- This topic has 191 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 7 months ago by
svelte.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 18, 2012 at 2:32 PM #752803October 18, 2012 at 2:48 PM #752805
SK in CV
Participant[quote=Veritas] SK you know what he said and why and when he said it. [/quote]
I do know what he said. I do know when he said it. I think you’re alluding to some mystery contained in his words. I have no idea what that mystery is. Was he talking in some esoteric code that I’m not qualified to understand? Enlighten me, please.
October 18, 2012 at 3:28 PM #752806Participant[quote=Veritas]definition of terrorist attack
a surprise attack involving the deliberate use of violence against civilians in the hope of attaining political or religious aims.
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn[/quote]
And this. Interesting. So that would make it a terrorist attack when the guy flew his small plane into the IRS office in Texas a few years back. But I never heard it called a terrorist attack.
And the attack on the USS Cole 12 years ago? Despite the fact that it was widely described as a terrorist attack, it was not.
October 18, 2012 at 3:40 PM #752807ucodegen
Participant[quote=SK in CV]And the attack on the USS Cole 12 years ago? Despite the fact that it was widely described as a terrorist attack, it was not.[/quote]I think you are overreaching on this one. Your contention is not supported by facts in evidence.. show your supporting evidence for your contention that the attack on the USS Cole was not a terrorist act.
October 18, 2012 at 3:44 PM #752808Participant[quote=ucodegen][quote=SK in CV]And the attack on the USS Cole 12 years ago? Despite the fact that it was widely described as a terrorist attack, it was not.[/quote]I think you are overreaching on this one. Your contention is not supported by facts in evidence.. show your supporting evidence for your contention that the attack on the USS Cole was not a terrorist act.[/quote]
Because it doesn’t fit the definition provided.
October 18, 2012 at 3:54 PM #752809UCGal
Participant[quote=dumbrenter][quote=paulflorez]”No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.”
He referred to it as an act of terror. Your interpretation is clouded by your bias. The words are right there, or do you need some kind of certificate to prove he said those words?[/quote]
Yes, we need a certificate to prove that and that certificate better be in Kenyan.[/quote]
Dumbrenter – you owe me a keyboard… Mine has coffee spewed all over it.
October 18, 2012 at 4:45 PM #752811Allan from Fallbrook
Participant[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.
October 18, 2012 at 5:06 PM #752812ParticipantThe additional security was not requested for the consulate facilities in Benghazi. They were requested for the Embassy facility in Tripoli. Extended security was requested this summer by Ambassador Stevens for the facility in Benghazi, maintaining a minimum of 3 security agents. At the time of the attack, there were 5 security agents on duty, more than had been requested for that facility. The two additional were escorts for the ambassador.
What you’ve said makes sense about the mortars. The reports I’ve seen haven’t mentioned mortars, or at least if they did, I missed it.
I’m still more than a bit confused about why whether it was planned or spontaneous is important. Either can fit the definition of a terrorist attack, if that label is preferred. And Obama acknowledged it as such. (The significance of that also escapes me.)
October 18, 2012 at 8:36 PM #752816Participant[quote=SK in CV]The additional security was not requested for the consulate facilities in Benghazi. They were requested for the Embassy facility in Tripoli. Extended security was requested this summer by Ambassador Stevens for the facility in Benghazi, maintaining a minimum of 3 security agents. At the time of the attack, there were 5 security agents on duty, more than had been requested for that facility. The two additional were escorts for the ambassador.
What you’ve said makes sense about the mortars. The reports I’ve seen haven’t mentioned mortars, or at least if they did, I missed it.
I’m still more than a bit confused about why whether it was planned or spontaneous is important. Either can fit the definition of a terrorist attack, if that label is preferred. And Obama acknowledged it as such. (The significance of that also escapes me.)[/quote]
SK: Wiki cite on use of mortars in Benghazi attack:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_the_U.S._diplomatic_mission_in_Benghazi
I think the larger issue is not the use of the phrase “act of terror”, rather, it was the administration’s continued insistence that the attack was “spontaneous” (it wasn’t) and driven by the YouTube video (it wasn’t).
Separate investigations have been underway and have reached significant conclusions that this was a planned attack, especially given that compound layout was not common knowledge and the accuracy of the mortar strikes.
Also, FYI, both DepState and the USMC requested additional security for multiple embassies and consulates throughout the region, as well as trade missions AND the facility where Stevens was domiciled. These requests were repeatedly either ignored and/or rebuffed, with the administration citing concerns over inflaming anger due to the presence of additional armed Americans, either uniformed US Marines or armed AmEmbassy/DepState security (driving distinctive armored SUVs).
Further, considerable signal traffic was received and analyzed, indicating either a heightened al-Qaeda presence or the arrival of al-Qaeda affiliated insurgents, militia or terrorist elements in various regions. Stevens had been repeatedly warned by US-friendly intel assets in Libya and he passed these warnings back, along with continued requests for additional security, due to these warnings that his life was in danger and that a significant attack was in the offing.
It strains credulity that we were somehow surprised by these attacks, especially given the widespread access to up-to-the-second real-time feeds from either KH satellites or drones on station in the area.
October 18, 2012 at 10:54 PM #752825Veritas
Participant“It strains credulity that we were somehow surprised by these attacks, especially given the widespread access to up-to-the-second real-time feeds from either KH satellites or drones on station in the area.”
Not to mention it was 9-11, but I think people were starting to act like they just wanted to forget it and move on. This article was eerily prescient:
“The most important thing to remember on Sept. 11 is that the world is still a dangerous place. Evil exists, and the United States must recognize that fact and take the necessary steps to defeat it. Freedom’s adversaries are watching as American capabilities decline, as the defense budget is slashed, and as the White House stubbornly refuses to admit there is a problem. The anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks should remind Americans of the tragic consequences of disregarding threats until they grow too great to be ignored.:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/10/forget-911/October 18, 2012 at 10:59 PM #752824ParticipantExcellent point, so much for wordnetweb.princeton Perhaps the deaths on the Cole will also be labeled as workplace violence?
October 18, 2012 at 11:57 PM #752827Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
SK: Wiki cite on use of mortars in Benghazi attack:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_the_U.S._diplomatic_mission_in_BenghaziI think the larger issue is not the use of the phrase “act of terror”, rather, it was the administration’s continued insistence that the attack was “spontaneous” (it wasn’t) and driven by the YouTube video (it wasn’t).
Separate investigations have been underway and have reached significant conclusions that this was a planned attack, especially given that compound layout was not common knowledge and the accuracy of the mortar strikes.
Also, FYI, both DepState and the USMC requested additional security for multiple embassies and consulates throughout the region, as well as trade missions AND the facility where Stevens was domiciled. These requests were repeatedly either ignored and/or rebuffed, with the administration citing concerns over inflaming anger due to the presence of additional armed Americans, either uniformed US Marines or armed AmEmbassy/DepState security (driving distinctive armored SUVs).
Further, considerable signal traffic was received and analyzed, indicating either a heightened al-Qaeda presence or the arrival of al-Qaeda affiliated insurgents, militia or terrorist elements in various regions. Stevens had been repeatedly warned by US-friendly intel assets in Libya and he passed these warnings back, along with continued requests for additional security, due to these warnings that his life was in danger and that a significant attack was in the offing.
It strains credulity that we were somehow surprised by these attacks, especially given the widespread access to up-to-the-second real-time feeds from either KH satellites or drones on station in the area.[/quote]
I wasn’t disputing the issue of the mortars. I did find that exact same thing on wiki and a few other places that I hadn’t noticed before.
I don’t disagree with much you say here. With the exception of the last paragraph.
I’m not sure anyone has claimed to have been surprised. We continue to live in a dangerous world. Ambassador Stevens knew that. We both know the ties between the state department and the intelligence community. Stevens was part of that. He knew the risks.
The mortars change everything, yet change nothing. I think we both know the nature of the facility in Benghazi. Ambassador Stevens knew what it was. Which is probably why there is slim evidence that any additional security was requested through state for that particular facility. If more security was needed for that facility, it wouldn’t have gone through state, and it’s highly unlikely that request would have been declined, and there is no way in hell that request will ever become public. (Issa shut down his hearings for a reason. And it certainly was not because there was a shortage of political capital.) Which leads me to believe that there was no intelligence which indicated an attack on Benghazi was imminent. If there had been, Ambassador Stevens wouldn’t have been there. I think it’s more likely, just the opposite, that Benghazi was believed safe.
I don’t know whether this attack was entirely planned or partly spontaneous. I don’t suspect we’ll ever know. (The mortars would lead me to believe it was at least partially planned.) Nor do I think it’s terribly pertinent. There was a failure here. But it wasn’t a state department security problem. It was an intelligence problem. And we don’t get to find out about intelligence problems. Nor should we.
October 19, 2012 at 12:57 AM #752828Participant[quote=SK in CV]
I wasn’t disputing the issue of the mortars. I did find that exact same thing on wiki and a few other places that I hadn’t noticed before.
I don’t disagree with much you say here. With the exception of the last paragraph.
I’m not sure anyone has claimed to have been surprised. We continue to live in a dangerous world. Ambassador Stevens knew that. We both know the ties between the state department and the intelligence community. Stevens was part of that. He knew the risks.
The mortars change everything, yet change nothing. I think we both know the nature of the facility in Benghazi. Ambassador Stevens knew what it was. Which is probably why there is slim evidence that any additional security was requested through state for that particular facility. If more security was needed for that facility, it wouldn’t have gone through state, and it’s highly unlikely that request would have been declined, and there is no way in hell that request will ever become public. (Issa shut down his hearings for a reason. And it certainly was not because there was a shortage of political capital.) Which leads me to believe that there was no intelligence which indicated an attack on Benghazi was imminent. If there had been, Ambassador Stevens wouldn’t have been there. I think it’s more likely, just the opposite, that Benghazi was believed safe.
I don’t know whether this attack was entirely planned or partly spontaneous. I don’t suspect we’ll ever know. (The mortars would lead me to believe it was at least partially planned.) Nor do I think it’s terribly pertinent. There was a failure here. But it wasn’t a state department security problem. It was an intelligence problem. And we don’t get to find out about intelligence problems. Nor should we.[/quote]
SK: There was considerable intel and in the MONTHS leading up to the Benghazi attack and this intel came from US, Western (largely British) and Libyan sources.
This intel indicated that al-Qaeda was now active in the Maghreb, and that this arm of al-Qaeda was separate and distinct from AQI (al-Qaeda Iraq) or AQAP (al-Qaeda Arabian Peninsula). Moreover, they were actively developing on-the-ground intel in Libya, with the express purpose of striking a US and/or Western target (probably British).
This intel was returned to the US through multiple channels, including CIA, NSA and military (specifically the USMC, since the Marines are responsible for embassies, consulates and trade missions). It was widely disseminated and there was considerable talk in the week or so leading up to the attack of deploying a 16 man USMC extraction team of the sort that specializes in removing US diplomatic personnel from “hot spots” like this one, due to the fact that Stevens was in a “soft” target (largely unprotected and indefensible compound) versus a “hard” target (hardened facility like an embassy with a US Marine security contingent). This USMC team was not deployed, in spite of repeated requests from the senior USMC officer responsible.
The problem here, again, is that the intel being developed shows clearly that al-Qaeda is not a spent force, which runs contrary to the administration’s narrative, post-bin Laden, that it was, along with the inconvenient fact that Libya is still inherently unstable and growing worse, which also contravenes the narrative that Libya represents a successful new paradigm in US involvement and one that doesn’t require US manpower on the ground.
No one in the intel or military community felt that Benghazi was safe, hence the round-the-clock drone coverage, along with the constant return of on-scene intel, including that from friendly Libyan sources warning of an imminent attack on Stevens, which Stevens dutifully passed back to both DepState and the administration, through DNI. One cannot make a credible case that we (the US) were unaware of the impending attack, simply because there is too much intel and information that contradicts that assertion.
We got caught with our pants down and largely because we wish to continue perpetuating the myth that the Arab Spring hasn’t resulted in further anti-American sentiment and that the strategies deployed by this administration have largely been successful and that Obama and the US are now viewed more favorably (in spite of the fact that they’re burning him in effigy now).
Our drone program is now essentially the best recruiting tool that al-Qaeda possesses, and we’re seeing a large upswing in both al-Qaeda membership, as well as operational capabilities, as shown by the Benghazi attack. This wasn’t a quickly planned operation. They knew the layout of the compound, they knew the comings and goings of the various personnel on-site, including the security team and they launched a sophisticated and well-timed strike that killed the ambassador, as well as two former SEALs and you know those guys didn’t go quietly. This was a massive show of force and it illustrates al-Qaeda’s capabilities in North Africa quite well.
October 19, 2012 at 9:09 AM #752845all
Participantnever mind
October 19, 2012 at 10:55 AM #752853Participant“The mother of an American diplomat killed during a terrorist raid on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi has hit out at Barack Obama for describing the attack as ‘not optimal’, saying: ‘My son is not very optimal – he is also very dead.'”
“During an interview shown on Comedy Central, Obama responded to a question about his administration’s confused communication after the assault by saying: ‘If four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal.'”
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.