General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI don't understand why it couldn't have been both an act of terror AND a reaction to the movie.
Al Qaeda took advantage of the mobs during the Arab Spring to promote itself. I think that was part of what went on in Benghazi. So, in effect President Obama and Susan Rice were each correct.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)justabob
(3,069 posts)Because it HAS to be black or white.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)Oh, yeah, there's also lying.
tosh
(4,422 posts)Last week I listened to a Limpballs-listener explain to me why I should be outraged. It was the first time I was made aware of the RW narrative of the incident. That was a serious moment for me.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)There cannot be 2 events merged into one, or 2 motivations that converge into one unit of space-time.
In the very simple world, there could not have been a protest against a movie happening at the same time and place as an act of terror, never mind a terrorist using a protest as cover for an act of terror. Either. Or.
IllinoisBirdWatcher
(2,315 posts)This IS a black and white issue.
Whether the timing was long-planned and/or triggered by a single video is a totally different question which remains unanswered.
The Rmoney lie was his claim that the President never said what he clearly said.
For the first time in this campaign, someone countered Rmoney in real-time and he was pissed. About time.
Javaman
(62,510 posts)jmowreader
(50,546 posts)It was a terrorist attack. That much was obvious from the start.
But these guys don't just attack for no reason. Something had to set them off and the timing is very coincidental.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)There was certainly a regional sense of chaos at that moment, and that is a very good time to strike (if you are a terrorist).
Very early on, it was clear that there was an organized element to the Benghazi attack. The administration never denied that.
There is some question where there were any movie-related protests in Benghazi at the time of the attack. It now seems maybe there were not, nonetheless, that was a major point of confusion and tension throughout the region at that moment.
There was, and remains, a real question as to just how organized and planned the attack was. "al Qaeda" isn't a rigid, hierarchical organization. Romney is used to a top-down corporate structure where he gets to call all the shots. He clear has no concept of anything else. al Qaeda has never been organized that way. It is a much more distributed organization, with most of the participants being only loosely affiliated.
It seems obvious to me that that was a an opportunistic attack. The riots were going on in the region, so these terrorists decided that was the moment to attack. If it were less opportunistic, they probably would have arranged to have more powerful explosives, resulting in a more forceful attack. As it was, this was a an even that spanned hours as they were mostly shooting with small arms.
The Republicans wanted to CUT FUNDING for embassies. Ryan argued that it was simply a matter of priorities. These MFs are damn good at Monday Morning Quarterbacking. There were 40 embassies in the region that could have been attacked. There really wasn't anything special about Benghazi. If we had moved the limited resources from other embassies to Benghazi, then the attack might have happened at another place, and these these same MFs would be saying we should have deployed the limited resources a different way.
The real question we should be asking is when we spend about a trillion bucks a year on various military stuff, why can't we provide safety for ALL of our embassies. That is surely plenty of money to get the job done, if we didn't piss most of it away on pointless wars and useless weapons systems.
emulatorloo
(44,100 posts)The rightwing can live in denial if they wish. Romney lied, he was caught lying, end of story.
former9thward
(31,963 posts)None. That is undisputed. The first thing the consulate knew was a grenade being thrown into the compound. Afterwards an organized heavily armed attack started. The Libyan "security" then pointed out the safe house to the attackers where the ambassador had retreated. They attacked that and killed him.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)And the Cairo protests were about the movie.
And the attackers themselves said it was about the movie.
former9thward
(31,963 posts)And Susan Rice for whatever her reason was did not tell the truth.
The State Department denied Tuesday it ever concluded that the deadly consulate attack Sept. 11 in Libya was an unplanned outburst prompted by an anti-Islam movie, despite public statements early on by some in the Obama administration suggesting that was the case.
The State Department gave testimony under oath to Congress that the video had nothing to do with the Libya attacks.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)Susan Rice was giving best information at the time, but said the administration was waiting to see what the investigation would confirm.
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/10/15/1014241/timline-benghazi-attack/
Please get your facts in order before speaking again.
former9thward
(31,963 posts)I don't expect you to ever get your facts straight so I know you will be "speaking again".
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)Why are you here repeating right-wing attack lines against the President, former9thward?
former9thward
(31,963 posts)Especially one who requested more security. That just shows how out of touch you are. I won't participate in a cover up just for momentary partisan advantage.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)More right-wing talking points. How surprising.
former9thward
(31,963 posts)http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_21808401/cia-found-militant-links-day-after-libya-attack
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)What do you think was covered up here, and why? Come on, spill your guts. Cut to the chase.
What was Barack Obama and the US government covering up here? Produce your thoughts and your evidence. I fucking dare you.
Abq_Sarah
(2,883 posts)The people from diplomatic security at the State Department were in contact with the consulate as the attack unfolded and they knew for a fact there were no demonstrations and it was a highly organized terrorist attack.
Trying to blame an organized terrorist attack on a video is just dumb, particularly since everyone knew the facts would come out.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)I don't know how much more plain it can be.
deaniac21
(6,747 posts)took place?
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)who'd a thunk it?
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)blm
(113,038 posts)the Libya attack specifically because of that anti-Islam film. The WH would have been completely derelict to not target the film and distance the nation's position from the blatant propaganda being pushed in that film.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)riots. The YouTube was translated and hyped to Middle East TV stations for this purpose. Right on time those TV stations led with the story and riots ensued.
In Libya a smallish riot was used as a cover for this attack. By that time large riots were occurring elsewhere so riots led he news; thus riot was the first assumption.
It was apparent to anybody on the ground that this was a commando attack, very well planned and equipped and executed.
I'm not sure al Qaeda is to blame on this one. The degree of planning is a far cut above usual, as is the execution. Anybody can see that it's not their style. Seriously.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)iirc, the first person to make an issue of it was the Libyan(?) equivalent of Glenn Beck's "whip-everyone-into-mass-raging-hysteria" show...From there, the anger spread through word-of-mouth...
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)run with the story. That's just the way it is. People gather for prayers and they talk afterwards.
We would be the same way if our society centered around public calls for prayer and community prayer rooms, no matter which religion it was.
In this case I believe Islam was used to further western political ends.
treestar
(82,383 posts)One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)The FBI recovered the security Video from the consulate and reportedly there was no protest. IIRC that is what the local residents in Benghazi said originally as well.
SalviaBlue
(2,915 posts)all broad minded and everything.
HopeHoops
(47,675 posts)Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)Rifles and maybe mortars in the hands of not-the-army in a country that just finished a civil war isn't exactly odd.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)Sarcasm is still legal, right?
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)karynnj
(59,501 posts)His very first statement condemned the Cairo embassy's statement saying it was a poor response (of the Obama administration ) to riots/terror. That the statement preceded anything happening in Libya or Eqypt was ignored.
The fact was that the administration had to deal with both the Libyan assassination aftermath AND riots in at least 10 Moslem countries at the same time. They HAD to speak of their revulsion to all the film represented.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)The fighters said at the time that they were moved to act because of the video, which had first gained attention across the region after a protest in Egypt that day. The assailants approvingly recalled a 2006 assault by local Islamists that had destroyed an Italian diplomatic mission in Benghazi over a perceived insult to the prophet. In June the group staged a similar attack against the Tunisian Consulate over a different film, according to the Congressional testimony of the American security chief at the time, Eric A. Nordstrom.
At a news conference the day after the ambassador and three other Americans were killed, a spokesman for Ansar al-Shariah praised the attack as the proper response to such an insult to Islam. We are saluting our people for this zeal in protecting their religion, to grant victory to the prophet, the spokesman said. The response has to be firm. Other Benghazi militia leaders who know the group say its leaders and ideology are all homegrown. Those leaders, including Ahmed Abu Khattala and Mohammed Ali Zahawi, fought alongside other commanders against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. Their group provides social services and guards a hospital. And they openly proselytize for their brand of puritanical Islam and political vision.
And here's what Susan Rice said:
We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons, weapons that as you know in in the wake of the revolution in Libya are are quite common and accessible. And it then evolved from there.
Well wait to see exactly what the investigation finally confirms, but thats the best information we have at present.
There were two phases to this attack - the one on the initial site (the consulate) and then the safe house most had been evacuated to (about two kilos away). The first attack didn't have the same kind of organization as the first, but that seems to be due to how large the consulate site was (at least three football fields long, four buildings), whereas the safe house site was one much smaller location and took a great deal of concentrated force. There were also various levels of intensity in the initial attack, so what Susan Rice said five days after the attack was pretty reasonable at the time. And, it should be noted, what she said is still mostly true. There was just no hijacking of an initial attack by a second, more militaristic force.
arthritisR_US
(7,286 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Sept. 11th. Since this one incident was the only one that instigated a direct attack on us, I'm pretty sure that the people in charge had a pretty good idea that this one was not just another demonstration of Islamic outrage. Why the producers of that "film" have not been treated to the whole WOT police state apparatus our government saw fit to implement and retain after 2001 seems pretty suspicious.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)--------------> http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1135
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)Be thankful that people with a firmer grip on reality run things.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Enrique
(27,461 posts)we have heard various things about how big a role the movie played. The latest that I have heard is that the movie played no role.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Please explain why the term "act of terror" would NOT apply if there had been an actual movie, and the attack actually was a reaction to the movie.