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

[Army Husker]

Missed this gem in the article...

 

State Department security officials had their own concerns about some of the guards at the mission months before the recent attack, according to emails obtained by Reuters this week. One guard who had been recently fired and another on the company's payroll were suspected of throwing a homemade bomb into the U.S. compound in April. They were questioned but not charged.

[JJ Husker]

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/16/rice-benghazi-attack-was-spontaneous-libya-no-it-wasnt/

 

A few excerpts from various sources ( I think it's ok to post these???)-

 

The moderator in Tuesday night's presidential debate, after appearing to side with President Obama on the question of whether he called the Libya strike a terror attack from the start, conceded afterward that Mitt Romney was "right" on the broader point -- that the administration for days insisted it was a spontaneous act.

"He was right in the main. I just think he picked the wrong word," Candy Crowley said of Romney on CNN shortly after the debate ended.

And she continued to clarify on CNN that Romney was making a legitimate point. "Right after that I did turnaround and say, 'but you are totally correct that they spent two weeks telling us this was about a tape'," she said.

 

Jay Carney, the White House spokesman, said on Sept. 14 about the Benghazi attack, “We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack.”

 

On Sept. 16, Susan E. Rice, the ambassador to the United Nations said, “What this began as was a spontaneous, not a premeditated, response to what happened, transpired in Cairo,” where protesters angered by the video stormed the grounds of the American Embassy.

 

“It was the Ansar al-Shariah people,” said Mohamed Bishari, 20, a neighbor of the compound who watched the assault and described the brigade he saw leading the attack. “There was no protest or anything of that sort.”

 

 

Hillary Clinton claimed she was responsible when she threw the security experts under the bus but prior to Obama taking responsibility at the 2nd debate.

 

Quite possibly Crowley doesn't know what she is talking about. Maybe, this whole deal is simply a case of people who work under Obama not being on the same page as Obama. Maybe I mistakenly assumed that people in the Obama administration like White House Spokesman Jay Carney and US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice in effect speak for the President. Maybe I mistakenly assumed that our intelligence resources, in a place like Libya, should know a bit more, or at least as much, about the situation than a 20 year old neighbor such as Mohamed Bishari.

 

You must be right Carl, the administration has been a beacon of consitency in calling this a planned terrorist activity. I don't know what I was thinking. I see no reason to be concerned. It is clear the administration has a handle on the situation and everyone is operating with a common purpose. Geez, with teamwork like this it's no wonder Washington is in the mess it is. I wonder where people could possibly get conflicting information. I'll come directly to you next time since you are so sure you have the only correct version of things.

[carlfense]

I am a little dull right now but how does the last clause show that terrorism can not be spontaneous.

Are you changing your question? You'd said this:

 

Your definition has nothing in it about specific intent, but to answer the answer to that is the specific intent is to cause terror.

I pointed out the clause that you should look at. Are you moving on from that point?

 

Because it needs to further the objectives of a political or social movement? I just don't see how a spontaneous attack is not capable of causing terror in a specific group.

Not everything that could "caus[e] terror in a specific group" is terrorism. A spontaneous attack could certainly cause terror. A rampaging elephant can cause terror too . . . but neither are terrorism.

[carlfense]

http://hotair.com/ar...ya-no-it-wasnt/

-- that the administration for days insisted it was a spontaneous act.

Other than the official response the day after the event? Zero reference to spontaneous acts in that speech.

 

Jay Carney, the White House spokesman, said on Sept. 14 about the Benghazi attack, “We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack.”

After the President called it an act of terror and didn't say that it was spontaneous.

 

On Sept. 16, Susan E. Rice, the ambassador to the United Nations said, “What this began as was a spontaneous, not a premeditated, response to what happened, transpired in Cairo,” where protesters angered by the video stormed the grounds of the American Embassy.

I'd like to see the whole quote and figure out what she was talking about. Does anyone have it?

 

“It was the Ansar al-Shariah people,” said Mohamed Bishari, 20, a neighbor of the compound who watched the assault and described the brigade he saw leading the attack. “There was no protest or anything of that sort.”

Agreed!

 

Hillary Clinton claimed she was responsible when she threw the security experts under the bus but prior to Obama taking responsibility at the 2nd debate.

OK.

[carlfense]

Quite possibly Crowley doesn't know what she is talking about. Maybe, this whole deal is simply a case of people who work under Obama not being on the same page as Obama. Maybe I mistakenly assumed that people in the Obama administration like White House Spokesman Jay Carney and US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice in effect speak for the President. Maybe I mistakenly assumed that our intelligence resources, in a place like Libya, should know a bit more, or at least as much, about the situation than a 20 year old neighbor such as Mohamed Bishari.

Again, what are you insinuating and why does it matter more than the fact that four Americans are dead?

 

You must be right Carl, the administration has been a beacon of consitency in calling this a planned terrorist activity.

I don't know how I can make it more clear to you that I agree that the message has been muddled and mishandled. Nowhere have I said that the entire administration has been consistent. I can understand why you wish that I said it . . . it would certainly make my argument weak . . . but I didn't say that.

 

I don't know what I was thinking. I see no reason to be concerned. It is clear the administration has a handle on the situation and everyone is operating with a common purpose. Geez, with teamwork like this it's no wonder Washington is in the mess it is. I wonder where people could possibly get conflicting information. I'll come directly to you next time since you are so sure you have the only correct version of things.

In short, what serious conclusions do you draw from your argument that the message has been inconsistent? Do you think that Obama sympathizes with the terrorists? Is that what we're concerned about here?

[knapplc]

http://hotair.com/ar...ya-no-it-wasnt/

 

A few excerpts from various sources ( I think it's ok to post these???)-

 

The moderator in Tuesday night's presidential debate, after appearing to side with President Obama on the question of whether he called the Libya strike a terror attack from the start, conceded afterward that Mitt Romney was "right" on the broader point -- that the administration for days insisted it was a spontaneous act.

"He was right in the main. I just think he picked the wrong word," Candy Crowley said of Romney on CNN shortly after the debate ended.

And she continued to clarify on CNN that Romney was making a legitimate point. "Right after that I did turnaround and say, 'but you are totally correct that they spent two weeks telling us this was about a tape'," she said.

 

Jay Carney, the White House spokesman, said on Sept. 14 about the Benghazi attack, “We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack.”

 

On Sept. 16, Susan E. Rice, the ambassador to the United Nations said, “What this began as was a spontaneous, not a premeditated, response to what happened, transpired in Cairo,” where protesters angered by the video stormed the grounds of the American Embassy.

 

“It was the Ansar al-Shariah people,” said Mohamed Bishari, 20, a neighbor of the compound who watched the assault and described the brigade he saw leading the attack. “There was no protest or anything of that sort.”

 

 

Hillary Clinton claimed she was responsible when she threw the security experts under the bus but prior to Obama taking responsibility at the 2nd debate.

 

Quite possibly Crowley doesn't know what she is talking about. Maybe, this whole deal is simply a case of people who work under Obama not being on the same page as Obama. Maybe I mistakenly assumed that people in the Obama administration like White House Spokesman Jay Carney and US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice in effect speak for the President. Maybe I mistakenly assumed that our intelligence resources, in a place like Libya, should know a bit more, or at least as much, about the situation than a 20 year old neighbor such as Mohamed Bishari.

 

You must be right Carl, the administration has been a beacon of consitency in calling this a planned terrorist activity. I don't know what I was thinking. I see no reason to be concerned. It is clear the administration has a handle on the situation and everyone is operating with a common purpose. Geez, with teamwork like this it's no wonder Washington is in the mess it is. I wonder where people could possibly get conflicting information. I'll come directly to you next time since you are so sure you have the only correct version of things.

 

Have you not been following this thread? All of this is political claptrap. Who cares who labels it what, and when?

 

Fact is, a month after the attack, we still don't know what happened.

 

We have a soldier in the field right now talking to us in this thread, telling us what they're facing out there, and giving examples of how it could be the same thing.

 

We have articles from other posters (me included) pointing out that the situation over there is nine kinds of messed up.

 

We have a tremendously odd set of forensic evidence at the scene that does not correlate to a coordinated, planned, professional attack.

 

And we're still worried about whether or not it was labeled correctly, the day after the attack? The week after the attack?

 

This is not a political situation, although Romney is doing his damnedest to make political hay from it.

[Ziggy]

"It requires a specific intent. That precludes spontaneous activity. I don't know how I can make that more clear. Do you at least understand my argument? You don't have to say that you agree with it . . . but do you understand what I mean?"

 

You brought up intent. I merely went with it. If my specific intent is to cause terror and I make a spontaneous decision to act on it, that is terrorism. Terrorism is all about the act. People have intentions all the time they never act on, its when they act that creates terrorism.

[Ziggy]

Sorry Knapp, i thought the spontaneous terrorism thing was dead, wish we could separate it out to make this thread cleaner.

[carlfense]

If my specific intent is to cause terror and I make a spontaneous decision to act on it, that is terrorism.

Not if you aren't trying to achieve a goal beyond terror itself.

 

Terrorism is all about the act.

No. Terrorism is the act combined with the intent. The act alone isn't sufficient . . . just the same as the thought alone isn't sufficient.

 

Two identical planes fly into two identical buildings. The first pilot accidentally hit the building. The second pilot intended to hit the building to advance a religious message. They're both acts . . . but only one is terrorism. It takes more than just an act.

 

People have intentions all the time they never act on, its when they act that creates terrorism.

Completely agree that an intention without an action is terrorism. The flip side is that an action without the intention is not terrorism.

[Ziggy]

Exactly, but they are not equal. We do not prosecute people for intentions. We prosecute for actions. If a terrorist has the intention to kill himself for Allah, but is not given the opportunity, until a spontaneous event happens, and he reacts to it, it is a spontaneous act of terrorism.

[Army Husker]

Exactly, but they are not equal. We do not prosecute people for intentions. We prosecute for actions. If a terrorist has the intention to kill himself for Allah, but is not given the opportunity, until a spontaneous event happens, and he reacts to it, it is a spontaneous act of terrorism.

 

Are you talking about intentions from people physically located in the jurisdiction of the US? Hostile Intent is definitely prosecuted overseas.

[walksalone]

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

If they were premeditated attacks using acts of violence to incite terror and achieve a political/religious goal, it could be labeled terrorism. If the tribes were warring it might just be guerrilla warfare.

 

Excuse the following analogy, I don't intend to compare Native American tribes to gangs: if two rival gangs bumble into each other at 30th and Lake in Omaha and open fire . . . that's not terrorism. It can't be. It's two groups of people who don't like each other/defending territory/etc. and they opened fire.

 

While you're not wrong, I'm just trying to illustrate that ever since 9/11 people are quick to throw the term "terrorist" out there...

[carlfense]

Exactly, but they are not equal. We do not prosecute people for intentions. We prosecute for actions.

Not quite true . . . take murder for example. It's the unlawful killing of another with malice aforethought. Without the intention (the malice aspect) it's not murder. It might be a homicide . . . but it's not murder.

 

Again, why does this matter? People are dead, right? Why are we all arguing over a message that we all agree was inconsistent? Why?

[JJ Husker]

 

 

Again, why does this matter? People are dead, right? Why are we all arguing over a message that we all agree was inconsistent? Why?

This will be my last post on the spontaneous uprising / act of terror subject.

 

It matters to some people because some people think that possibly the message put out by the administration was intentionally misleading. IF they were hiding some inaction on somebody's part or trying to change the nature of the attack to something more politically palatable, then it matters. However, as knapp has pointed out, this subject is NOT as important as the fact that four Americans are dead. Also, it is not as important as finding who perpetrated these acts. Sorry but sometimes, many times, we don't pick the most important thing to talk about here.

 

As for why we are arguing, carl meet mirror, mirror meet carl. I realize you are virtually incapable of conceding any point or portion of a point you have previously supported. I don't think one time in this discussion that you have admitted that at least some people in the administration were telling a different story than it was an act of terror. You've come close in admitting the message was "muddled and mishandled" but you have yet to admit that their primary stance was a spontaneous uprising. Come on humor me. Say it once; "Yes, it was referred to as a spontaneous uprising". While you attempt to spit those words out, you could also admit that many people do not share your belief that acts of terrorism cannot be spontaneous. You don't have to admit we're right (hell, we might not be) but you can surely admit that some of us actually think that even if you feel we're wrong about it.

 

I'm really hoping you can bring yourself to admit these two things. It's not even admitting you're wrong, it's simply acknowledging that there may be a viewpoint other than your own. My fingers are crossed. I think you can do it.

[Ziggy]

Let me help Carl out, he has already said it. I knew we had this discussion before. Notice the timestamps.

2nd attempt to get back on track. There are some reports out that the protests were relatively small, and that the attacks may have been premeditated and part of an Al Qaeda attack. Obviously the Libyan government wants to push this idea to take off some of the heat, and the Obama administration wants to say it was spontaneous to keep away from it being a terrorist attack on US soil. The reason they don't want this to be a Al Qaeda attack is because then it would be the first successful terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11. Also a video supposedly shows post attack footage that shows the Ambassador alive and being taken to a local hospital before he died at the hospital.

I think it probably varied from city to city and country to country. The Benghazi attack, no matter what is said by the Obama administration, was not a spontaneous riot protesting that video. That doesn't mean that all other riots were premeditated attacks as well.