• Was Benghazi Attack on U.S. Consulate an Inside Job?
    37 replies, posted
[IMG]http://cdn.thedailybeast.com/content/newsweek/2012/10/28/was-benghazi-attack-on-u-s-consulate-an-inside-job/_jcr_content/body/inlineimage.img.503.jpg/1351379372476.cached.jpg[/IMG] [QUOTE]The sun had risen over a hazy Benghazi about an hour earlier, and as he grabbed the wheel of his militia’s beaten-up white Toyota pickup, 42-year-old Ibn Febrayir (not his real name) groused to himself that this was no way to treat an ambassador, especially U.S. envoy Christopher Stevens. He had heard war tales about the lanky, good-natured Californian. How he had ventured to the shifting front lines during the uprising against Muammar Gaddafi and during lulls shared the rebels’ impromptu meals, ready to swap jokes and flash a winning smile, even when regime forces were mounting a counter-offensive.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Febrayir was dog-tired. His wife had been calling him incessantly all night and he hadn’t answered. Earlier he’d led an unsuccessful relief effort on the U.S. consulate after Salafist militants had launched an assault on the mission on the night of Sept. 11—but with his detachment being fired on, and the roads around the consulate blocked, he hadn’t been able to reach it in time. Later he had met eight U.S. Marines at Benghazi’s airport and accompanied them with a ragtag force of about 30 fighters to the so-called annex, the CIA compound, where an assortment of Americans—diplomats, guards, and intelligence officers—were waiting impatiently to be evacuated. He had been shot at and, he suspected, betrayed. He was in no mood for any more surprises. He tugged at his closely cropped beard. As he drove through the gates of the Benghazi Medical Center, he looked in his mirror to check on the two men in the back. He’d ordered them to sit on either side of the ambassador to keep the body on a plastic stretcher from sliding off the short flatbed. “This is no way to treat an ambassador,” he muttered again. And then he drove at high speed toward the airport through a Benghazi that was slowly waking from the nighttime mayhem. The story of the night America lost its first ambassador since 1979 to violence is like a jigsaw puzzle—the pieces are fitting together slowly and the picture is emerging but is still not complete and might not be for months. In trying to figure out the puzzle, U.S. investigators are not being helped by the lack of reliable information coming from Tripoli. The inquiry that Libyan leaders promised the day after the attack has stalled. Who’s in charge? No one really knows. “That’s a million-dollar question,” admits an adviser to Deputy Prime Minister Mustafa Abushugar. Accompanied by aides, he turns and asks them who’s now formally heading the probe. Debate ensues and it is hazarded that the attorney general might be in charge. An adviser to Mohamed al-Magarief, the president of the General National Congress, the country’s parliament, concedes nothing much is happening with the inquiry and acknowledges that American officials in Washington, D.C., are frustrated by the lack of progress. “In some ways and at some level, they are understanding, but it isn’t a good answer to give them. They can see our difficulties—we don’t have the organization or the authority to push the inquiry,” he says. “But they are under pressure themselves—especially with the election days away.” The election tick-tock unnerves Libyan leaders. They worry that President Barack Obama may do something precipitous, especially if his poll numbers drop. They worry about a drone strike on targets in eastern Libya—that would be a gift to jihadists, they say. Do the Americans have targets? Magarief’s adviser thinks they may—though he doesn’t know whether they would include the masterminds behind the attack on Stevens. “They had surveillance drones monitoring that night. They will have identified some people and traced where they are now.” And, of course, the information on jihadists and militants in Libya being gathered by more than a dozen intelligence agents and contractors in the CIA compound before Sept. 11 is likely also to be useful in the hunt. When one tries to piece together the story of what happened in Benghazi, discrepancies stand out. For one thing, the timing of events given by officials in Washington, Tripoli, and Benghazi don’t quite match. The State Department timeline is at variance with the recollection of Libyans manning the Benghazi combined operations room, a coordinating center between the various revolutionary militias “approved” by the government, located a 10-minute drive from the U.S. consulate. The Libyans have the attack starting between 8:30 and 9 p.m. The Americans place it at about 9:40 p.m. The Libyans have the American security guards fleeing the consulate with the body of Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith, one of the four Americans killed that night, in an armored SUV 45 minutes to an hour earlier than the Americans do, at around 10 p.m.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/28/was-benghazi-attack-on-u-s-consulate-an-inside-job.html[/url] article is 4 pages so every Conservative "news" entity, such as Fox News, is talking of "Benghazi-gate", yes they are comparing the terrorist attack to a US diplomat and officers to Richard's Nixon's Watergate Scandal. What is "Benghazi-gate"? It's a theory that Obama let the attack happen...for some reason which they won't quit say, but ranges from "he's an idiot" to "he is pacifist" etc. [URL="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-oped-1028-page-20121028,0,4145948.column"]Some have also countered the claims[/URL], but well you know how these things always end up. This is basically the new "birther" movement/thing
Bush let 4k americans die under his watch, in the second worse plane bombing on American soil.
[QUOTE=Nikota;38229939]Bush let 4k americans die under his watch, in the second worse plane bombing on American soil.[/QUOTE] hey guys before you rate this dumb there is no mention of it being an inside job just that bush was incompetent
Betteridge's Law, anyone?
Uhm. I was calling the conservatives hypocritical for trying to pin this as a huge deal that he totally could have prevented. Terrorists attacks happen and sometimes we cant stop them.
[QUOTE=Nikota;38229939] in the second worse plane bombing on American soil.[/QUOTE] It was actually the worse
jews did benghazi, blame obongo's communist regime to make everyone socialist but seriously how do people come up with this
i'd like to see some proof the bush administration could've stopped 9/11, Nikota.
[QUOTE=space toe;38230072]i'd like to see some proof the bush administration could've stopped 9/11, Nikota.[/QUOTE] That was his point
Oh for God's sake
Well. The NYPD has .50 cal sniper rifles.
[QUOTE=Nikota;38229985]Uhm. I was calling the conservatives hypocritical for trying to pin this as a huge deal that he totally could have prevented. Terrorists attacks happen and sometimes we cant stop them.[/QUOTE] Why is this such a big deal anyway? Two people died, hardly a tremendous number.
[QUOTE=The Baconator;38229857][IMG]http://cdn.thedailybeast.com/content/newsweek/2012/10/28/was-benghazi-attack-on-u-s-consulate-an-inside-job/_jcr_content/body/inlineimage.img.503.jpg/1351379372476.cached.jpg[/IMG] [URL]http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/28/was-benghazi-attack-on-u-s-consulate-an-inside-job.html[/URL] article is 4 pages so every Conservative "news" entity, such as Fox News, is talking of "Benghazi-gate", yes they are comparing the terrorist attack to a US diplomat and officers to Richard's Nixon's Watergate Scandal. What is "Benghazi-gate"? It's a theory that Obama let the attack happen...for some reason which they won't quit say, but ranges from "he's an idiot" to "he is pacifist" etc. [URL="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-oped-1028-page-20121028,0,4145948.column"]Some have also countered the claims[/URL], but well you know how these things always end up. This is basically the new "birther" movement/thing[/QUOTE] Or maybe they think he let it happen because if it was actually a terrorist attack it would be contradicting everything he's been saying up to this point? That it was not actually a terrorist attack, and it was a bunch of people pissed off over the movie?
[QUOTE=Strongbad;38230158]Or maybe they think he let it happen because if it was actually a terrorist attack it would be contradicting everything he's been saying up to this point? That it was not actually a terrorist attack, and it was a bunch of people pissed off over the movie?[/QUOTE]Err, what? The fuck does that even mean?
[QUOTE=Nikota;38230118]Well. The NYPD has .50 cal sniper rifles.[/QUOTE] Anti-vehicle/obstacle (person behind a wall or whatever)
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;38230157]Why is this such a big deal anyway? Two people died, hardly a tremendous number.[/QUOTE] 4
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;38230175]Err, what? The fuck does that even mean?[/QUOTE] Keep in mind I'm not saying I believe this, but Obama has been making a pretty big fucking deal over that one anti-Islam movie, spreading it everywhere and apologizing for it constantly. This is really not helping keep it under wraps and keep the rage over it down. That isn't the point, though. The point is that if this was a coordinated terror attack, Obama would have been lying about it, and if Obama is lying about something, his opponents will be on that shit like white on rice, just like Romney's opponents would be all over it if HE lied. [editline]29th October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Elecbullet;38230157]Why is this such a big deal anyway? Two people died, hardly a tremendous number.[/QUOTE] "Hey, sir, your son is dead, but hey, it was just two people. I mean, sure, he was one, but it's only two people, right? That isn't much, you know?"
It was Libya and people had weapons. People were angry at something in America and the nearest thing related to that is the consulate. Terrorists attacks aren't always this big plot.
[QUOTE=Strongbad;38230226]Keep in mind I'm not saying I believe this, but Obama has been making a pretty big fucking deal over that one anti-Islam movie, spreading it everywhere and apologizing for it constantly. This is really not helping keep it under wraps and keep the rage over it down. That isn't the point, though. The point is that if this was a coordinated terror attack, Obama would have been lying about it, and if Obama is lying about something, his opponents will be on that shit like white on rice, just like Romney's opponents would be all over it if HE lied.[/QUOTE]They said it was about the video at first because that was the most credible lead they had was that the protests over it had become incredibly violent. Eventually they found more evidence to the contrary and adjusted accordingly. He wasn't lying, they just didn't have all the information yet and when everyone wanted answers, they gave the one that had the most credibility at the time. After 9/11 Bush started a war in two separate countries, one which had absolutely nothing to do with the attack, and the other which only had the vaguest of relevance possible.
[QUOTE=Strongbad;38230158]Or maybe they think he let it happen because if it was actually a terrorist attack it would be contradicting everything he's been saying up to this point? That it was not actually a terrorist attack, and it was a bunch of people pissed off over the movie?[/QUOTE] he said it was a terrorist attack the day it happened did you not even watch the presidential debate? do you seriously believe after being corrected a billion times of all the false information you have posted on this site that it'd work this time? [editline]28th October 2012[/editline] oh excuse me, he called it an "act of terror"
//
[QUOTE=The Baconator;38229857][IMG]http://cdn.thedailybeast.com/content/newsweek/2012/10/28/was-benghazi-attack-on-u-s-consulate-an-inside-job/_jcr_content/body/inlineimage.img.503.jpg/1351379372476.cached.jpg[/IMG] [url]http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/28/was-benghazi-attack-on-u-s-consulate-an-inside-job.html[/url] article is 4 pages so every Conservative "news" entity, such as Fox News, is talking of "Benghazi-gate", yes they are comparing the terrorist attack to a US diplomat and officers to Richard's Nixon's Watergate Scandal. What is "Benghazi-gate"? It's a theory that Obama let the attack happen...for some reason which they won't quit say, but ranges from "he's an idiot" to "he is pacifist" etc. [URL="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-oped-1028-page-20121028,0,4145948.column"]Some have also countered the claims[/URL], but well you know how these things always end up. This is basically the new "birther" movement/thing[/QUOTE] My dad is buying this garbage. The "rationale" is that there is a big proxy war between the USA and Iran-Russia in Syria right now. Libya was being used to smuggle arms via Turkey into Syria to support the FSA, but the Iranians/Russians caught wind of it and supported an attack on Benghazi since the ambassador dude there was supposedly overseeing the transfer of arms. Instead of actually fighting off the attack or rescuing the ambassador, the administration allowed the attack to go through, blaming it on terrorists and that youtube video because it is more convenient than coming clean with the whole proxy war thing. It's honestly not amazingly far fetched. Weirder shit has happened. However, I haven't seen any actual evidence that this is what is going on outside of some wild postulation from the right wing.
The world lost a good man in that attack, and now the conservatives are trying to milk the event? Fuck off. We will always remember Vile Rat.
[QUOTE=space toe;38230201]Anti-vehicle/obstacle (person behind a wall or whatever)[/QUOTE] They need shit like that when probing the enemy defenses in Brooklyn.
[QUOTE=nikomo;38230830]The world lost a good man in that attack, and now the conservatives are trying to milk the event? Fuck off.[/QUOTE] This is all I can think of when I hear Benghazi. It was an unfortunate incident that's been turned into a political weapon by the right. It sickens and depresses me.
[QUOTE=Nikota;38229985]Uhm. I was calling the conservatives hypocritical for trying to pin this as a huge deal that he totally could have prevented. Terrorists attacks happen and sometimes we cant stop them.[/QUOTE] It could have be prevented if the security there wasn't pulled out leaving the consulate severely vulnerable.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;38231756]It could have be prevented if the security there wasn't pulled out leaving the consulate severely vulnerable.[/QUOTE] Wasn't it reported awhile back that the place was guarded by some Libyan Soldiers? And that a Libyan Militia even jumped into the fray at one point to help defend the Consulate? Or am I thinking of another place?
[QUOTE=Strongbad;38230226] "Hey, sir, your son is dead, but hey, it was just two people. I mean, sure, he was one, but it's only two people, right? That isn't much, you know?"[/QUOTE] don't be stupid, even though death's always serious business this wasn't grand enough to make a meaningful conspiracy which fox news is trying to make it out to be to undermine Obama's government. Edit: It's oddly contradictory how people always go "WOW, what a MASSIVE TRAGEDY" when a billion people die in some atrocity in africa but don't really care, but when a couple of people die and it's on a personal level people take it to heart.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;38231821]Wasn't it reported awhile back that the place was guarded by some Libyan Soldiers? And that a Libyan Militia even jumped into the fray at one point to help defend the Consulate? Or am I thinking of another place?[/QUOTE] The Libyan people came in after the fighting and recovered the Ambassador's body. The only security were 2 ex SEALs, one who had only arrived days before the attack. They weren't even there when the fighting started and denied orders to stand down so they could go defend the consulate. Ryan made a good point about the Ambassador in France having a Marine detachment guarding him. Why a US diplomat would have virtually no security in a country that just ended a bloody civil war is beyond me. Especially when Libya has a known Al-Qaeda presence and had been previously attacked multiple times.
Fox news had a big 1 hour special on the whole ordeal. Never heard anyone say it was an inside job though. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTH7ki3Ma6o[/media] Here's the thing. Take it for what you will. Tells you what they're thinking, anyhow. It's Conservatively... tuned, so be warned.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.