When is Jim in NJ

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

The Rice comments that caused such a fluppor never "concluded" it was a spontaneous protest...

What she said was:
The beginning of what you quote her as saying was: ". . . based on the information that we have at present, is that, IN FACT, what this began as, it was a spontaneous--not a premeditated--response to what had inspired in Cairo."--emphasis mine. I don't know if a FACT is conclusive to you, but I assume that you would arrive at conclusions with facts. Maybe not. And if you're quibbling about the word "protest" as opposed to her use of the word "response" that she used to describe what "in fact" happened, the "response" was to, as she says, a "protest" in Cairo. I would assume from that, therefore, that the "response" was also a "protest." And it was untrue that the information they had at the time IN FACT corroborated that the attack was a spontaneous response to the video. For sure, they were told by Ham that it was a terrorist attack, not spontaneous, and any conflicting "reports" would have been enough to hold off on a conclusion/theory/conjecture/whatever that IN FACT the attack was "spontaneous--not premeditated."

She goes on, in your quote, to say: "We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to . . . replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo." She had already characterized that "challenge" as a "violent protest" to the video. If that was so, then this elusive "small number of people came to the embassy to" "replicate" violent protest. So it was intended to be, by her own rhetoric, violent. So how and why was it necessary to conclude (oops)--theorize--that this replicated challenge was "hijacked . . . by individual clusters of extremists" with the heavier weapons? What? . . . were the "small number who came to "replicate" the violence in Cairo going to do so without weapons? "And then it evolved from there."?


Which given the NYT article and the recent Senate report (and so much other reporting) seems quite plausible.

It's more plausible, using Occam's razor, that the simpler explanation which would remove more elements in an argument than are necessary, is that those who came to the embassy in the first place was not a small number of regular folks who merely wanted to replicate the violence of Cairo, but were folks who had intentions to do what, in fact, "evolved." And that is what further investigation has concluded to have happened.

What I don't understand is, what prohibits a terror attack's timing from being linked to furor over a video? Isn't it quite possible they've been thinking of an attack for some time and the events around the region -- there was more than just Egypt -- gave them some inspiration? Ham's remarks about no specific intel on the attack would certainly back this thinking.

That is exactly what I have been saying. The fabricated "furor" was inspired by a video DISSEMINATED by jihadists specifically to do so. The video was not a catalyst, it was a tool. It's dissemination and use were not accidental, it was all intentional. It was a "plausible" cover as much as a fictitious instigator for what the jihadists wanted to accomplish. Exactly as you surmise--they were thinking of an attack for some time. And the "events around the region" were also not spontaneous reactions, but were also instigated by jihadist elements (Al Qaeda brand elements).

Also, isn't it quite believable that a bunch of heavily armed, battle hardened veterans of the civil war would be able to assemble rapidly and coordinate an attack with RPG's and accurate small arms fire as Ham describes? Which is why Ham said it was a terrorist attack from the beginning, not a spontaneous protest. Hell, that's exactly what they had been doing against the Libyan army for the past year. Didn't the civil war actually start in Benghazi?

-spence

Why would the "heavily armed, battle hardened veterans of the civil war" want to "assemble rapidly" to torch the embassy which housed the people who were ostensibly on their side of the civil war? Unless they were actually opposed to those in the embassy? As is, and was and will be, Al Qaeda and its "affiliates."

If anything, veterans of the civil war against the Qaddafi regime, if they were that rather than anti-U.S. jihadists, would have PROTECTED the embassy from the supposed "small number of people" who came to the embassy to "replicate" the Cairo violence.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

he beginning of what you quote her as saying was: ". . . based on the information that we have at present, is that, IN FACT, what this began as, it was a spontaneous--not a premeditated--response to what had inspired in Cairo."--emphasis mine. I don't know if a FACT is conclusive to you, but I assume that you would arrive at conclusions with facts. Maybe not. And if you're quibbling about the word "protest" as opposed to her use of the word "response" that she used to describe what "in fact" happened, the "response" was to, as she says, a "protest" in Cairo. I would assume from that, therefore, that the "response" was also a "protest." And it was untrue that the information they had at the time IN FACT corroborated that the attack was a spontaneous response to the video. For sure, they were told by Ham that it was a terrorist attack, not spontaneous, and any conflicting "reports" would have been enough to hold off on a conclusion/theory/conjecture/whatever that IN FACT the attack was "spontaneous--not premeditated."

The word "fact" can represent something known to be true or something said to be true...based on the evidence today, the fact is...

She goes on, in your quote, to say: "We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to . . . replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo." She had already characterized that "challenge" as a "violent protest" to the video. If that was so, then this elusive "small number of people came to the embassy to" "replicate" violent protest. So it was intended to be, by her own rhetoric, violent. So how and why was it necessary to conclude (oops)--theorize--that this replicated challenge was "hijacked . . . by individual clusters of extremists" with the heavier weapons? What? . . . were the "small number who came to "replicate" the violence in Cairo going to do so without weapons? "And then it evolved from there."?

It was reported at the scene that outrage over the video was a reason for the attack. If this was just an excuse or a deke doesn't make is do the reporting never occurred. Given the events of the day -- I think there were multiple video related protests -- the storyline is certainly plausible.

It's more plausible, using Occam's razor, that the simpler explanation which would remove more elements in an argument than are necessary, is that those who came to the embassy in the first place was not a small number of regular folks who merely wanted to replicate the violence of Cairo, but were folks who had intentions to do what, in fact, "evolved." And that is what further investigation has concluded to have happened.

What's the significance of the difference?

That is exactly what I have been saying. The fabricated "furor" was inspired by a video DISSEMINATED by jihadists specifically to do so. The video was not a catalyst, it was a tool. It's dissemination and use were not accidental, it was all intentional. It was a "plausible" cover as much as a fictitious instigator for what the jihadists wanted to accomplish. Exactly as you surmise--they were thinking of an attack for some time. And the "events around the region" were also not spontaneous reactions, but were also instigated by jihadist elements (Al Qaeda brand elements).

This is precisely the problem Michael Scheurer explores in his book Imperial Hubris. That the inclination to lump various opposing factions together without regard for their individual motives inhibits our ability to respond effectively against any of them.

The militias have various interests and range from moderate to extreme. Calling for Sharia law doesn't make you alQaeda, it makes you an Islamic fundamentalist. Hell, Saudi Arabia's legal system is based on Sharia.

Now, it would be logical for disparate extremist groups to share some common brand identity. Certainly make marketing more efficient. If any one of these groups acts in their own interest that happens to be a shared interest does that make them alQaeda...is that what it means now? Does using violence to advance a goal of imposing Sharia Law make you alQaeda?

Certainly the influence of outside extremists, including alQaeda, has been increasing. That doesn't mean they directed the attack.

Why would the "heavily armed, battle hardened veterans of the civil war" want to "assemble rapidly" to torch the embassy which housed the people who were ostensibly on their side of the civil war? Unless they were actually opposed to those in the embassy? As is, and was and will be, Al Qaeda and its "affiliates."

Pssssstttt...because they were extremists. Don't tell anyone.

If anything, veterans of the civil war against the Qaddafi regime, if they were that rather than anti-U.S. jihadists, would have PROTECTED the embassy from the supposed "small number of people" who came to the embassy to "replicate" the Cairo violence.

Veterans of the civil war represent both moderates and extremists. For some time it appears Stevens felt they would offer adequate protection. Why is the idea that Khaddafi's opponents could have differing objectives beyond his overthrow so difficult to grasp?

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Doesn't it say the incident was avoidable? That there were unheeded warnings, so on and so forth, same old stuff . . . blah . . . blah . . . blah. Oh . . . but there was a mess up. Who shall we blame? Let's see, the buck . . . stops . . . here! (finger pointing to incompetent underlings). Funny how that never works in the real world . . . only in the la-la land of collegial politics.

Yes ,and isn't it amazing there were no consequences for the underlings or anyone else for the screw up? Seems like in this current administration all you have to say is "the buck stops here" and "we are looking into it." No, that is not the way it works in the real world, when people screw up there are consequences.
I would hope in the Super Bowl O'reilly interview with our President, he would be asked, where were you, who were you with, and what was your response the night of the attack.

I think the Administration's theme song is, "Time is on our side, yes it is, time is on our side" LOL,but really not funny.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

The word "fact" can represent something known to be true or something said to be true...based on the evidence today, the fact is...

If something is "known to be true," one can refer to it as being "in fact."

If something is not "known to be true," but only reported or said to be true, it cannot be said to be "in fact." Especially if you are getting "reports" to the contrary, which was the case here.

It was reported at the scene that outrage over the video was a reason for the attack. If this was just an excuse or a deke doesn't make is do the reporting never occurred. Given the events of the day -- I think there were multiple video related protests -- the storyline is certainly plausible.

Various possibilities may be "plausible." But plausibility is not in question here. What needs to be answered is why the rush to judgment in describing what the attack was, especially when strong evidence to the contrary is reported? And the continued narrative for another week?

What's the significance of the difference?

The difference is the significance between plausible deniability and the truth. Between culpability for what happened, and being exonerated from responsibility.

This is precisely the problem Michael Scheurer explores in his book Imperial Hubris. That the inclination to lump various opposing factions together without regard for their individual motives inhibits our ability to respond effectively against any of them.

Well, since the administration refused to see connections between "factions" (or whether they rightly saw disconnections), it failed to adequately protect the embassy. In terms of factional disparities or similarities, they failed in every respect. Since, in its view, Al Qaeda was not involved, why was "our ability to respond effectively against any of them" inhibited? And if they had understood and recognized Al Qaeda influence, would that have changed their perspective on the need to better protect the embassy?

The militias have various interests and range from moderate to extreme. Calling for Sharia law doesn't make you alQaeda, it makes you an Islamic fundamentalist. Hell, Saudi Arabia's legal system is based on Sharia.

Saudi Arabia didn't attack the Benghazi embassy. Those who did were not merely Islamic fundamentalists. They were jihadists of the "extreme" type. The type that Bin Laden called to action--in exactly the way the attackers acted.

Now, it would be logical for disparate extremist groups to share some common brand identity. Certainly make marketing more efficient. If any one of these groups acts in their own interest that happens to be a shared interest does that make them alQaeda...is that what it means now?

As has been stated a few times already (apparently not by Michael Scheurer so not of importance to you) that was the goal of Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda from the beginning. That such groups or individuals would do exactly what they are doing.

Does using violence to advance a goal of imposing Sharia Law make you alQaeda?

It affiliates you with Al Qaeda. As even major news agencies and analysts have agreed. As various "reports" have stated. The actual number of "core" Al Qaeda is small. It needs the cooperation and action of all the various "children of Islam" to do what it bids. The enemy of my enemy is my friend (affiliate).

Certainly the influence of outside extremists, including alQaeda, has been increasing. That doesn't mean they directed the attack.

It is not necessary for "core" Al Qaeda to direct an attack. That is not, nor ever was, the intention of "core" Al Qaeda. The intention was all along, and is, that various "local" groups or individuals do the attacking, and, lately, not even to acknowledge any Al Qaeda direction. And, I ask you again, why have you used the term "core" Al Qaeda, if you do not see Al Qaeda connection outside the "core"?

Veterans of the civil war represent both moderates and extremists. For some time it appears Stevens felt they would offer adequate protection. Why is the idea that Khaddafi's opponents could have differing objectives beyond his overthrow so difficult to grasp?

-spence

This circularity is maddening. Al Qaeda is not an "outside" extremist org. It is a non-geographically specific ideological "base." It is an ideology, and anyone who shares that ideology is ideologically affiliated. Whatever name you wish to call them, or they wish to call themselves, they are an ideological family. The very family, the very "children of Islam" who Bin Laden spoke of. And "Al Qaeda" has evolved into a diaspora of groups and individuals of who may or may not have local aspirations, a federation if you will, but very similar ultimate models.

Why is that so difficult to grasp?

As for Stevens' perception of adequate protection and his responsibility of what happened, there's this:

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/201.../?subscriber=1

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by detbuch

This circularity is maddening. Al Qaeda is not an "outside" extremist org. It is a non-geographically specific ideological "base." It is an ideology, and anyone who shares that ideology is ideologically affiliated. Whatever name you wish to call them, or they wish to call themselves, they are an ideological family. The very family, the very "children of Islam" who Bin Laden spoke of. And "Al Qaeda" has evolved into a diaspora of groups and individuals of who may or may not have local aspirations, a federation if you will, but very similar ultimate models.

And this is why Busch said we were at war with Terrorists and that it had to be fought in a completely different way than traditional war. That is why he called it like it is, "A War on Terror." He called for new methods and said this would be a long extended war because he knew it would be spread out over the world by different groups trying to destroy us.

Obama down played it and called it something else, more PC., forgot already!
"Al Qaeda is on the run", pfft, Al Qaeda and it's tentacles, including similar and unattached groups, or as you say" a diaspora of groups" will be trying to do us in for the foreseeable future. It's their only goal.