foreigners
 pampango Sep 2012 #19
LineReply These are the jihadists we called 'revolutionaries' when NATO claimed to be
 sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #2
LineLineNew Reply Sabrina 1, I tend to agree with your take on the situation. The same might be said about
 lumpy Sep 2012 #26
LineReply If true, points to AQ reconstitution inside post-regime change Libya - bad omen for US ops in Syria.
 leveymg Sep 2012 #3
LineLineReply The "jihadist groups" were and remain a small minority in Libya.
 joshcryer Sep 2012 #15
LineLineLineNew Reply The jihadist groups disproportionately made up the fighters who took down Ghadaffi, which is why
 leveymg Sep 2012 #23
LineLineLineLineNew Reply Do you have a citation for that?
 joshcryer Sep 2012 #25
LineLineLineLineLineNew Reply Chris Stevens set up camp in Benghazi not in Misrata or the Berber areas.
 leveymg Sep 2012 #27
LineLineLineLineLineLineNew Reply Sure. But you contended that they "disproportionately made up the fighters...
 joshcryer Sep 2012 #30
LineLineNew Reply "Regime change comes with costs." The fall of dictators, tsars and kings does come with costs.
 pampango Sep 2012 #21
LineLineLineNew Reply I wouldn't view Libya so much a revolution as a change in US/NATO installed gov't.
 leveymg Sep 2012 #24
LineReply i wonder what those who say it was because of the stupid movie will say about this.
 uppityperson Sep 2012 #4
LineLineReply That stupid movie was shown to a grand audience of 10 people. IT was and is only a pathetic
 Vincardog Sep 2012 #5
LineLineLineReply It was the narrative of its contents
 dipsydoodle Sep 2012 #6
LineLineLineLineReply Funny that. I heard that the violence was in response to the killing of the #2 AQ. The "movie"
 Vincardog Sep 2012 #7
LineLineLineLineReply The protest was a diversion from the real attack. That was planned and coordinated in
 leveymg Sep 2012 #9
LineLineLineLineLineReply If the Salaafist clerics on an Egyptian broadcast had not done the broadcast
 dipsydoodle Sep 2012 #11
LineLineLineLineLineLineReply Forced choice.
 Igel Sep 2012 #13
LineReply "Claiming responsibility" is the sort of bluster all terriorist / insurgent groups engage in...
 reACTIONary Sep 2012 #8
LineReply Is Al-Qaeda actually responsible or just taking credit?
 Tucsonric Sep 2012 #10
LineReply Which # 2
 fun n serious Sep 2012 #14
LineLineNew Reply There'll be a new #2 next week.
 Frank Cannon Sep 2012 #22
LineReply Now people can shut the fuck up about dismantling the First Amendment. nt
 Comrade_McKenzie Sep 2012 #17
LineReply It was pretty obvious..
 sendero Sep 2012 #20
LineLineNew Reply I was listening to Amb. Rice this morning
 glacierbay Sep 2012 #28
LineLineLineNew Reply I sure hope they have their facts right or walk this back really fast.
 dkf Sep 2012 #29

Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 04:42 PM

Akoto (3,514 posts)

1. Yeah, they gunned down harmless diplomats. Really brave. nt/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Akoto (Reply #1)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 06:13 PM

Star Member dipsydoodle (32,668 posts)

12. Same could be said of US drone attacks which kill innocent civilians.

This particular diplomat ran the US affairs office in Benghazi during the conflict. Not all of Libya supports their government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to dipsydoodle (Reply #12)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 12:53 AM

joshcryer (39,752 posts)

16. Most do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to dipsydoodle (Reply #12)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 02:28 AM

Akoto (3,514 posts)

18. Nothing excuses murdering diplomats. Two wrongs do not = right. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to dipsydoodle (Reply #12)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 06:30 AM

Star Member pampango (13,986 posts)

19. "Not all of Libya supports their government." Of course not, but if the attackers were foreigners

it is somewhat more difficult to portray the attack as a Libyan response to NATO intervention. Indeed the presence of foreigners may be a sign that Libyan support for such an attack was weak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 04:43 PM

Star Member sabrina 1 (34,089 posts)

2. These are the jihadists we called 'revolutionaries' when NATO claimed to be

protecting civilians from the Gadaffi regime. People warned that giving them arms would come back to haunt us.

Just goes to show that the enemy of your enemy is only your friend while you can be of use to him. They wanted Gadaffi gone, because WE used Gadaffi to keep them under control, and then we shared their desire to have him gone.

What a powder keg they have created in that once relatively stable country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #2)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 05:25 PM

lumpy (12,142 posts)

26. Sabrina 1, I tend to agree with your take on the situation. The same might be said about

our once friend, Saddam Hussein.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 04:51 PM

Star Member leveymg (26,350 posts)

3. If true, points to AQ reconstitution inside post-regime change Libya - bad omen for US ops in Syria.

Last edited Sat Sep 15, 2012, 05:40 PM USA/ET - Edit history (2)

This is significant because it is the first official Al-Qaeda acknowledgment of its role and motive in the attack in Bengahzi that took the life of the US Ambassador. There had been speculation dismissing the the attack as the work of die-hard Gadhafi supporters, not al-Qaeda. Note that this particular AQ group is not claiming direct responsibility.

If this claim by an outside AQ accurately reflects events, it also indicates that AQ forces have taken the opportunity of a safe haven to reconstitute inside Libya, and are capable of significant operations there since the US worked with Jihadist groups to overthrown the Gadhafi regime last year. US Ambassador Chris Andrews, who died in Benghazi, had a significant role in organizing Libyan militant groups in the rebellion, some of which are now involved in the US-backed effort to overthrow the regime in Syria. Please, see, Blowback in Benghazi: Attack Linked to Regime Change Operations in Libya and Syria, http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021343355

Regime change comes with costs. This can only get worse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to leveymg (Reply #3)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 12:31 AM

joshcryer (39,752 posts)

15. The "jihadist groups" were and remain a small minority in Libya.

The US and foreign supporters of the Libyan revolution would rightly call AQ counter-revolutionaries.

The weapons were gained from Gaddafi's insane stockpiling of western bought weapons. They got distributed very quickly when moderate Muslims took to the fight against Gaddafi.

Whatever groups exist will remain a niche given the overwhelming rejection of their actions by the Libyan people at large. I would argue that their acting so "soon" now is actually going to lead to their demise, since they haven't had time to really recruit despite the racist xenophobic lies that the revolutionaries were "jihadist."

The Libyan people overwhelmingly elected moderate Muslims and rejected Egypti/Tunisia style Muslim Brotherhood leadership.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to joshcryer (Reply #15)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 08:31 AM

Star Member leveymg (26,350 posts)

23. The jihadist groups disproportionately made up the fighters who took down Ghadaffi, which is why

Amd. Stevens landed in Benghazi and organized them from there. They also made off with most of the regime's weapons, including the MANPADs.

They are Sunni terrorists for hire, and increasingly are streaming into Syria where they are also a disproportionately effective part of the opposition, which the US is also organizing. In effect, this Administration is using the Jihadists in a coordinated campaign of regime change, and the attack on the Ambassador, a key player in executing the program, can be viewed as blowback from that policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to leveymg (Reply #23)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 05:15 PM

joshcryer (39,752 posts)

25. Do you have a citation for that?

I do not think that is true because a third of the fighters were from Misrata, a moderate Muslim city, a third were from the Berber areas (lol, they're all jihadists too I suspect), and a third were from Benghazi. You could maybe make the argument that Benghazi was totally composed of radical extremists and that by NATO stopping Gaddafi's convoy that we were "supporting" the radical extremists but it doesn't really make sense given that Misrata and the western mountains were already under siege for a month before NATO acted. Misrata remained under siege for a further two months or thereabouts before NATO dropped one munition in Misrata.

It really is a narrow and ignorant view imo that the fighters were mostly extremists. Even if they started growing beards after they started the revolution.

So did fucking Che.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to joshcryer (Reply #25)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 05:52 PM

Star Member leveymg (26,350 posts)

27. Chris Stevens set up camp in Benghazi not in Misrata or the Berber areas.

Last edited Sun Sep 16, 2012, 05:53 PM USA/ET - Edit history (2)

The area in E. Libya between Benghazi and Tobruk also accounted for the largest percentage of foreign al-Qaeda suicide bombers in Iraq. Stevens was well aware of the presence of al-Qaeda and affiliated groups in Benghazi, he wrote a 2008 cable analyzing the groups. Obviously, it was obviously very important to the Obama Admin. to have someone on the ground in Benghazi coordinating Jihadist and Salaafist groups in the area. See, my post yesterday, Blowback in Benghazi, http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021343355

If you need more cites or sources, let me know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to leveymg (Reply #27)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 07:05 PM

joshcryer (39,752 posts)

30. Sure. But you contended that they "disproportionately made up the fighters...

...who took down Ghadaffi."

Yet we know that the fighters in Benghazi and the east never broke through Adjabiya until until near the end of the war!

I do not disagree that islamist elements that are still festering after the war still exist in Libya or that even they were fighting in some respect against Gaddafi (if only because they wanted revenge for being suppressed).

I consider them counter-revolutionaries and not representative of the vast majority of the Libyan revolutionaries who overthrew Gaddafi.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to leveymg (Reply #3)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 06:36 AM

Star Member pampango (13,986 posts)

21. "Regime change comes with costs." The fall of dictators, tsars and kings does come with costs.

Most successful revolutions take years to establish levels of security comparable to that used by the ousted ruler.

One thing that successful dictators are good at 'providing' is 'security'. Of course most of the 'security' they provide is 'security' for their continued rule, but the fear of arbitrary arrest can also reduce common crime and even terrorist activities, as well.

Most liberals do not buy into the "They (not 'we', of course) need to have dictators. Sometimes you have to trade some human rights for national (and international) security."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to pampango (Reply #21)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 08:39 AM

Star Member leveymg (26,350 posts)

24. I wouldn't view Libya so much a revolution as a change in US/NATO installed gov't.

And, I don't approve of the policy of either dictators or regime change - I'm just describing one of its unintended but entirely foreseeable consequences of regime change and the use of terrorist groups in foreign operations, more generally: blowback.

"They (not 'we', of course) need to have dictators. Sometimes you have to trade some human rights for national (and international) security."
- That's your line, not mine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 05:02 PM

Star Member uppityperson (74,214 posts)

4. i wonder what those who say it was because of the stupid movie will say about this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to uppityperson (Reply #4)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 05:08 PM

Star Member Vincardog (17,415 posts)

5. That stupid movie was shown to a grand audience of 10 people. IT was and is only a pathetic

Last edited Sat Sep 15, 2012, 05:09 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

excuse for the fundies on both sides.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Vincardog (Reply #5)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 05:24 PM

Star Member dipsydoodle (32,668 posts)

6. It was the narrative of its contents

Last edited Sat Sep 15, 2012, 05:24 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

by the Salafi tv news channel in Egypt which triggered the protests. Don't matter if only 10 saw it - news of it spread by word of mouth. If only 10 people told ten people who each then told ten people....................do the maths.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to dipsydoodle (Reply #6)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 05:26 PM

Star Member Vincardog (17,415 posts)

7. Funny that. I heard that the violence was in response to the killing of the #2 AQ. The "movie"

Last edited Sat Sep 15, 2012, 05:27 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

was only the cover for the violence. Draw your own conclusions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to dipsydoodle (Reply #6)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 05:33 PM

Star Member leveymg (26,350 posts)

9. The protest was a diversion from the real attack. That was planned and coordinated in

Last edited Sat Sep 15, 2012, 05:36 PM USA/ET - Edit history (2)

two locations, and was so effective that two American security personnel who arrived in a US military helicopter were killed. This is not just a case of one guy with an RPG who just happened to be incensed and took a pot-shot at the Consulate. There was sustained and accurate mortar fire on the escape convoy as they neared the "safe house," which suggests an ambush planned with inside information, probably provided by someone in the local security detail.

The stupid video and fuss made about it by Salaafist clerics on an Egyptian broadcast was only part of a chain of events.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to leveymg (Reply #9)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 06:09 PM

Star Member dipsydoodle (32,668 posts)

11. If the Salaafist clerics on an Egyptian broadcast had not done the broadcast

Last edited Sat Sep 15, 2012, 06:11 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

there wouldv'e been nothing to coordinate. As such the protest wasn't a diversion : more likely a coincidence.

I am inclined to agree it was probably a ‘revenge’ attack for number two’s death.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to dipsydoodle (Reply #11)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 07:31 PM

Igel (17,557 posts)

13. Forced choice.

When there is nothing from their side forcing the choice.

"to take revenge upon those who attack our Prophet"

What's forcing the choice is on our side, and we're the only ones making the choice.


Do you want peanut butter or chocolate? Most people I know would want Reese's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 05:27 PM

reACTIONary (999 posts)

8. "Claiming responsibility" is the sort of bluster all terriorist / insurgent groups engage in...

... they "take credit" for anything that happens for the sake of propaganda and self aggrandizement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 05:36 PM

Tucsonric (3 posts)

10. Is Al-Qaeda actually responsible or just taking credit?

Is Al-Qaeda actually responsible or just taking credit? Was the U.S. originated movie the cause or is there more to the story? For more speculation, please see this short post for a possible scenario: http://richardringler.weebly.com/blog.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 12:23 AM

fun n serious (314 posts)

14. Which # 2

of all the #2?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to fun n serious (Reply #14)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 06:37 AM

Frank Cannon (6,191 posts)

22. There'll be a new #2 next week.

Ask this guy. He knows.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 01:06 AM

Star Member Comrade_McKenzie (2,526 posts)

17. Now people can shut the fuck up about dismantling the First Amendment. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 06:35 AM

Star Member sendero (25,000 posts)

20. It was pretty obvious..

.. that this attack was not the spontaneous reaction to a bullshit movie. Now we have confirmation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to sendero (Reply #20)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 06:10 PM

glacierbay (2,477 posts)

28. I was listening to Amb. Rice this morning

 

saying that this was a spontaneous attack related only to the crappy film. My question is, does she honestly think that the American people believe this?
This attack was too well planned and executed for it to be a spontaneous hit.
I hope this doesn't come back to bite the Admin. in the ass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to glacierbay (Reply #28)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 06:48 PM

Star Member dkf (32,621 posts)

29. I sure hope they have their facts right or walk this back really fast.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread

Latest Breaking News (Forum)
DU Home | Latest Threads | Greatest Threads | Forums & Groups | My Subscriptions | My Posts

About | Copyright | Privacy | Terms of service | Contact

Advertise on DU

© 2001 - 2013 Democratic Underground, LLC. Thank you for visiting.