Poll: Was Benghazi a "Spontaneous Attack," or Planned Terrorist Attack?

[WelfareQueen]

We keep focusing on the wrong area. It doesn't matter if it was Al Qaeda or not Al Qaeda. It doesn't matter if it was planned or unplanned. What matters is that extra security was requested days before because it was a hot area and the anniversary of 9/11 was coming up. The state department admitted it denied extra security. What matters is who denied it and why. And don't say it would have bankrupted the treasury to send a platoon or even a squad of Marines who would have stopped that attack before it got started and 4 Americans would be alive today. Someone is guilty of dereliction of duty.

The Ambassador was killed in the first attack, which lasted less than ten minutes.

As there were mobs running wild all over the Middle East over the video at that time, how many other missions were requesting extra protection?

You have no idea, do you.

The Benghazi consulate wasn't even our main diplomatic mission in Libya. The embassy in Tripoli is. The consulate was a CIA outpost, not a real diplomatic one.

Stop exploiting the deaths of Americans for political purposes.

It was a tragedy, and it sucks that Americans died. But there was a lot going on all over the Middle East at the same time. Danger comes with the job, and the Foreign Service knows that.

There were ten attacks on our diplomatic missions on Bush's watch and not one of you rube knows what Bush was doing before, during, or after any one of them. You don't even know how many Americans were killed.

This is a political witch hunt, not a seeking of truth. And a mountain of manufactured bullshit surrounding it betrays this fact.

His point was the Obama Administration denied multiple requests for extra security. Nice try at deflecting though.

 

[Sunni Man]

So they "spontaneously" got mortars and coordinated fire from multiple locations with insiders at the embassy also in on the attack....

Obviously you have never served in the military.

It only takes a few minutes to level and line a mortar for firing.

And then have everyone set their wrist watch for a coordinated time of attack.

Seriously, ......it's not rocket science. ....

 

[TemplarKormac]

I have laughed for two days reading all the convoluted explanations for Benghazi. Most the left seem to say it was a spontaneous attack based on a video while at the same time saying "it was an act of terror."

Well folks...if it was an act of terror it was by definition a planned and coordinated terror attack. So which is it? Video and spontaneous uprising, or a planned terrorist attack?

False dichotomy.

It was a planned attack, and the attack was based in part on the video made by a lying anti-Semite Coptic Christian con man.

It was not an attack by Al Qaeda.

Any more questions?

Typical, in that you want the best of both worlds. It was a planned attack that had nothing to do with the video. Nothing. There have been consulate attacks that didn't need much provocation to happen, this one is no different.

Any more questions?

 

[Meathead]

So they "spontaneously" got mortars and coordinated fire from multiple locations with insiders at the embassy also in on the attack....

Obviously you have never served in the military.

It only takes a few minutes to level and line a mortar for firing.

And then have everyone set their wrist watch for a coordinated time of attack.

Seriously, ......it's not rocket science. ....

We are talking about Arabs, not the Swiss.

 

[Bloodrock44]

We keep focusing on the wrong area. It doesn't matter if it was Al Qaeda or not Al Qaeda. It doesn't matter if it was planned or unplanned. What matters is that extra security was requested days before because it was a hot area and the anniversary of 9/11 was coming up. The state department admitted it denied extra security. What matters is who denied it and why. And don't say it would have bankrupted the treasury to send a platoon or even a squad of Marines who would have stopped that attack before it got started and 4 Americans would be alive today. Someone is guilty of dereliction of duty.

The Ambassador was killed in the first attack, which lasted less than ten minutes.

As there were mobs running wild all over the Middle East over the video at that time, how many other missions were requesting extra protection?

You have no idea, do you.

The Benghazi consulate wasn't even our main diplomatic mission in Libya. The embassy in Tripoli is. The consulate was a CIA outpost, not a real diplomatic one.

Stop exploiting the deaths of Americans for political purposes.

It was a tragedy, and it sucks that Americans died. But there was a lot going on all over the Middle East at the same time. Danger comes with the job, and the Foreign Service knows that.

There were ten attacks on our diplomatic missions on Bush's watch and not one of you rubes know what Bush was doing before, during, or after any one of them. You don't know a single fact about any of them. You don't even know how many Americans were killed. Because you never gave a shit.

This is a political witch hunt, not a seeking of truth. And a mountain of manufactured bullshit, and selective investigation, surrounding it betrays this fact.

Stop deflecting and read the Washington Post article where the state department admits it denied extra security and admits the mission never had proper security. It is not a witch hunt. Four Americans died unnecessarily and as an American citizen I have the right to know why.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...=7bHKqgLRUDjG0J5NMaDWIQ&bvm=bv.58187178,d.cWc

 

[NYcarbineer]

I have laughed for two days reading all the convoluted explanations for Benghazi. Most on the left seem to say it was a spontaneous attack based on a video while at the same time saying "it was an act of terror."

Well folks...if it was an act of terror it was by definition a planned and coordinated terror attack. So which is it? Video and spontaneous uprising, or a planned terrorist attack?

It is time to take a stand. Which is it? And btw...an Obama all the above weasel answer does not cut it. Either it was planned and coordinated or it was not. So which is it?

You lost, get over it.

 

[rightwinger]

We keep focusing on the wrong area. It doesn't matter if it was Al Qaeda or not Al Qaeda. It doesn't matter if it was planned or unplanned. What matters is that extra security was requested days before because it was a hot area and the anniversary of 9/11 was coming up. The state department admitted it denied extra security. What matters is who denied it and why. And don't say it would have bankrupted the treasury to send a platoon or even a squad of Marines who would have stopped that attack before it got started and 4 Americans would be alive today. Someone is guilty of dereliction of duty.

The Ambassador was killed in the first attack, which lasted less than ten minutes.

As there were mobs running wild all over the Middle East over the video at that time, how many other missions were requesting extra protection?

You have no idea, do you.

The Benghazi consulate wasn't even our main diplomatic mission in Libya. The embassy in Tripoli is. The consulate was a CIA outpost, not a real diplomatic one.

Stop exploiting the deaths of Americans for political purposes.

It was a tragedy, and it sucks that Americans died. But there was a lot going on all over the Middle East at the same time. Danger comes with the job, and the Foreign Service knows that.

There were ten attacks on our diplomatic missions on Bush's watch and not one of you rube knows what Bush was doing before, during, or after any one of them. You don't even know how many Americans were killed.

This is a political witch hunt, not a seeking of truth. And a mountain of manufactured bullshit surrounding it betrays this fact.

His point was the Obama Administration denied multiple requests for extra security. Nice try at deflecting though.

How was pointing out that embassies throughout the region were under seige a deflection?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The Old Gray Hag has now declared that Shrillary and Obumbler were right all along.

This was a spontaneous reaction to an insulting "film" about Islam which nobody had seen.














Now the circus of lolberals line up to cite the NYT propaganda du jour as "reporting."

 

[Meathead]

So they "spontaneously" got mortars and coordinated fire from multiple locations with insiders at the embassy also in on the attack....

Obviously you have never served in the military.

It only takes a few minutes to level and line a mortar for firing.

And then have everyone set their wrist watch for a coordinated time of attack.

Seriously, ......it's not rocket science. ....

We are talking about Arabs, not the Swiss.

Oh, come on Sunni guy. If 200 million Arabs could coordinate like that in short order, Israel would no longer exist.

BTW, I don't neg rep. It is pretty childish.

 

[WelfareQueen]

So they "spontaneously" got mortars and coordinated fire from multiple locations with insiders at the embassy also in on the attack....

Obviously you have never served in the military.

It only takes a few minutes to level and line a mortar for firing.

And then have everyone set their wrist watch for a coordinated time of attack.

Seriously, ......it's not rocket science. ....

You used the key phrase...."coordinated." We both agree. It was a coordinated attack. I do not know how long it took to plan. Neither do you. The bottom line is the same...it was a coordinated attack.

Was the video a factor? Again neither of us know. What we do know is the attack was coordinated and just happened to take place on 9/11 against an American target. All of which I think we can both agree looks very suspicious.

 

[TooTall]

Actually, rdean is correct; it was both.

The video set the protests events into motion.

And the militants seized the moment and attacked. .....

Yeah, like Arabs are organized enough to form a quick response team.

Israel perhaps, but Arabs FFS?

How much planning does it take to provoke an angry mob?

An angry mob doesn't carry military mortors around to demonstrations and doesn't have the training to accurately fire them.

 

[WelfareQueen]

I have laughed for two days reading all the convoluted explanations for Benghazi. Most on the left seem to say it was a spontaneous attack based on a video while at the same time saying "it was an act of terror."

Well folks...if it was an act of terror it was by definition a planned and coordinated terror attack. So which is it? Video and spontaneous uprising, or a planned terrorist attack?

It is time to take a stand. Which is it? And btw...an Obama all the above weasel answer does not cut it. Either it was planned and coordinated or it was not. So which is it?

You lost, get over it.

What did I lose?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I have laughed for two days reading all the convoluted explanations for Benghazi. Most on the left seem to say it was a spontaneous attack based on a video while at the same time saying "it was an act of terror."

Well folks...if it was an act of terror it was by definition a planned and coordinated terror attack. So which is it? Video and spontaneous uprising, or a planned terrorist attack?

It is time to take a stand. Which is it? And btw...an Obama all the above weasel answer does not cut it. Either it was planned and coordinated or it was not. So which is it?

You lost, get over it.

What did I lose?

Apparently your pride in being a decent human being somewhere along the line,

but specifically, you lost the argument on Benghazi.

People like me were right all along; there is no need to re-litigate this issue just because you 'nuts on the right can never admit when you were wrong.

 

[g5000]

We keep focusing on the wrong area. It doesn't matter if it was Al Qaeda or not Al Qaeda. It doesn't matter if it was planned or unplanned. What matters is that extra security was requested days before because it was a hot area and the anniversary of 9/11 was coming up. The state department admitted it denied extra security. What matters is who denied it and why. And don't say it would have bankrupted the treasury to send a platoon or even a squad of Marines who would have stopped that attack before it got started and 4 Americans would be alive today. Someone is guilty of dereliction of duty.

The Ambassador was killed in the first attack, which lasted less than ten minutes.

As there were mobs running wild all over the Middle East over the video at that time, how many other missions were requesting extra protection?

You have no idea, do you.

The Benghazi consulate wasn't even our main diplomatic mission in Libya. The embassy in Tripoli is. The consulate was a CIA outpost, not a real diplomatic one.

Stop exploiting the deaths of Americans for political purposes.

It was a tragedy, and it sucks that Americans died. But there was a lot going on all over the Middle East at the same time. Danger comes with the job, and the Foreign Service knows that.

There were ten attacks on our diplomatic missions on Bush's watch and not one of you rubes know what Bush was doing before, during, or after any one of them. You don't know a single fact about any of them. You don't even know how many Americans were killed. Because you never gave a shit.

This is a political witch hunt, not a seeking of truth. And a mountain of manufactured bullshit, and selective investigation, surrounding it betrays this fact.

Stop deflecting and read the Washington Post article where the state department admits it denied extra security and admits the mission never had proper security. It is not a witch hunt. Four Americans died unnecessarily and as an American citizen I have the right to know why.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...=7bHKqgLRUDjG0J5NMaDWIQ&bvm=bv.58187178,d.cWc

It is not a deflection to point out your "quest for truth" is extremely narrow and only goes where it might find something politically damaging to the opposition party.

Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security, U.S. officials say

In the month before attackers stormed U.S. facilities in Benghazi and killed four Americans, U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens twice turned down offers of security assistance made by the senior U.S. military official in the region in response to concerns that Stevens had raised in a still secret memorandum, two government officials told McClatchy.

I never saw you hacks questioning or investigating any of the ten attacks on our diplomatic missions which occured prior to Benghazi. I know you have no clue what Bush was doing before, during, or after any of them. But that did not stop partisan hacks from manufacturing a lot of bullshit about how Obama was watching the five/six/seven/eight hour attack through a drone!

You have no idea whether or not the other diplomatic missions that were under active siege were also requesting help during that period, either.

Because you don't give a shit about finding out the WHOLE truth.

 

[rdean]

According to the NYT, it was both.

It cannot be both. The NY Times also claimed there were no terrorist ties after stating for over a year there were terrorist ties. So which is it?

And rdean...this is a poll. I want your answer...not a rag like the NY Times.

If you already decided what the answer SHOULD be, then good luck with that. The author of the NY article said some Libyans went there to attack, some went to loot, some went to protest and some went to watch. But none were al Qaeda.

 

[TooTall]

We keep focusing on the wrong area. It doesn't matter if it was Al Qaeda or not Al Qaeda. It doesn't matter if it was planned or unplanned. What matters is that extra security was requested days before because it was a hot area and the anniversary of 9/11 was coming up. The state department admitted it denied extra security. What matters is who denied it and why. And don't say it would have bankrupted the treasury to send a platoon or even a squad of Marines who would have stopped that attack before it got started and 4 Americans would be alive today. Someone is guilty of dereliction of duty.

The Ambassador was killed in the first attack, which lasted less than ten minutes.

As there were mobs running wild all over the Middle East over the video at that time, how many other missions were requesting extra protection?

You have no idea, do you.

The Benghazi consulate wasn't even our main diplomatic mission in Libya. The embassy in Tripoli is. The consulate was a CIA outpost, not a real diplomatic one.

Stop exploiting the deaths of Americans for political purposes.

It was a tragedy, and it sucks that Americans died. But there was a lot going on all over the Middle East at the same time. Danger comes with the job, and the Foreign Service knows that.

There were ten attacks on our diplomatic missions on Bush's watch and not one of you rubes know what Bush was doing before, during, or after any one of them. You don't know a single fact about any of them. You don't even know how many Americans were killed. Because you never gave a shit.

This is a political witch hunt, not a seeking of truth. And a mountain of manufactured bullshit, and selective investigation, surrounding it betrays this fact.

I will wager that Bush wasn't sending his people out to LIE on 5 TV shows about ANY of the attacks.

Just for grins I looked up two of the attacks during the Bush Administration for your reading enjoyment. You may notice that Bush didn't wimp out on his trip to Pakistan, and he wasn't going to a fund raiser the next morning either.

Pakistan bomb kills US diplomat

A suicide bomber has killed a US diplomat and two other people in a suicide attack near the US consulate in Karachi, Pakistani police say.

The blast comes two days before US President George Bush visits Pakistan. He says his trip will go ahead.

"Terrorists and killers are not going to prevent me from going to Pakistan. My trip to Pakistan is an important trip," Mr Bush told reporters in Delhi.
He confirmed the killing of the US diplomat.

BBC NEWS | South Asia | Pakistan bomb kills US diplomat

2008 United States consulate in Istanbul attack

The 2008 United States consulate in Istanbul attack was a result of gunfire on the consulate resulting in six casualties; of which three were the three gunmen, and three Turkish National Police officers. The attack occurred on July 9, 2008 in the morning hours, at a time when the embassy is at full function and an attack is most likely to cause more casualties.

The unsuccessful attack showed that the (new) consulate grounds were safe for the American diplomatic staff.

2008 United States consulate in Istanbul attack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Redfish]

You lost, get over it.

What did I lose?

Apparently your pride in being a decent human being somewhere along the line,

but specifically, you lost the argument on Benghazi.

People like me were right all along; there is no need to re-litigate this issue just because you 'nuts on the right can never admit when you were wrong.

Wrong again, we "nuts on the right" do admit it when we are wrong. But we are not wrong about Benghazi and the FACT that those 4 american deaths were directly caused by Hillary and Obama not wanting to admit to a terrorist attack just before the election----------so they let americans die for political gain.

Those are the facts that you "nuts on the left" cannot bring yourselves to admit because it would prove that your entire progressive movement is a sham and based on a pack of lies told by a pack of liars.

 

[Clementine]

If we were to believe it was spontaneous and based on a youtube video, then we'd have to say that all the attacks in the area were also spontaneous. There were public threats made against Ambassador Stevens in the weeks prior to the 9/11 attack. There had also been an explosion at the embassy, where a hole was made in the wall that was said to be large enough for a small army to get through. I'm sure that came in handy when the 9/11 attack was launched.

It has also come out that funding was not a factor in security. Even if, for the sake of argument, there wasn't money for additional security (maybe there wasn't enough left after sending all the aid to other countries and funding ridiculous things like marriage studies), there was money to keep the current security at the embassy. The State Dept. was well aware of all the attacks in the area and the threats made to Stevens. That alone warranted either more security or removing the personnel from the embassy. Other countries took measures to protect their people. What has yet to be explained was removing security just prior to the 9/11 anniversary attack amidst threats and previous attacks.

The writing was on the wall, as they say. In this case, the 'writing' was the huge hole blown through the wall. Removing the security and not removing personnel reeks of conspiracy. Giving stand down orders also supports the testimony of a general who said it was not only planned, but done so with the knowledge of the administration. If the administration was complacent, then they have much explaining to do about why they left the ambassador and his people in jeopardy when they knew their lives were at risk.

It takes money to move people, supply them with weapons and even flags to burn. I bought my husband a flag a few years ago and it was rather pricey. Those terrorists always seem to have large flags to desecrate. Poor people just don't have that kind of money. The demonstrators were supposedly poor, yet would have had access to the internet and the intelligence to search for any video that may offend them. Unlikely. Having weapons and the ability to launch a number of attacks isn't something done by a small group of average Muslims. Or are they average? That is a whole other thread.

Bottom line is that the attack should have been predicted under the circumstances and instead of taking precautions, the administration took security away. Then they refused to allow our people to take action. Even if you believe the stories about other things, the above is indisputable and remains unexplained.

It had to be planned because the terrorists knew where Stevens was after he and others took off for the safe house. That takes inside knowledge. And they were so well-armed, which means someone with deep pockets was backing them.

 

[zeke]

I have laughed for two days reading all the convoluted explanations for Benghazi. Most on the left seem to say it was a spontaneous attack based on a video while at the same time saying "it was an act of terror."

Well folks...if it was an act of terror it was by definition a planned and coordinated terror attack. So which is it? Video and spontaneous uprising, or a planned terrorist attack?

It is time to take a stand. Which is it? And btw...an Obama all the above weasel answer does not cut it. Either it was planned and coordinated or it was not. So which is it?

What do I fucking win IF I tell you?

 

[rightwinger]

Yeah, like Arabs are organized enough to form a quick response team.

Israel perhaps, but Arabs FFS?

How much planning does it take to provoke an angry mob?

An angry mob doesn't carry military mortors around to demonstrations and doesn't have the training to accurately fire them.

No they don't

But they do provide an excellent shield while you bring your mortars in