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

[WelfareQueen]

As a rule angry mobs don't spontaneously show up with automatic weapons, rocket propelled grenades, and motors. So I go with planned attack.

I go with a planned attack that was in part due to the video.

OMG! A third possibility that was completely ignored by the OP and its poll! Alert the media!


Oh, wait. No need to alert the media. That's exactly what the NYT is saying. The attack was planned and due in part to the video. And it was not Al Qaeda.


Well, it looks like we're finally done here.

According to who?

 

[g5000]

As a rule angry mobs don't spontaneously show up with automatic weapons, rocket propelled grenades, and motors. So I go with planned attack.

I go with a planned attack that was in part due to the video.

OMG! A third possibility that was completely ignored by the OP and its poll! Alert the media!


Oh, wait. No need to alert the media. That's exactly what the NYT is saying. The attack was planned and due in part to the video. And it was not Al Qaeda.


Well, it looks like we're finally done here.

According to who?

Didja read the NYT article?

I'm guessing not, or you would not have asked. God forbid you read something which might contradict the carefully manufactured mountain of bullshit fed to you for the past year.

ETA: See post 16.

 

[Kosh]

I guess the NY Times forgot they posted this:

A Deadly Mix in Benghazi

The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia

 

[g5000]

I guess the NY Times forgot they posted this:

A Deadly Mix in Benghazi

The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia

Ah, this will save WelfareQueen from having to go back to post 16:

Reports of the video were just beginning to spread on Sept. 9 when Mr. McFarland, then the officer normally in charge of politics and economics at the United States Embassy in Tripoli, had his meeting with the Benghazi militia leaders. Among them were some of the same men who had greeted Mr. Stevens when he arrived in Benghazi at the start of the revolt, including Mr. Gharabi, 39, a heavyset former Abu Salim inmate who ran a local sandwich truck before becoming the leader of the Rafallah al-Sehati. Another was Wissam bin Hamid, also 39, a slim and slightly hunched mechanic known for his skill with American cars who by then had become the leader of Libya Shield, considered one of the strongest militias in Libya.

In an interview, Mr. Gharabi said that he had known about the building rage in Egypt over the video, but that, “We did not know if it was going to reach us here.”
Mr. McFarland seemed most concerned about the big militia leaders. “'How do the revolutionaries feel about having relationships with Western countries? What is your opinion about the United States?'” the Americans asked, according to Mr. Gharabi. It was “an interrogation,” he said.

“We told them that we hoped that the countries which helped us during the war would now help us in development,” he said. “And America was at the top of the pyramid.”

But Mr. Gharabi and two other Libyan militia leaders present said separately that they tried to warn Mr. McFarland. “We told them, ‘Weapons are everywhere, in every home, and there is no real control,' ” Mr. Bin Hamid of Libya Shield said.

Mr. McFarland struggled to make sense of their contradictory signals. “The message was, ‘Don’t come here because there is no security, but come right away because we need you,' ” Mr. McFarland later told colleagues.

The militia leaders seemed unable to get their stories straight, his colleagues said, and the vague warnings amounted to a reminder of what the diplomats already knew: Post-revolutionary Benghazi was a dangerous place.

Around dusk, the Pan-Arab satellite networks began broadcasting footage of protesters breaching the walls of the American Embassy in Cairo, pulling down the American flag and running up the black banner of militant Islam. Young men around Benghazi began calling one another with the news, several said, and many learned of the video for the first time.

There is no doubt that anger over the video motivated many attackers. A Libyan journalist working for The New York Times was blocked from entering by the sentries outside, and he learned of the film from the fighters who stopped him. Other Libyan witnesses, too, said they received lectures from the attackers about the evil of the film and the virtue of defending the prophet.

 

[g5000]

See? You take out "spontaneous", and you have both. A planned attack that was partly inspired by the video.

The flaw was assuming the only way anger over the video could manifest itself would be spontaneously.

 

[g5000]

The lying piece of Egyption Coptic Christian shit who made the incendiary film was trying to get the hothead Muslims to kill Israelis, but instead we have four dead Americans, including a gay Ambassador.

Something for everyone to get excited about!

 

[deltex1]

The poll says it all...da truf will out!

 

[deltex1]

The lying piece of Egyption Coptic Christian shit who made the incendiary film was trying to get the hothead Muslims to kill Israelis, but instead we have four dead Americans, including a gay Ambassador.

Something for everyone to get excited about!

You left out the sniveling negro and incompetent beotch..

 

[Kosh]

I see the far left is still cherry picking:


Lawmaker: If CNN can interview suspect in Benghazi attack, why can't FBI?
Lawmaker: If CNN can interview Benghazi suspect, why can't FBI? - CNN.com

The New York Times’ Benghazi Revisionism
The New York Times? Benghazi Revisionism | FrontPage Magazine

Ex-CIA analyst: NYT Benghazi article ‘an effort to revive discredited theory’ of anti-Islam video
Read more: Ex-CIA analyst: NYT Benghazi article 'an effort to revive discredited theory' of anti-Islam video | The Daily Caller

Can you tell that the far left press is setting up for a 2016 run for Hilary?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Yes, let’s decide the matter once and for all with an anonymous message board poll – of course it’s just as valid as anything House republicans have done, if not more so.

 

[Kosh]

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

Yes, let’s decide the matter once and for all with an anonymous message board poll – of course it’s just as valid as anything House republicans have done, if not more so.

Says the far left Obama drone.

 

[TooTall]

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

Yes, let’s decide the matter once and for all with an anonymous message board poll – of course it’s just as valid as anything House republicans have done, if not more so.

It is equally as valid as taking the word of the terrorists and self-serving Libyans that were intervewed by the NYT.

At least many on USMB heard testimony from Americans that were there.

Do you really think the attack was the act of a 'spontaneous' demonstration?

 

[Vox]

Of course it was planned.

 

[blackhawk]

Something I have found fairly funny since this story came out is people saying Al-Qaeda was not involved because the attack was not planned or ordered by Ayman al-Zawahiri but by the some of the Al-Qaeda off shoots the implication being it was not really a Al-Qaeda operation. That is like saying that the underground resistance movements in countries occupied by the Nazis in WW2 were not part of the allies because they carried out attacks against the Nazis without orders from the Supreme allied commander.

 

[1776]

A mob doesn't show up with AK47s, grenades and RPGs then use them to kill 3 former SOF personnel guarding the facility.

 

[Dragonlady]

And still the right-wingers here disregard the CIA's request that the Administration follow the terrorist video story line to protect their surveillance of the terrorist group, and the Republicans' outing of that surveillance for political gain.

The Republicans' need to call Obama a liar was so much more important than actually catching the terrorists, especially since catching Obama in a lie makes him look bad, and the Administration capturing the terrorists and bringing them to justice, would make Obama look good.

Face it. The Republicans didn't give a rat's ass about the Ambassador or the Seals. All they really cared about was to use these deaths for their own political gain. And most of the posters in this thread are more than happy to let them get away with it.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Obama hasn't done shit to capture anyone. What the hell are you talking about?

 

[Mojo2]

Someone needs to tell me how and why the WH thinks it makes a difference whether al Qaeda was or wasn't responsible for the Benghazi murders.

It was Islamist radicals who wish to conquer the world and defeat America along the way.

Al Qaeda. Hamas. Al Fatah. Abu Sayaf. Hezboallah. Freelancers like the Boston Marathon bombers. The Taliban. The Muslim Brotherhood. Any of these or hundreds of other terrorist groups or millions of obedient Muslims could have and would have taken part, enthusiastically, in the murders.

So somebody PLEASE tell me how and why Obama is pushing this bullshit assertion that al Qaeda wasn't involved when it makes no difference?

It would be like the Taliban arguing whether the drone missile that blew up their 6th in line leader was a CIA drone strike or an Air Force drone strike or a U.S. Navy drone strike.

What does it matter?

 

[Mojo2]

And still the right-wingers here disregard the CIA's request that the Administration follow the terrorist video story line to protect their surveillance of the terrorist group, and the Republicans' outing of that surveillance for political gain.

The Republicans' need to call Obama a liar was so much more important than actually catching the terrorists, especially since catching Obama in a lie makes him look bad, and the Administration capturing the terrorists and bringing them to justice, would make Obama look good.

Face it. The Republicans didn't give a rat's ass about the Ambassador or the Seals. All they really cared about was to use these deaths for their own political gain. And most of the posters in this thread are more than happy to let them get away with it.

Are you made stupid because of your hatred or your blindness or because you are a Liberal?

It makes little difference because you are just dog wrong.

 

[Dragonlady]

And still the right-wingers here disregard the CIA's request that the Administration follow the terrorist video story line to protect their surveillance of the terrorist group, and the Republicans' outing of that surveillance for political gain.

The Republicans' need to call Obama a liar was so much more important than actually catching the terrorists, especially since catching Obama in a lie makes him look bad, and the Administration capturing the terrorists and bringing them to justice, would make Obama look good.

Face it. The Republicans didn't give a rat's ass about the Ambassador or the Seals. All they really cared about was to use these deaths for their own political gain. And most of the posters in this thread are more than happy to let them get away with it.

Are you made stupid because of your hatred or your blindness or because you are a Liberal?

It makes little difference because you are just dog wrong.

And once again, a poster who has nothing to offer in rebuttal, launches a personal attack. When you can't attack the facts, you attack the person.

There was no hate in my post. I just pointed out that the Republicans used the deaths in Benghazi for political gain. That's a new low for the Republicans. Deaths of US citizens in service to their country have never been used by the opposition party for political gain in the past. But every time we think that Republicans have reached the bottom in terms of pandering for votes, they find new ways to lower the bar.