Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
I don't think anyone ever doubted the contribution of Ansar al Sharia, hell, 30,000 Benghazi's protested stormed their headquarters in response to the attack.
But you're trying to dodge the question. If previous al Qaeda behavior diminishes the potential role of the video, yet, it can't be shown that it was an al Qaeda attack, then what's the point?
|
al Qaeda did attack. And that has been shown. That others may have attacked as well doesn't mean that al Qaeda didn't. Two "core" al Qaeda groups, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula were part of the attack. And at least two al Qaeda affiliated groups, the aforementioned Ansar al Sharia and the Mohammad Jamal network, the latter being very closely allied with al Qaeda. And it has been shown that they had leadership roles in the attack. And it has been shown that the attack was planned, not spontaneous.
Well, if it was planned, who was in on the planning? Certainly not the supposed unaffiliated video-angry folks spontaneously deciding on a whim to destroy and kill. And if such folks were part of it, they were most likely egged on by others who were in control of the planning and execution of the attack. And how did al Qaeda and its affiliates just happen to come by fully armed with big weapons and all join in on the spontaneity? It's ridiculous to believe that Al Qaeda, some of its affiliates and some militia which had the same tactics and common ideology as al Qaeda just spontaneously coalesced into the attack.
And arguing over the silly proposition that it was a spontaneous attack, having nothing to do with previous al Qaeda behavior, or with core common ideological similarities of the "radical" Islamists involved in the attack is a way of deflecting from what many of us here have said are failed policies which should greatly "tarnish," to borrow a word from you, the political aspiration of H. Clinton.
You wonder at the failure of those who just can't see that the video can be a part of the equation, that it can be a co-factor since it has not been "proven" that it isn't. In the larger picture of failed policy and deceit, others wonder "what difference does it make" if it is or isn't, and why you must insist that it is.
In that you can't prove a negative, what is the importance of "some" spontaneity in the mix of a planned attack by al Qaeda-like groups and individuals? Other than, of course, to deflect from the broader picture of failed policy which was far more important in and causative of the attack.
You claim to have read all the reports. But there appear to be several reports that you haven't read, or as is your habit/tactic, just ignore as if they don't exist.