[quote=SK in CV]There is no evidence readily available to indicate it was anything other than a spontaneous attack. RPG’s take moments to launch, almost no planning is necessary. Apparently there is a train of thought that the two are incompatible. Since there is no definition of “a terrorist attack”, I’m not sure how the two can be incompatible.
The Ambassador died, so inadequate security is pretty clear, but I’m not sure where the lie is there.
I haven’t seen any comments from the administration indicating that there were protests in front of the embassay. Only that the attack was a spontaneous response to the protests in Egypt. Nothing to the effect that there were protests outside the consulate in Benghazi. Obviously, those that were involved in the attack began on the outside.
[/quote]
SK: Leaving aside the direct testimony from DepState RSOs (Regional Security Officers) and the USMC senior staff responsible for protection of personnel that they had been asking for additional security and this request was based on signal traffic dating back in excess of a month that an attack was in the offing and that al-Qaeda appeared to involved and also leaving aside that the administration at the highest levels was involved in both discussion of the signal traffic and what it meant (the president receives what’s known as a PDB, which stands for President’s Daily Brief, delivered by Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper), I can debunk the “spontaneous” attack theory with a single word: MORTARS.
While AKs and RPGs can indeed be defined as a “spontaneous” weapon, since they’re both man-portable and direct fired, a mortar is not a “spontaneous” weapon in any sense of the word.
A mortar is a crew-served, indirect fire weapon composed of a base plate, tube and sighting apparatus. A mortar requires a crew of at least two, generally three, and needs to be transported to its firing position, sighted in and then fired. You don’t just grab a 60mm or 81mm off the nightstand and go looking for trouble.
Testimony about the attack indicated that the US security element came under “accurate” mortar fire as they retreated to another building within the compound, that accurate mortar then killing two Americans.
Accurate mortar fire would indicate that either: the bad guys had bore-sighted their tubes in advance (which means that someone walked the compound and marked off distances to target) or, more likely, that the bad guys had intel, including photographs, of the various structures on-site and where to position their tubes for maximum accuracy.
This means PLANNING. In an earlier post, you indicated that you were a former soldier. As such, I’m presuming you have more than a passing familiarity with mortars and how to use them. Accurate mortar (or artillery) fire does NOT happen by accident. It requires training, familiarity with the weapon and a proper understanding of the distances at which you’re shooting.
This was a PLANNED operation, involving a trained group of terrorists. While you can teach a 12yo Rwandan how to deploy an RPG or AK, it takes time and training to teach someone how to accurately use a mortar to the type of effect used against our people in Libya.
This attack had dick to do with that stupid YouTube video and everything to do with the date of 9/11. It had been planned for weeks in advance and the administration was well aware of this, and there is ample testimony to indicate exactly that. Moreover, there was a drone overhead which sent real-time footage before, during and after the attack. The administration was well aware of all this, but the facts didn’t comport with the administration’s narrative that all was well in Libya and we had nothing to worry about.
