9/11/2001 vs. 9/11/2012

[Army Husker]

Interesting read on what did and didn't happen at Benghazi...might answer some questions, or raise some more.

 

 

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/10/16/the_ground_truth_from_benghazi?page=0,0

 

Consider the evidence on the ground. Protests in Libya are popular affairs. In Benghazi, they are a nearly daily occurrence, the latest being by several hundred policemen who block traffic each night outside the central Tibesti Hotel, demanding back pay.

These protests are preceded by a flurry of information on Facebook, and followed by a torrent of grainy cell phone pictures of the event. For the consulate attack, there was nothing.

 

Still more baffling is the lack of any bullet holes inside the compound. The official State Department version is of a prolonged battle inside the compound as agents found themselves trapped inside buildings until a force of diplomats arrived to do battle with the intruders. If so, they did it with only two bullet strikes being left in the buildings.

 

 

What makes this inexplicable is that Benghazi had been in the grip of jihadist violence for six months, with bombs and rocket attacks on a string of diplomatic targets, including the consulate itself back in June. With no central authority and a city run by a patchwork of militias, the warning lights were glowing red.

 

But it does not suggest that America's Mideast policy is in tatters. Libya is not seething with anti-American resentment.

 

And more questions in the article...

[knapplc]

Bogus. I asked a very pertinent question to which you said you had the answer. I want that answer. Failure to provide it will make me think you didn't have the answer in the first place. I know we don't want that, do we? Hmmm??????

I will answer your question knapp. Your question had nothing to do with me bailing out of this ridiculus discussion.

 

You asked; "I really want to know why the attack happened. Can you please explain that?" My answer is that a whole bunch of people in that part of the world want to kill Americans and will attempt to accomplish that desire with little or no reason whatsoever. All they need is an opportunity. It also appears that they like performing these terrorist acts on certain dates or anniversaries or in conjunction with events that have some special meaning to them. There are also a good number of them that are quite willing to die in the act of killing their perceived enemies. Suicide bombers, flying planes into buildings, that sort of thing. I sense that you were looking for some more specific type of answer but that is all I have to offer. I am not surprised in the least that extremist muslims or any number of people whose thought process is similar would kill innocent people, particularly Americans, if only provided an opportunity.

 

Now please don't tell me you're going to act like that situation is some hair-brained conspiracy theory also.

 

I bailed on the discussion because I felt a couple people were being purposely dense on the matter. And, I was having to repeat myself because people (you included) were constantly turning it back into an argument I was not making. I really feel it is a valid concern as to why the administration referred to it as a spontaneous uprising when I see a lot of signs to indicate it was anything but spontaneous. I don't necessarily think it means Obama himself is responsible for lying about it or dropping the ball or covering anything up. But, how do we find out about these types of things if we don't wonder and ask. Remember, they work for and represent us.

 

We can work together here (not condescending, totally serious). This is good stuff.

 

I agree with your premise that there are a lot of people over there (Libya, Egypt, etc) that wish us harm. They're willing to be suicide bombers, attack a consulate, whatever, to do that.

 

But this is what I want to get specific about - who did it? That 'who' is tremendously important. Here's why:

 

I agree it was likely a terrorist attack. I think that's probably the best way to describe it. But terrorists aren't terrorists. I'm not going all Bill Clinton on you, "What is your definition of 'is,' Senator?" or anything. I'm totally serious about this.

 

*I*, knapplc, the schmoe poster on HuskerBoard, can do a terrorist act. You and me together could coordinate an attack on a widget factory somewhere and do it "in a terroristic way," meaning, we could use terrorist-type weapons, tactics, etc. But you and me - we're not terrorists. We're possibly opportunistic SOB's who'll take out that widget factory at the slightest provocation, but we're not al Qaeda, we're not Hammas.

 

And that's the key thing that bothers me here. Terrorists - the real ones - have an agenda. They mean harm to "them," whoever their "them" is. For a lot of them, "them" is us, the U.S. When they attack us, they like to show the world that they've bloodied our nose. The Great Satan took it on the chin today, courtesy of al Qaeda! Hooray!

 

But that didn't happen here. Nobody took credit for this attack. Here is the British Foreign & Commonwealth Office's travel advice for Libya post attack:

The US Consulate in Benghazi was attacked by armed groups on 11 September, resulting in fatalities. Further incidents involving western interests are possible.

 

They expound further on this situation thusly:

 

 

The US Consulate in Benghazi was attacked by armed groups on 11 September, resulting in fatalities. Further incidents involving western interests are possible.

 

On 5 August 2012, the International Committee of the Red Cross's (ICRC) residential compound in Misrata was attacked by small and heavy arms fire. The ICRC has since temporarily suspended its operations in Misrata and Benghazi.

 

In May and June 2012, there was a spate of attacks against Western interests in Libya. A British Embassy convoy was attacked in Benghazi on 11 June. A parked and empty British Embassy vehicle was targeted by a grenade in Sabha on 8 June and a bomb exploded near the US Consulate in Benghazi on 6 June.

 

There also continues to be a threat of further attacks, against symbolic targets in Benghazi. These could include international hotels and buildings used by the National Transitional Council and Transitional Government.

 

There is a threat of kidnapping from terrorists operating in North Africa. AQ-M uses northern Mali as an operating base, but has proven capability of travelling long distances to carry out attacks, including neighbouring countries and as far as Southern Libya. The kidnap threat is not isolated to terrorist strongholds in northern Mali. Criminal gangs have previously been engaged to carry out kidnappings for terrorist groups in return for financial reward. See our Sahel page for information on the regional threat. A British national was kidnapped in the Libya/Tunisia/Algeria border area on 10 September 2011 and was subsequently released on 12 September 2011.

 

While AQ-M (al Qaeda - Mali) is mentioned, it is not given credit for the Benghazi attack, nor is it implicated in the least.

 

 

 

So, what does this mean? It means, to me, that we have no credible evidence, either from US or British governments, that the attack which killed our ambassador was an attack by known, declared enemies of the United States. It was not Hammas, it was not al Qaeda, it was nobody we know of. If it had been, we'd have announced it by now, and/or they'd have claimed credit for the result of their attack.

 

So who does that leave?

 

Culprit #1 in my book is a local strongman, most likely a Gaddafi supporter now out of power, trying to get in one last shot at America. In the absence of ownership by any known group, this is my most likely suspect. They have motive, they have the training (presuming they were military) and they have the weapons to carry out such a mission.

 

Culprit #2 would be a local warlord, most likely someone who didn't get what they wanted out of the revolution. I suspect, if this is true, that we're looking at something more like Blackhawk Down, not 9/11 version 2.0. They have the arms, they have the skills gained from the recent revolution, and they have the motivation if they were part of a disaffected losing faction.

 

Culprit #3 would be someone affected, directly or indirectly, by the mini Cold War we had with Gaddafi in the 80s and 90s. A relative of the 1986 bombing victims, or some nationalist with an axe to grind that America bombed his country once upon a time.

 

From those two "most wanted" suspects, we're diving into the murky waters of the unknown. It's anyone's guess who it would be. It could be a new faction we don't know about, a splinter group of some already-known group, or it could be persons unknown. We don't exactly have a lot of intelligence assets on the ground over there right now, what with the revolution and all.

 

Finally, the last culprit(s) would be a random mob. Post-revolution, arms are not hard to come by, and militias are common over there. Maybe, for reasons known only to themselves, a random militia saw a relatively unprotected target and went after it.

 

It's important to establish who was responsible, because by knowing who did this we can better understand what could have been done to prevent it. All I'm trying to do, apolitically, is get an idea who did what, and why.

[carlfense]

They did come out initially and call it a spontaneous uprising and continued that message for two weeks.

Listen, you've seen the transcript and you've seen this video. If you continue reciting this nonsense you are being dishonest. You're better than that.

 

Yes, they also referred to it as an act of terror (unbeknownst to Romney apparently). Using the phrase "act of terror" or even calling it that directly does not trump or wipe away the fact that their story was a spontaneous uprising. It can still be an act of terror, whether or not it was planned, expected, or spontaneous. My concern is why did they ever refer to it as a spontaneous uprising and why did that message continue for two weeks. You say you would join in my concerns if they continued that message to this day. If you answer that question, you might begin to understand why it concerns me.

Actually, terrorism necessarily requires that it not be spontaneous. Your argument of this consistent message of spontaneity is not supported by the facts. By definition it can't be a spontaneous act of terror/terrorism.

 

 

Like I have already said way too many times, it leads one of 3 places; they were clueless about the importance of a date like 9-11, they didn't want to admit the truth, or they were trying to cover something up. I don't see any good options there.

There's a fourth option that doesn't require any tin foil . . . but in that instance it would be hard to lay the blame at Obama's feet.

[Ziggy]

They did come out initially and call it a spontaneous uprising and continued that message for two weeks.

Listen, you've seen the transcript and you've seen this video. If you continue reciting this nonsense you are being dishonest. You're better than that.

 

Yes, they also referred to it as an act of terror (unbeknownst to Romney apparently). Using the phrase "act of terror" or even calling it that directly does not trump or wipe away the fact that their story was a spontaneous uprising. It can still be an act of terror, whether or not it was planned, expected, or spontaneous. My concern is why did they ever refer to it as a spontaneous uprising and why did that message continue for two weeks. You say you would join in my concerns if they continued that message to this day. If you answer that question, you might begin to understand why it concerns me.

Actually, terrorism necessarily requires that it not be spontaneous. Your argument of this consistent message of spontaneity is not supported by the facts. By definition it can't be a spontaneous act of terror/terrorism.

 

 

Like I have already said way too many times, it leads one of 3 places; they were clueless about the importance of a date like 9-11, they didn't want to admit the truth, or they were trying to cover something up. I don't see any good options there.

There's a fourth option that doesn't require any tin foil . . . but in that instance it would be hard to lay the blame at Obama's feet.

 

Why can terrorism not be a spontaneous act?

[Ziggy]

As to who perpetrated the attack, its my personal opinion that its a well trained military or former military group with Al Qaeda ties. It appears they had been pushing the security of the consulate during the last year. They waited for the right time, attacked on a significant day, when riots tore apart other Muslim countries. They have also learned to stay under cover about seeking attention by taking credit. Maybe they have also learned not to waste people with suicide attacks, and needlessly claiming credit. Good people are rarely expendable.

[carlfense]

Why can terrorism not be a spontaneous act?

Because terrorism requires a motive. Terrorism is the use of violence or the threat of violence when used to achieve a political/religious goal. If there isn't a larger goal . . . it's just violence.

 

Spontaneous means that something is performed or occurred without premeditation.

 

They're mutually exclusive.

[Ziggy]

I agree with most of it, and its prob more semantics than anything. But I really do not need a dictionary for the words. I know what they mean.

 

I agree the motivation can not be spontaneous. But actual acts of terror themselves can be spontaneous do you agree?

[carlfense]

But actual acts of terror themselves can be spontaneous do you agree?

No . . . acts of violence can be spontaneous. Acts of terror require a motive beyond the violence itself. (To draw a crude comparison: All acts of terror are acts of violence but not all acts of violence are acts of terror. All murders are homicides but not all homicides are murders.)

[JJ Husker]

They did come out initially and call it a spontaneous uprising and continued that message for two weeks.

Listen, you've seen the transcript and you've seen this video. If you continue reciting this nonsense you are being dishonest. You're better than that.

 

I'm not being dishonest. Our communication problem apparently is based on your belief that a spontaneous event cannot also be an act of terror. I really, honestly, cross my heart and hope to die, do not believe that the way you apparently do. If a mob in the street gets out of control and spontaneously busts into our consulate and kills people; that is spontaneous and also an act of terror. Obama used the phrase "act of terror" in the Rose Garden the day after the event. I am not disputing that. HIs administration also repeatedly referred to this same event as a spontaneous uprising triggered by the offensive video. So, I am not spouting nonsense, merely stating facts. Am I missing something? Are you trying to claim that they did not refer to this as a spontaneous uprising for two weeks? If that is the case I will search out the validating information and post it here.

 

Yes, they also referred to it as an act of terror (unbeknownst to Romney apparently). Using the phrase "act of terror" or even calling it that directly does not trump or wipe away the fact that their story was a spontaneous uprising. It can still be an act of terror, whether or not it was planned, expected, or spontaneous. My concern is why did they ever refer to it as a spontaneous uprising and why did that message continue for two weeks. You say you would join in my concerns if they continued that message to this day. If you answer that question, you might begin to understand why it concerns me.

Actually, terrorism necessarily requires that it not be spontaneous. Your argument of this consistent message of spontaneity is not supported by the facts. By definition it can't be a spontaneous act of terror/terrorism.

 

See above to address this point.

 

 

Like I have already said way too many times, it leads one of 3 places; they were clueless about the importance of a date like 9-11, they didn't want to admit the truth, or they were trying to cover something up. I don't see any good options there.

There's a fourth option that doesn't require any tin foil . . . but in that instance it would be hard to lay the blame at Obama's feet.

 

Totally honest, full disclosure; Yes, I would like to see the blame for this laid at Obama's feet. However, even I think that is a little far fetched. Number one I am not looking for someone to blame the attack on. And, if I were, I would not expect that blame to land on Obama. The blame for the attack lies fully with whoever perpetrated it, even if we bungled intelligence or failed to beef up security after a request. I learned long ago that properly motivated people can accomplish pretty much anything they wish. So, you can drop the charade that I am trying to pin the attack on Obama, I am not. The blame I would like to see fall at Obama's feet is the generation of this spontaneous event story. There are some things I don't like. Two of my pet peeves are being lied to, and incompetance. Now if you can get past your ill conceived notion that an act of terror cannot also be spontaneous and accept that this administration did in fact call this event spontaneous for two weeks following, maybe you will finally be able to see why this concerns me and why it should concern you.

 

BTW- I am curious what your fourth option is. Look, I am not trying to be difficult or attempting to make a point that doesn't deserve to be made. I really see only 3 options here which I have previously outlined. I have a 4th option but it seems so highly unlikely I did not list it. My #4 would be that it was in fact a spontaneous event that randomly occurred (with a chance of 1 in 365) on the anniversary date of 9-11. However, I am pretty sure that option has already been eliminated when the administration changed their story two weeks after the event.

[Ziggy]

I would then counter that the terror acts them selves can be spontaneous, because while they may have the motivation to do the act, sometimes people just need a opening to actually commit without planning on it that day. While I would say it is highly unlikely that almost any terrorist attacks are ever spontaneous, I think its possible given the right opportunity a terrorist could fire a shot at a foreign dignitary on his way to a bomb factory.

 

Not sure that comparison works really for the conversation. A person can have motive to kill someone, but never act on it, but given the right opportunity, say catching their husband in bed with someone else, could cause a spontaneous reaction. The person still had motive prior to the attack, but needed something to create a spontaneous response.

[walksalone]

But actual acts of terror themselves can be spontaneous do you agree?

No . . . acts of violence can be spontaneous. Acts of terror require a motive beyond the violence itself. (To draw a crude comparison: All acts of terror are acts of violence but not all acts of violence are acts of terror. All murders are homicides but not all homicides are murders.)

 

Not sure if I can agree with that.

 

My ancestors, were the Lakota, mostly known as the Sioux. They attacked white settlements, U.S. Cavalry, in what today could be construed as acts of terrorism. Many of these attacks happened due to circumstances, and we're not planned.

[JJ Husker]

 

We can work together here (not condescending, totally serious). This is good stuff.

 

I agree with your premise that there are a lot of people over there (Libya, Egypt, etc) that wish us harm. They're willing to be suicide bombers, attack a consulate, whatever, to do that.

 

But this is what I want to get specific about - who did it? That 'who' is tremendously important. Here's why:

 

I agree it was likely a terrorist attack. I think that's probably the best way to describe it. But terrorists aren't terrorists. I'm not going all Bill Clinton on you, "What is your definition of 'is,' Senator?" or anything. I'm totally serious about this.

 

It's important to establish who was responsible, because by knowing who did this we can better understand what could have been done to prevent it. All I'm trying to do, apolitically, is get an idea who did what, and why.

 

I think we were just operating on different pages, from different angles for far too long there. I would agree that the ultimately more important thing is to determine who did this and why. I have every confidence that our resources will determine that eventually. Also, I will acknowledge that it is indeed strange that no terrorist organization has taken credit for this. As distasteful as this type of deal is, I am sure there are many who would be elated to take credit for it, get their 77 virgins or whatever. Fact is, it may not be muslim extremists but, I'll believe that when I see it.

 

My whole premise is that this would have to be a huge coincidence for a spontaneous act to occur on this date, in that part of the world, that I simply wonder why it was called a spontaneous event for two weeks and to get to the source of that storyline. That's it. Not looking to blame anyone for the attack. Not claiming that it could've been prevented. And, I was not trying to determine who actually did it even though, as you have pointed out, that is a more important issue.

 

I don't believe I have typed this much in a single day in a long time. I am glad we figured out that it was just a bit of miscommunication and different angles because I was really beginning to get frustrated with you and Carl for awhile there, as I'm sure you were with me.

[carlfense]

But actual acts of terror themselves can be spontaneous do you agree?

No . . . acts of violence can be spontaneous. Acts of terror require a motive beyond the violence itself. (To draw a crude comparison: All acts of terror are acts of violence but not all acts of violence are acts of terror. All murders are homicides but not all homicides are murders.)

 

Not sure if I can agree with that.

 

My ancestors, were the Lakota, mostly known as the Sioux. They attacked white settlements, U.S. Cavalry, in what today could be construed as acts of terrorism. Many of these attacks happened due to circumstances, and we're not planned.

If they weren't planned they weren't terrorism. Attacks? Sure. But if there wasn't premeditation then it wasn't terrorism.

 

Of course if we can't agree that words have meaning . . . I'd just argue that the Lakota were actually the Ojibwa. (Don't worry, I won't actually do that.)

[walksalone]

But actual acts of terror themselves can be spontaneous do you agree?

No . . . acts of violence can be spontaneous. Acts of terror require a motive beyond the violence itself. (To draw a crude comparison: All acts of terror are acts of violence but not all acts of violence are acts of terror. All murders are homicides but not all homicides are murders.)

 

Not sure if I can agree with that.

 

My ancestors, were the Lakota, mostly known as the Sioux. They attacked white settlements, U.S. Cavalry, in what today could be construed as acts of terrorism. Many of these attacks happened due to circumstances, and we're not planned.

If they weren't planned they weren't terrorism. Attacks? Sure. But if there wasn't premeditation then it wasn't terrorism.

 

Of course if we can't agree that words have meaning . . . I'd just argue that the Lakota were actually the Ojibwa. (Don't worry, I won't actually do that.)

 

Actually the "Ojibwe" people were from the Great Lakes region, the Lakota were from the plains...

 

But if those attacks took place today, would they not be labeled terrorism?

[knapplc]

I don't believe I have typed this much in a single day in a long time.

 

I type this much - hell, TONS more - every day. My whole gig is typing. It's why I'm on here all the time - I stare at this damned screen all. Day. Long.

 

And I apologize for playing around a bit. I know I get goofy and I don't always reply seriously, but this is a puzzle to me, and I like puzzles, and I'm going to do my best to be serious about this subject from now on. I set aside my sword for a bit and be objective. Politics be damned.