Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
The NY Times article which you claim captures the most likely scenario does not preclude a conspiracy. It tries to minimize it and distance it from major Islamist "extremists." And it doesn't mention the name Hillary Clinton.
|
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.
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.
alQaeda seems to have become almost a generic word for terrorism when it suits the agenda.
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
Threaded Mode