Thu Sep 20, 2012, 10:07 AM

New picture emerging of "terrorist attack" in Benghazi

Source: Reuters

(Reuters) - Thu Sep 20, 2012 6:21am BST

The U.S. Consulate in Benghazi apparently was not troubled at first by a smattering of protesters on the anniversary of the September 11 attacks last week, but that changed abruptly at 9:35 p.m. when it sent a message that the building was under heavy assault, U.S. government sources said.

New information emerging a week after attackers launched rocket-propelled grenades and mortars and killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, suggests that the protests at the outset were so small and unthreatening as to attract little notice.

While many questions remain, the latest accounts differ from the initial information provided by the Obama administration, which had suggested that protests in front of the consulate over an anti-Islamic film had played a major role in precipitating the subsequent violent attack.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/09/20/uk-usa-libya-consulate-idUKBRE88I1IS20120920

Read more: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/09/20/uk-usa-libya-consulate-idUKBRE88I1IS20120920

Further down the article the claim made that Blackwater had the security contract appears to be contradicted.

9 replies, 2022 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

9 replies	Author	Time	Post
New picture emerging of "terrorist attack" in Benghazi (Original post)	dipsydoodle	Sep 2012	OP
The terrorists saw the opening with the anti-Islam film protests and TOOK it.	blm	Sep 2012	#1
Yeah.... but...	harmonicon	Sep 2012	#2
Let me try...	UnseenUndergrad	Sep 2012	#6
You've covered nothing, because...	harmonicon	Sep 2012	#9
"Terrorists"? I smell a "loyal Gadhafi-ies" militia... OK, pretty much the same thing.	johnfunk	Sep 2012	#5
Most fingers point at the jihadis in Ansar al Sharia.	Comrade Grumpy	Sep 2012	#7
that's my view, too	blm	Sep 2012	#8
Not Good...	liberallibral	Sep 2012	#3
Yep.	glacierbay	Sep 2012	#4

Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Thu Sep 20, 2012, 10:31 AM

blm (89,711 posts)

1. The terrorists saw the opening with the anti-Islam film protests and TOOK it.

They ginned up the violence to do exactly what the film-maker and many RW extremists here want - a prolonged, violent confrontation with the Muslim world - coincides with what Bin Laden wanted, too.

RW extremists are the minority in all these countries want to drag the rest of the world into waging the battles and genocides THEY envision - including the crazies in this country, like those who made that film and publicly post disgusting, incendiary posts on Facebook and YouTube.

Reply to this post

Response to blm (Reply #1)

Thu Sep 20, 2012, 11:18 AM

harmonicon (11,996 posts)

2. Yeah.... but...

if you really think that "RW extremists are the minority in all these countries want to drag the rest of the world into waging the battles and genocides THEY envision" how the hell do you think the "revolution" in Libya started? Do you think it was democracy-loving freedom fighters from Yemen and Saudi Arabia coming in to join them?

If the majority of the Libyan people were on the side of the revolution, why did they need military support from the strongest countries in the world? The US military wasn't needed to help the revolutionaries in Egypt and Tunisia.

As much as it sickens me, we made our own bed in Libya, and now we have to lie in it. It's not as if this is the first shitty foreign policy/military decision made by the US since WWII - it follows the pattern of usually making a terrible decision. Time after time, for over 60 years now, we've based policy on "the enemy of our enemy is our friend" and I can't think of a single time when that's been the case.

Reply to this post

Response to harmonicon (Reply #2)

Thu Sep 20, 2012, 02:16 PM

UnseenUndergrad (227 posts)

6. Let me try...

If the majority of the Libyan people were on the side of the revolution, why did they need military support from the strongest countries in the world? The US military wasn't needed to help the revolutionaries in Egypt and Tunisia.

Let's see: heap big weaponry that he bought while playing nicey-nice with Europe and the US, existing weaponry from the former Soviet sphere along with mercenaries and techs from same, Sahelian and Sub-Saharan mercenaries loosely connecting to his support of the African Union (and the source of most of the racist backlash immediately post war), A state apparatus controlled through fear and patronage and Russia and China remaining on the fence for the longest time.

I hope I've covered most of it.

Reply to this post

Response to UnseenUndergrad (Reply #6)

Thu Sep 20, 2012, 08:58 PM

harmonicon (11,996 posts)

9. You've covered nothing, because...

people are needed to operate those weapons. The police and the militaries of Egypt and Tunisia were more-or-less on the side of the revolutionaries. For the most part, this was not the case in Libya. There were a great number of Libyans fighting for the country they had and loved.

As for mercenaries, there were plenty on the side of the revolutionaries from Saudia Arabia, Yemen, etc.

Libya is also the only country of those three where blacks were murdered because of their race and dumbed in mass graves or simply left to rot.

We fucked up in Libya. Just how bad is now becoming more clear.

Reply to this post

Response to blm (Reply #1)

Thu Sep 20, 2012, 12:04 PM

johnfunk (6,008 posts)

5. "Terrorists"? I smell a "loyal Gadhafi-ies" militia... OK, pretty much the same thing.

And I know I'm not alone in my suspicions.

Reply to this post

Response to johnfunk (Reply #5)

Thu Sep 20, 2012, 02:44 PM

Comrade Grumpy (3,740 posts)

7. Most fingers point at the jihadis in Ansar al Sharia.

Although the Libyan government wishes it was Gaddafi loyalists.

Reply to this post

Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #7)

Thu Sep 20, 2012, 06:20 PM

blm (89,711 posts)

8. that's my view, too

Reply to this post

Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Thu Sep 20, 2012, 11:43 AM

liberallibral (272 posts)

3. Not Good...

Last edited Thu Sep 20, 2012, 11:43 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

The President's Administration, and especially Susan Rice were adamant about the attacks being due solely to the video...

Now they have to back-track...

Awful! Romney is a complete buffoon, and keeps giving us the gift of GAFFES that keep on giving - and we can't seem to put him away..... Very annoying and scary!!!

Reply to this post

Response to liberallibral (Reply #3)

Thu Sep 20, 2012, 12:01 PM

glacierbay (2,477 posts)

4. Yep.

I've been saying this from the first time I saw Susan Rice on Sun. adamantly insisting that this was a spontaneous attack, and not a pre-planned attack. I was shaking my head thinking does she honestly think that the vast majority of americans, or the world for that matter, believe that?
I truly hope this doesn't bite the Admin. in the ass too hard.

Reply to this post

Latest Breaking News (Forum)