Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Ahhh yes, the old "it hasn't been totally dis-proven either" argument. Let's just keep looking until we find the smoking gun, or the 2016 election...which ever comes sooner.
The NYT article doesn't preclude a larger conspiracy but tries to minimize the blame, or the conspiracy it admits existed, on merely local militias.
You're using the old "it hasn't been proven" argument, even though a mass of evidence suggests otherwise.
And about the 2016 election--let's just stop looking until then. As you like to say, it cuts both ways.
I don't think the NYT report is dismissive of alQaeda links at all, rather, they get down to what it really means. Sharing some common viewpoints isn't an "affiliation". Having some level of acquaintance isn't "coordination". The important question is if core alQaeda influenced/funded/collaborated etc... in the attack. I've still not seen anything that indicated this is the case.
The article that inspired this thread claimed the NYT article found no evidence of an al Qaeda involvement. To which you replied that it helped to confirm the obvious. Now you have evolved to saying that you don't think it was dismissive of al Qaeda links at all. That's progress.
And, yes, by various definitions the sharing of common viewpoints among "extremists" or "jihadists" does involve an "affiliation."
Wiki definition of al Qaeda includes:
"Al Qaeda's operations have devolved from actions that were controlled from top down to actions by franchise associated groups, to actions of lone wolfs.
"Activities ascribed to it may involve members of the movement . . . or the much more numerous al Qaeda linked individuals . . . it has emerged as a decentralized leadership of regional groups using the al Qaeda "brand."
". . . experts argue that al Qaeda has fragmented over the years into a variety of regional movements that have little connection with one another."
Osama Bin Laden himself said al Qaeda is not what the west portrays it to be. He claims that all Muslims are "the children of an Islamic Nation" and that his group of leaders/teachers are part of that Nation and inseparable from all the public "demonstrations" occurring throughout the world.
He issued various Fatwahs calling for jihad worldwide against those who were enemies of Islam, such as Americans and their allies--to be carried out by all Muslims, not just "all Qaeda." In essence, those calls were a unifying element of most terrorist, jihadist groups.
Wiki says the 2012 Benghazi attack ". . . is suspected of having been carried out by various jihadist networks, such as al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, Ansar al Sharia and several other AFFILIATED groups." And that large groups such as Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad cooperate with al Qaeda.
Even non-Muslims can be inspired by Bin Laden's rhetoric, as was the perpetrator of the 2011 Norway attacks who was inspired by al Qaeda calling it "the most successful revolutionary movement in the world."
"Core al Qaeda" as you refer to it, is comprised of a relatively few members. But they infiltrate and inspire as well as create various apparently disconnected groups to act with the "al Qaeda brand."
alQaeda seems to have become almost a generic word for terrorism when it suits the agenda.
It has become so because of its success in influencing disparate "terrorist" groups to preach the same jihadist rhetoric it espouses. And because they are all part of the same "Nation" that Bin Laden claims. And to act up in similar types of rallies or "protests" with all too similar results.
As well, "core al Qaeda" has specifically stated that it does not always wish to attach its name to various groups that it is affiliated with and is perfectly willing to let them take full credit, it they wish, for whatever they do. It has increasingly become more prone to do this for security reasons.
Good perspective here...
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...-al-qaeda.html
The article doesn't contradict the Administration's initial claims of the video, if anything it bolsters them. There appears to be substantial evidence indicating the video played a role, likely the timing for the attack which had only been loosely planned to that point. The fact that heavily armed extremists quickly moved in was a central line to the Administration narrative from the beginning...
-spence |
The NYT article as well as this one don't actually bolster the Administration's claims, they try to deflect from the incompetence of the Administrations handling of the affair. Like the magician who actively uses one hand to create "magic" and all the while distracts the viewer from focusing on the other hand which is manipulating the "slight of hand." Both articles focus, on the one hand, on the rather bogus issue of al Qaeda participation rather than, on the other hand, the actual security issues and disregard for calls to help. As Hillary would say "what does it matter" if it was al Qaeda or unconnected local militias? The results are the same. Handling the situation would not have to differ in either case.
But, though focusing on al Qaeda or no al Qaeda distracts from the handling, focusing on your author's assertion that "turning al Qaeda into a radically loose term is different from observing, correctly, that al Qaeda today involves decentralized local affiliates" does something other than bolster the Administrations "narrative." It shows its incompetence in another, more dangerous way. The author of your article makes the statement as if it were a new, profound, revelation.
The fact is, what he describes has been known for quite a while. Witness Wiki's definitions. There have been many articles, interviews, radio talk shows with Middle East "experts" and Jihadist "experts" who have specifically pointed out that al Qaeda is comprised not only of a small "core," but is disseminated through many diverse affiliated groups, many of which, as they did in Benghazi, fly the black flag. It has been known that "core" al Qaeda has long since disguised itself through infiltrated or created groups with other names. And though your author's assertion that the Administration not being aware of the diversity should allow "in a rational political environment, the President's opponents" to "see this as damning", the contrary fact that they don't see the connection, the similarities of the diverse elements, is even more incompetent.
Both your article and the NYT article actually condemn the Administration in their attempt to exonerate it.
For further explanation of al Qaeda involvement see
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/rya...ltrated-libya/
See also:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...te_772398.html
And see also a more lengthy:
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/aq-libya-loc.pdf