|
Please don't use this thread as a platform to argue about religion. -semioldguy |
On September 16 2012 21:07 Hazzyboy wrote: OMG ambassador killed by "freedom fighters" - talk about told ya so... How can morons like Soros sponsor "freedom fighters" by giving weapons to monkeys from mountains and feel safe that those monkeys are smart enough to be controlled - they just came from their mountains to kill and earn - they don't care for religion and just use it to cover their stupidity of profit. Anyway I get tired of this and just don't care anymore cuz it will never change just like us trying to get profit from anything...
RIP to all those innocent people killed in Libya.
I would quickly edit the stupidity out of your post, TL moderators are quick to ban bigots and plain racist comments.
I helped you out a bit by bolding the parts that should be removed.
|
On September 16 2012 12:42 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2012 02:08 ranshaked wrote:On September 16 2012 01:59 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 16 2012 01:56 ranshaked wrote:On September 16 2012 01:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 16 2012 01:46 ranshaked wrote:On September 16 2012 01:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 16 2012 01:29 ranshaked wrote:On September 16 2012 01:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 16 2012 00:57 frontliner2 wrote: [quote] Disgusting.
This whole event is making more non-muslims dislike muslims even more. Stop making generalization. If you make conclusions about "muslims" because of some idiots playing at Al Qaeda with black flags, you are the racist one. There are 5-10% muslims in Western countries. That's millions and millions of people. An enormous majority doesn't support this shit, doesn't care that some idiot made some video and hate Al Qaeda just as you do. Thinking that this is a justification for the huge amount of racism happening in your country and in mine towards Muslim and immigrants in general is plain wrong. I have muslim family, muslim friends, they are good, enlightened and loyal French citizens and people who, for a reason or another dislike them because of where they come from of the God they prey are just retards. I don't feel that anybody should hate me because of what some Christian extremists might do. If a Muslim comes to me and say that Breivik is a reason why he hates me I will think he is both a racist and an idiot. Same here. I believe the issue is that even moderate Muslims are not necessarily sympathizing with the extremists, but they also aren't condoning the extremists' action. With that said, why are there not more anti-extremist protests by Muslims? I'm more worried about the lack of sympathy for freedom of speech, and the disappointing number of Muslims standing up against the extremists. Because it has nothing to do with them? Why a moderate muslim should be involved in a conflict involving a racist who say they are a cancer in our society and some people who go ape shit nuts with paranoid slogans in those demos? By the way, why aren't you protesting against this video? If there are reasons to protest against those demos, I guess we should protest against this video. Unless Muslims should protest because salafists killed someone in Lybia? Seems unreal. It has everything to do with them. They consider themselves to be brothers of Islam, regardless of extremism or not. In America, we have the Westboro Baptist Church, which appear moderate compared to extreme Muslims, but when the WBC protests funerals and the streets you will see ten times their number as an opposition. Muslims should be protesting to protect their religion and way of life from the extremists. When you sit quietly and show apathy toward the situation, all you do is hurt your chances at being understood by Western society. Think of it this way: When your family does something insane, cruel etc, you shun them, you distance yourself from that person and make sure they know what they've done is wrong. You don't stand there and do nothing, or completely ignore the situation. The only people that can rid extremists are the moderates and progressives of that group. As for the video, it's a freedom of speech issue. It isn't violence, it is just hate, but I can accept hate, I cannot accept violence. Great. So since those demos are about hate and not violence, you should respect them and stick to your principles. They have nothing to do with the ambassador who got killed in a far away country by completely different people. As for Muslims, I don't feel that I have to protest everytime some Christian nutcase does something stupid. I don't feel that any Christian is my "brother" and that I am responsible for their acts. Did you protest when Breivik killed 70 people? No. Why should my cousin protest because some people he despise killed someone for bad reason that he doesn't agree with in a country that is as far from him as Norway is from you? Why on EARTH should a European or American muslim protest and make demos because some salafists killed someone in Lybia? That's fucking ridiculous. Because there aren't hundreds of thousands of Breivik's, or mass murderers, but there are hundreds of thousands of extremist Muslims that want nothing more than the death of Western civilization... These extremists cause problems and we have to stand against all of them, not just Muslims, but Christians etc. We cannot continue to sit by and ignore it. How do you not see this? How do you not see how the extremists are ruining Muslim countries? You're completely missing the point. There are quite a lot of people who have ideas I don't find much better than the ones of extremist Muslim. The whole Tea Party for example. Extremist are ruining Muslim countries and Muslims life in our countries because people are not clever enough between a fraction of people and the immense majority who don't share any of those ideas. They just see "the Muslims" and dmix everything up. The Tea Party isn't destroying their cities, or burning buildings, or killing innocent people. These protests are not peaceful, and should not be the reaction to a hate filled video. Nonetheless, I hope one day that we can all just get along, but that's a long stretch. Anything to the right of a standard Euro social democratic party is barbarism in Biff's playbook, and he's not too sure about them either. Muslim countries and too many Muslims outside of those countries are like the American South pre-1960s and the racist whites living there. In the South, there was a big minority of white people who thought segregation = great and we'll hurt anyone who tries to change it. Black kid looks at a white woman "wrong," let's beat him up and/or lynch him. Arrest black people if they try to enter the "white" area at the restaurant or on the bus or train or at a public bathroom. The majority of white people thought violence = not so great but segregation still = great, so they kept voting for politicians and appointing officials who'd turn a blind eye to the violence. And the underlying cause - racism - was never addressed. That's just the way things are in the South, Southern pride, don't lump them all in with the KKK, not all Southern whites are like that, the good whites (who were still racist and supported segregation) should be distinguished from the bad ones who kill people, blah blah blah blah. The majority created a society that allowed and encouraged the minority to be violent. The bad things didn't stop happening until the rest of the US stopped buying the bullshit and said in court rulings and public opinion "this is bullshit and all of you bear responsibility for how your society runs and you're going to stop it or we'll stop it for you." And then we did. And there isn't legal segregation in the South anymore, and racism is not publicly socially acceptable. Muslims have a responsibility to stop other Muslims from being racist, xenophobic, religiously supremacist and violent because of it; putting no pressure on the Muslim majority just ensures that the minority will continue to be violent and the majority will continue to maintain a society where the minority is allowed and encouraged to be violent. No you really don't get it.
First of all black people situation improved because they fought. It's not white people who started protesting because a minority of white people were oppressing the blacks. It's Martin Luther King, it's the Black Panthers, although their choice of violence was regrettable, and civil rights movements that made the situation change. Not your average "good" white man. White men didn't care for most of them.
So your analogy is not only bad, it's plainly revisionist. Anyway.
My point is simple. There are something like a billion Muslims in the world.
The fact that some fuckers belonging to a branch of Islam that you don't belong to, that live 10 000 km away from you in a post revolutionary country that you have never even visited killed an ambassador in a riot is none of your fucking problem if you are an average moderate Muslim.
Do you make a protest when Americans kill or torture people in Afghanistan or Irak?
Did you protest after the Abu Ghraib scandal? Did you protest when we have seen these helicopter soldier shooting civilians for fun? Did you protest when american soldiers pissed on dead bodies? Did you protest about waterboarding and use of torture by american army? Do you protest when Israel kill palestinian or demolish their house? Do you protest ... etc?
No. And you are perfectly right.
Why? Because the fact that some christian or some white people kill someone is not your fucking fault and has nothing to do with you. You are not responsible for what some extremist that happen to be of the same religion / ethnicity / whatever than you do.
Oh and yeah, in my playbook, far right people are barbarians. Le Pen is a barbarian, Santorum is a barbarian, Wilder is a barbarian. Just like those salafist idiots are barbarians too.
To explain you why, I'll leave you with one comment from Levy Strauss:
"The barbarian is the one who believes in barbary." And if you see a paradox, think again.
|
On September 16 2012 21:38 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2012 21:07 Hazzyboy wrote: OMG ambassador killed by "freedom fighters" - talk about told ya so... How can morons like Soros sponsor "freedom fighters" by giving weapons to monkeys from mountains and feel safe that those monkeys are smart enough to be controlled - they just came from their mountains to kill and earn - they don't care for religion and just use it to cover their stupidity of profit. Anyway I get tired of this and just don't care anymore cuz it will never change just like us trying to get profit from anything...
RIP to all those innocent people killed in Libya. I would quickly edit the stupidity out of your post, TL moderators are quick to ban bigots and plain racist comments. I helped you out a bit by bolding the parts that should be removed. Ban? Where is a racism in calling puppets = monkeys and you know it's a same thing. Nothing against people of Libya or any other muslin but those armed puppets from mountains have no understanding of any religion and they kill other muslin people when they claim that they are for religion freedom etc bla bla. Cleanly monkeys from mountains is an exact term to address them because they deserve no place in this world and btw nothing against animal monkeys cuz they are much more intelligent than those armed buffoons ... I'm not a brainwashed francophile but I'm used to it. There was nothing racist about calling people who fight for money monkeys but heck go donate to em if you believe what you hear in a small blue box called media.... Those monkeys train in mountains for their "freedom campaighns". Again I've seen this picture a million times before and will always repeat - feed monkeys to profit and watch em turn against you.
Reality check - electricity under Gaddafi was free for local people but thanks to "freedom fighters" there is no electricity or you have to pay for it - FAK YEA FREEDOM
|
On September 16 2012 22:47 Hazzyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2012 21:38 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On September 16 2012 21:07 Hazzyboy wrote: OMG ambassador killed by "freedom fighters" - talk about told ya so... How can morons like Soros sponsor "freedom fighters" by giving weapons to monkeys from mountains and feel safe that those monkeys are smart enough to be controlled - they just came from their mountains to kill and earn - they don't care for religion and just use it to cover their stupidity of profit. Anyway I get tired of this and just don't care anymore cuz it will never change just like us trying to get profit from anything...
RIP to all those innocent people killed in Libya. I would quickly edit the stupidity out of your post, TL moderators are quick to ban bigots and plain racist comments. I helped you out a bit by bolding the parts that should be removed. Ban? Where is a racism in calling puppets = monkeys and you know it's a same thing. I'm not a brainwashed francophile but I'm used to it. There was nothing racist about calling people who fight for money monkeys but heck go donate to em if you believe what you hear in a small blue box called media.... Those monkeys train in mountains for their "freedom campaighns". Again I've seen this picture a million times before and will always repeat - feed monkeys to profit and watch em turn against you. Reality check - electricity under Gaddafi was free for local people but thanks to "freedom fighters" there is no electricity or you have to pay for it - FAK YEA FREEDOM 
I apologize but maybe I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Might be a language barrier.
|
On September 16 2012 22:54 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
I apologize but maybe I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Might be a language barrier. More like a media barrier cuz my English is fluent as far as I'm concerned. My point is that rich douchbags like George Soros create funds to arm terrorist organisations and create chaos in a place where they wanna gain power, profit etc. I mean they don't even try to hide where money goes - to kill civilians in Libya for example. But they pay media to advertise their charity/help funds and after you see monkeys with guns bought for your charity money running around killing people.
And what bothers me is people arguing about religion during all that?! Religion is like a language - different but same purpose and it is used by people on top to create diversity. Again those "freedom fighters" have nothing to do with religion - they just get payed to kill and say what they told to say about Islam/Christianity like brainless puppets.
Not to spam more about it but I am quite calm and feel that describing my point about paid puppets who kill, I should call them monkeys from mountains, because they have no respect for civilization.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On September 16 2012 23:01 Hazzyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2012 22:54 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
I apologize but maybe I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Might be a language barrier. More like a media barrier cuz my English is fluent as far as I'm concerned. My point is that rich douchbags like George Soros create funds to arm terrorist organisations and create chaos in a place where they wanna gain power, profit etc. I mean they don't even try to hide where money goes - to kill civilians in Libya for example. But they pay media to advertise their charity/help funds and after you see monkeys with guns bought for your charity money running around killing people.
Maybe it is actually because you're so overly bias that your words are coming off a bit odd. Why not slow yourself down and present a few more points instead of yelling fire at the top of your lungs. I'm all for saying that it is worse off but no need to act like a child who dropped their ice cream. Slow it down.
|
In the civilized world you don't get to refer to an entire population of people as "monkeys from mountains" without alienating reasonable people. TL is not a bar conversation with your racist cousins D:
|
On September 16 2012 16:00 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2012 15:31 Voltaire wrote:On September 16 2012 12:53 Euronyme wrote:On September 16 2012 12:34 Voltaire wrote:On September 16 2012 12:29 Euronyme wrote:In most European countries hate speech is an exception in the freedom of speech and is actually a crime. Sure we should stick to our freedom of speech, but pissing off extremists just because you can and thereby causing more civilian deaths is even more childish imo. I think many European countries are infringing on freedom of speech. It's really terrifying, honestly. Here's an example: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-19604735a 19 year old being arrested for a Facebook post? Is freedom of speech a joke in the UK? What do you mean by infringing? It's a national law. In most European countries there are clauses when it comes to harassment, threats, hate speech and such. Basically what's known as common sense. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech Common sense? Wow. I'd never move to a country where someone can be arrested for "hate speech". It's ridiculous. I'm a strong believer of the concept "I don't agree with what you have to say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."  Europe is fortunately still not a country, contrary to popular belief. I completely agree with that notion, until we get to the guy saying "fuck you niggers I hate niggers everywhere, let's pick up our guns and kill them all. I will personally go to your home, nigger, and put a gun in your mouth a pull the trigger". I don't think such behaviour is acceptable, and I guess that's where our beliefs differ.
I never said Europe was a country. If you read my posts you see phrases like "most European countries" that make it obvious that I know that Europe isn't a country. Nice try, though.
|
On September 16 2012 23:20 Djzapz wrote: In the civilized world you don't get to refer to an entire population of people as "monkeys from mountains" without alienating reasonable people. TL is not a bar conversation with your racist cousins D: People of Libya are majority and they have same opinion as I do about those buffoons mostly. Sign, I referred to "freedom fighters/terrorists" who are not even Libyans, not population and heck I bet to call a chair what it is - "chair" and not gonna call it "table" cuz yellow press wants me to by using common sense. Funny how calling terrorists who train in mountains - monkeys from mountains makes one a racist but on the other hand totally expected. BTW I do know a lot about racism because I'm a minority so don't try to explain me something I have 1st hand experience of.
It's pointless to change opinions so I will have mine and you will continue with yours.
Also regarding topic, a little about those who attacked U.S. embassy. They were foreign citizens of Mali, Algeria and other countries. Just like all the "freedom fighters" there are no locals but a lot of "cancer" people from other places.
|
The guns are not sold to terrorists specifically. Kind of assumed you knew that.
|
So guns don't grow on trees or monkeys make em themselves?! Anyway just like distribution of any goods today there are a lot of people involved and I have a clue about it that guns are sold to organisations who hire guys to kill staff. You know in hockey everyone used to say "did u trip on a banana spleen?" when someone dived but today it's racist... I kinda feel it's same meaning with monkeys (stupid puppets)...
|
On September 16 2012 22:47 Hazzyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2012 21:38 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On September 16 2012 21:07 Hazzyboy wrote: OMG ambassador killed by "freedom fighters" - talk about told ya so... How can morons like Soros sponsor "freedom fighters" by giving weapons to monkeys from mountains and feel safe that those monkeys are smart enough to be controlled - they just came from their mountains to kill and earn - they don't care for religion and just use it to cover their stupidity of profit. Anyway I get tired of this and just don't care anymore cuz it will never change just like us trying to get profit from anything...
RIP to all those innocent people killed in Libya. I would quickly edit the stupidity out of your post, TL moderators are quick to ban bigots and plain racist comments. I helped you out a bit by bolding the parts that should be removed. Ban? Where is a racism in calling puppets = monkeys and you know it's a same thing. Nothing against people of Libya or any other muslin but those armed puppets from mountains have no understanding of any religion and they kill other muslin people when they claim that they are for religion freedom etc bla bla. Cleanly monkeys from mountains is an exact term to address them because they deserve no place in this world and btw nothing against animal monkeys cuz they are much more intelligent than those armed buffoons ... I'm not a brainwashed francophile but I'm used to it. There was nothing racist about calling people who fight for money monkeys but heck go donate to em if you believe what you hear in a small blue box called media.... Those monkeys train in mountains for their "freedom campaighns". Again I've seen this picture a million times before and will always repeat - feed monkeys to profit and watch em turn against you. Reality check - electricity under Gaddafi was free for local people but thanks to "freedom fighters" there is no electricity or you have to pay for it - FAK YEA FREEDOM 
Your use of the word 'monkey' is what makes it seem racist.
In the past when racism was more common in western europe, white people often revered to black people as monkeys. I always found it ironic as to my knowledge the only 100% homosapiens are black people, while most white and asian people are genetically closer to monkeys.
|
It really really pisses me off that Obama and his administration keep trying to push this was a random escalation from the protests. What right did the president have to speak at the funerals for those lost in Lybia when he doesn't have the balls to admit the attack was planned in fear of losing numbers in a poll.
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/14/in-attack-aftermath-disagreement-over-how-it-began/
""We were not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent," presidential spokesman Jay Carney said."
And now at the UN conference once again declaring it was not planned.
|
On September 17 2012 07:31 JeremyK wrote:It really really pisses me off that Obama and his administration keep trying to push this was a random escalation from the protests. What right did the president have to speak at the funerals for those lost in Lybia when he doesn't have the balls to admit the attack was planned in fear of losing numbers in a poll. http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/14/in-attack-aftermath-disagreement-over-how-it-began/""We were not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent," presidential spokesman Jay Carney said." And now at the UN conference once again declaring it was not planned. So I guess what the UN/US want us to believe is that there were some really angry punks in Libya, and there just HAPPENED to be weapons immediately available, and then just impulsively killed an ambassador right there?
Because if that's not what happened, then it was, by definition, planned.
|
On September 19 2012 14:20 MountainDewJunkie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 07:31 JeremyK wrote:It really really pisses me off that Obama and his administration keep trying to push this was a random escalation from the protests. What right did the president have to speak at the funerals for those lost in Lybia when he doesn't have the balls to admit the attack was planned in fear of losing numbers in a poll. http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/14/in-attack-aftermath-disagreement-over-how-it-began/""We were not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent," presidential spokesman Jay Carney said." And now at the UN conference once again declaring it was not planned. So I guess what the UN/US want us to believe is that there were some really angry punks in Libya, and there just HAPPENED to be weapons immediately available, and then just impulsively killed an ambassador right there? Because if that's not what happened, then it was, by definition, planned.
That quote said they didnt have actionable intelligence that it was planned. Not that it wasn't planned. Or did I read wrong?
|
On September 19 2012 18:06 Zahir wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 14:20 MountainDewJunkie wrote:On September 17 2012 07:31 JeremyK wrote:It really really pisses me off that Obama and his administration keep trying to push this was a random escalation from the protests. What right did the president have to speak at the funerals for those lost in Lybia when he doesn't have the balls to admit the attack was planned in fear of losing numbers in a poll. http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/14/in-attack-aftermath-disagreement-over-how-it-began/""We were not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent," presidential spokesman Jay Carney said." And now at the UN conference once again declaring it was not planned. So I guess what the UN/US want us to believe is that there were some really angry punks in Libya, and there just HAPPENED to be weapons immediately available, and then just impulsively killed an ambassador right there? Because if that's not what happened, then it was, by definition, planned. That quote said they didnt have actionable intelligence that it was planned. Not that it wasn't planned. Or did I read wrong?
The term "actionable intelligence" seem sufficiently vague to mean a number of wildly different things.
|
On September 19 2012 21:28 MstrJinbo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 18:06 Zahir wrote:On September 19 2012 14:20 MountainDewJunkie wrote:On September 17 2012 07:31 JeremyK wrote:It really really pisses me off that Obama and his administration keep trying to push this was a random escalation from the protests. What right did the president have to speak at the funerals for those lost in Lybia when he doesn't have the balls to admit the attack was planned in fear of losing numbers in a poll. http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/14/in-attack-aftermath-disagreement-over-how-it-began/""We were not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent," presidential spokesman Jay Carney said." And now at the UN conference once again declaring it was not planned. So I guess what the UN/US want us to believe is that there were some really angry punks in Libya, and there just HAPPENED to be weapons immediately available, and then just impulsively killed an ambassador right there? Because if that's not what happened, then it was, by definition, planned. That quote said they didnt have actionable intelligence that it was planned. Not that it wasn't planned. Or did I read wrong? The term "actionable intelligence" seem sufficiently vague to mean a number of wildly different things.
That's the goal isn't it? The more vague a statement, the farther the reach of definition. Unlawful combatant etc. Best to be vague and go "well I defined it differently" .
|
New developments:
TL/DR: U.S. Government officials are now labeling the attack as a terrorist attack. There is evidence suggesting a link between the attack and Al Qaeda. Sufyan Ben Qumu, a former Gitmo detainee and associate of Osama Bin Laden, is thought to have been involved and even may have led the attack.
While there hasn't been a final decision on what motivated the attack, there is a lot of evidence that suggests the youtube video had little/nothing to do with the attack. Consequently, the White House is back tracking on its claim that the youtube video is what sparked this attack.
+ Show Spoiler +Intelligence sources tell Fox News they are convinced the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was directly tied to Al Qaeda -- with a former Guantanamo detainee involved. That revelation comes on the same day a top Obama administration official called last week's deadly assault a "terrorist attack" -- the first time the attack has been described that way by the administration after claims it had been a "spontaneous" act. "Yes, they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy," Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, said during a Senate hearing Wednesday. Olsen echoed administration colleagues in saying U.S. officials have no specific intelligence about "significant advanced planning or coordination" for the attack. However, his statement goes beyond White House Press Secretary Jay Carney and Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, saying the Sept. 11 attack on the consulate was spontaneous. He is the first top administration official to call the strike an act of terrorism. Sufyan Ben Qumu is thought to have been involved and even may have led the attack, Fox News' intelligence sources said. Qumu, a Libyan, was released from the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in 2007 and transferred into Libyan custody on the condition he be kept in jail. He was released by the Qaddafi regime as part of its reconciliation effort with Islamists in 2008. His Guantanamo files also show he has ties to the financiers behind the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The declassified files also point to ties with the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a known Al Qaeda affiliate. Olson, repeating Wednesday that the FBI is handling the Benghazi investigation, also acknowledged the attack could lead back to Al Qaeda and its affiliates. "We are looking at indications that individuals involved in the attack may have had connections to Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda's affiliates, in particular Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb," he said at the Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing. Still, Olsen said "the facts that we have now indicate that this was an opportunistic attack on our embassy, the attack began and evolved and escalated over several hours," Olson said. Carney said hours earlier that there still is "no evidence of a preplanned or pre-meditated attack," which occurred on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks. "I made that clear last week, Ambassador Rice made that clear Sunday," Carney said at the daily White House press briefing. Rice appeared on "Fox News Sunday" and four other morning talk shows to say the attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans was "spontaneous" and sparked by an early protest that day outside the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, Egypt, over an anti-Islamic video. "It was a reaction to a video that had nothing to do with the United States," Rice told Fox News. "The best information and the best assessment we have today is that this was not a pre-planned, pre-meditated attack. What happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo." However, that account clashed with claims by the Libyan president that the attack was in fact premeditated. Other sources, including an intelligence source in Libya who spoke to Fox News, have echoed those claims. The intelligence source even said that, contrary to the suggestion by the Obama administration, there was no major protest in Benghazi before the deadly attack which killed four Americans. A U.S. official did not dispute the claim. In the face of these conflicting accounts, Carney on Tuesday deferred to the ongoing investigation and opened the door to the possibility of other explanations. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, called Wednesday for an independent review of the attack. "A State Department Accountability Review Board to look into the Benghazi attack is not sufficient," Collins said. "Given the loss of the lives of four Americans who were serving their country and the serious questions that have been raised about the security at our Consulate in Benghazi, it is imperative that a non-political, no-holds-barred examination be conducted." Source
There is also evidence supporting a theory that the protests and subsequent attack was in retaliation for the ongoing imprisonment of "The Blind Sheikh."
Fox News has obtained a three-page intelligence report showing that two days before the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya, a statement incited "sons of Egypt" to pressure America to release the so-called blind sheikh "even if it requires burning the embassy down with everyone in it."
The web statement, apparently posted on Sept. 9, was in reference to the embassy in Egypt. It preceded a throng of demonstrators breaching the U.S. Embassy wall in Cairo, supposedly in protest over an anti-Islam film. Obama administration officials claim that attackers in Libya then took their cue from Cairo and seized the opportunity to attack the consulate in Benghazi.
Full Article: + Show Spoiler +Fox News has obtained a three-page intelligence report showing that two days before the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya, a statement incited "sons of Egypt" to pressure America to release the so-called blind sheikh "even if it requires burning the embassy down with everyone in it." The web statement, apparently posted on Sept. 9, was in reference to the embassy in Egypt. It preceded a throng of demonstrators breaching the U.S. Embassy wall in Cairo, supposedly in protest over an anti-Islam film. Obama administration officials claim that attackers in Libya then took their cue from Cairo and seized the opportunity to attack the consulate in Benghazi. Though the administration's version of events is still evolving, the three-page Department of Homeland Security intelligence report further highlights potential threats that were being picked up before last week's attack. The DHS report, released on Sept. 11, said an "unidentified user" on an Arabic-language forum posted the statement "inciting Egyptians to target the U.S. Embassy, indicating the U.S. Embassy shouldn't remain in Egypt" until Omar Abdel-Rahman, also known as the blind sheikh, is released. Abdel-Rahman, who played a role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and other attacks, is serving a life sentence in U.S. prison. The DHS document described the source of the warning as "fairly reliable." The Sept. 9 statement said "the time has come for a strong movement from you, O sons of Egypt, to release the detained" sheikh. "Let your slogan be: No to the American Embassy in Egypt until our detained sheikh is released." It continued: "Starting now, let the faithful among you form follow-up committees in charge of taking the necessary measures to force America to release the sheikh -- even if it requires burning the embassy down with everyone in it." In addition to the threat over the sheikh, Reuters reported earlier this week that a U.S. cable on Sept. 10 warned the U.S. Embassy in Cairo of possible violence over the anti-Islam film. Asked about that alleged warning, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney stressed Tuesday that everything is "under investigation in terms of what precipitated the attacks." Meanwhile, lawmakers raised concern Wednesday that the Obama administration might actually be considering the sheikh's release. Several Republican chairmen of top House committees wrote a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton referencing a Breitbart.com report claiming the State Department was "actively negotiating" with Egypt's president about transferring the blind sheikh to Egyptian custody. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland denied the report. "Let me say as clearly as I can there is no plan to release the blind sheikh, there is no plan. To my knowledge we have not been approached about it recently by any senior Egyptians," she said Wednesday. But House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King and others wrote to Holder and Clinton saying they were "concerned" about the reports. "If these reports are true, such considerations would be extremely disconcerting as release of this convicted terrorist should not happen for any reason," they wrote. "The blind sheikh inspired the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, ordered the 1997 massacre of Western tourists at Luxor, Egypt, and issued the Islamic religious ruling that Osama bin Laden relied upon to justify the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. ... "While considerations regarding the blind sheikh's release would be disturbing in any context, they are particularly alarming given recent events. The 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks was marked by the assassination of America's ambassador to Libya and an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Egypt. The violence in Egypt has been attributed, in part, to that government's demands for the blind sheikh's release. Succumbing to the demands of a country whose citizens threaten our embassy and the Americans serving in it would send a clear message that acts of violence will be responded to with appeasement rather than strength." They urged the administration to keep Abdel-Rahman in the U.S., warning that releasing him would be seen as "a sign of weakness." Source
I'm very curious to see what comes out of the ongoing investigations in the coming weeks.
|
On September 20 2012 11:34 Joedaddy wrote:New developments: TL/DR: U.S. Government officials are now labeling the attack as a terrorist attack. There is evidence suggesting a link between the attack and Al Qaeda. Sufyan Ben Qumu, a former Gitmo detainee and associate of Osama Bin Laden, is thought to have been involved and even may have led the attack. While there hasn't been a final decision on what motivated the attack, there is a lot of evidence that suggests the youtube video had little/nothing to do with the attack. Consequently, the White House is back tracking on its claim that the youtube video is what sparked this attack. + Show Spoiler +Intelligence sources tell Fox News they are convinced the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was directly tied to Al Qaeda -- with a former Guantanamo detainee involved. That revelation comes on the same day a top Obama administration official called last week's deadly assault a "terrorist attack" -- the first time the attack has been described that way by the administration after claims it had been a "spontaneous" act. "Yes, they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy," Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, said during a Senate hearing Wednesday. Olsen echoed administration colleagues in saying U.S. officials have no specific intelligence about "significant advanced planning or coordination" for the attack. However, his statement goes beyond White House Press Secretary Jay Carney and Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, saying the Sept. 11 attack on the consulate was spontaneous. He is the first top administration official to call the strike an act of terrorism. Sufyan Ben Qumu is thought to have been involved and even may have led the attack, Fox News' intelligence sources said. Qumu, a Libyan, was released from the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in 2007 and transferred into Libyan custody on the condition he be kept in jail. He was released by the Qaddafi regime as part of its reconciliation effort with Islamists in 2008. His Guantanamo files also show he has ties to the financiers behind the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The declassified files also point to ties with the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a known Al Qaeda affiliate. Olson, repeating Wednesday that the FBI is handling the Benghazi investigation, also acknowledged the attack could lead back to Al Qaeda and its affiliates. "We are looking at indications that individuals involved in the attack may have had connections to Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda's affiliates, in particular Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb," he said at the Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing. Still, Olsen said "the facts that we have now indicate that this was an opportunistic attack on our embassy, the attack began and evolved and escalated over several hours," Olson said. Carney said hours earlier that there still is "no evidence of a preplanned or pre-meditated attack," which occurred on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks. "I made that clear last week, Ambassador Rice made that clear Sunday," Carney said at the daily White House press briefing. Rice appeared on "Fox News Sunday" and four other morning talk shows to say the attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans was "spontaneous" and sparked by an early protest that day outside the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, Egypt, over an anti-Islamic video. "It was a reaction to a video that had nothing to do with the United States," Rice told Fox News. "The best information and the best assessment we have today is that this was not a pre-planned, pre-meditated attack. What happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo." However, that account clashed with claims by the Libyan president that the attack was in fact premeditated. Other sources, including an intelligence source in Libya who spoke to Fox News, have echoed those claims. The intelligence source even said that, contrary to the suggestion by the Obama administration, there was no major protest in Benghazi before the deadly attack which killed four Americans. A U.S. official did not dispute the claim. In the face of these conflicting accounts, Carney on Tuesday deferred to the ongoing investigation and opened the door to the possibility of other explanations. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, called Wednesday for an independent review of the attack. "A State Department Accountability Review Board to look into the Benghazi attack is not sufficient," Collins said. "Given the loss of the lives of four Americans who were serving their country and the serious questions that have been raised about the security at our Consulate in Benghazi, it is imperative that a non-political, no-holds-barred examination be conducted." SourceThere is also evidence supporting a theory that the protests and subsequent attack was in retaliation for the ongoing imprisonment of "The Blind Sheikh." Show nested quote +Fox News has obtained a three-page intelligence report showing that two days before the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya, a statement incited "sons of Egypt" to pressure America to release the so-called blind sheikh "even if it requires burning the embassy down with everyone in it."
The web statement, apparently posted on Sept. 9, was in reference to the embassy in Egypt. It preceded a throng of demonstrators breaching the U.S. Embassy wall in Cairo, supposedly in protest over an anti-Islam film. Obama administration officials claim that attackers in Libya then took their cue from Cairo and seized the opportunity to attack the consulate in Benghazi. Full Article:+ Show Spoiler +Fox News has obtained a three-page intelligence report showing that two days before the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya, a statement incited "sons of Egypt" to pressure America to release the so-called blind sheikh "even if it requires burning the embassy down with everyone in it." The web statement, apparently posted on Sept. 9, was in reference to the embassy in Egypt. It preceded a throng of demonstrators breaching the U.S. Embassy wall in Cairo, supposedly in protest over an anti-Islam film. Obama administration officials claim that attackers in Libya then took their cue from Cairo and seized the opportunity to attack the consulate in Benghazi. Though the administration's version of events is still evolving, the three-page Department of Homeland Security intelligence report further highlights potential threats that were being picked up before last week's attack. The DHS report, released on Sept. 11, said an "unidentified user" on an Arabic-language forum posted the statement "inciting Egyptians to target the U.S. Embassy, indicating the U.S. Embassy shouldn't remain in Egypt" until Omar Abdel-Rahman, also known as the blind sheikh, is released. Abdel-Rahman, who played a role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and other attacks, is serving a life sentence in U.S. prison. The DHS document described the source of the warning as "fairly reliable." The Sept. 9 statement said "the time has come for a strong movement from you, O sons of Egypt, to release the detained" sheikh. "Let your slogan be: No to the American Embassy in Egypt until our detained sheikh is released." It continued: "Starting now, let the faithful among you form follow-up committees in charge of taking the necessary measures to force America to release the sheikh -- even if it requires burning the embassy down with everyone in it." In addition to the threat over the sheikh, Reuters reported earlier this week that a U.S. cable on Sept. 10 warned the U.S. Embassy in Cairo of possible violence over the anti-Islam film. Asked about that alleged warning, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney stressed Tuesday that everything is "under investigation in terms of what precipitated the attacks." Meanwhile, lawmakers raised concern Wednesday that the Obama administration might actually be considering the sheikh's release. Several Republican chairmen of top House committees wrote a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton referencing a Breitbart.com report claiming the State Department was "actively negotiating" with Egypt's president about transferring the blind sheikh to Egyptian custody. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland denied the report. "Let me say as clearly as I can there is no plan to release the blind sheikh, there is no plan. To my knowledge we have not been approached about it recently by any senior Egyptians," she said Wednesday. But House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King and others wrote to Holder and Clinton saying they were "concerned" about the reports. "If these reports are true, such considerations would be extremely disconcerting as release of this convicted terrorist should not happen for any reason," they wrote. "The blind sheikh inspired the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, ordered the 1997 massacre of Western tourists at Luxor, Egypt, and issued the Islamic religious ruling that Osama bin Laden relied upon to justify the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. ... "While considerations regarding the blind sheikh's release would be disturbing in any context, they are particularly alarming given recent events. The 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks was marked by the assassination of America's ambassador to Libya and an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Egypt. The violence in Egypt has been attributed, in part, to that government's demands for the blind sheikh's release. Succumbing to the demands of a country whose citizens threaten our embassy and the Americans serving in it would send a clear message that acts of violence will be responded to with appeasement rather than strength." They urged the administration to keep Abdel-Rahman in the U.S., warning that releasing him would be seen as "a sign of weakness." SourceI'm very curious to see what comes out of the ongoing investigations in the coming weeks. Al Qaeda in the Maghreb and LIFG, both Islamic terrorist groups, were two of the cornerstones of the revolution (if not the most important ones), and comprised some of the key leaders. It would make perfect sense that it was Al Qaeda behind the attack, considering they won the civil war. Reminds me of Afghanistan. We support Islamic extremists and terrorists, and then we take them out when they don't do our bidding. Stay tuned on Libya.
|
On September 19 2012 18:06 Zahir wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 14:20 MountainDewJunkie wrote:On September 17 2012 07:31 JeremyK wrote:It really really pisses me off that Obama and his administration keep trying to push this was a random escalation from the protests. What right did the president have to speak at the funerals for those lost in Lybia when he doesn't have the balls to admit the attack was planned in fear of losing numbers in a poll. http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/14/in-attack-aftermath-disagreement-over-how-it-began/""We were not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent," presidential spokesman Jay Carney said." And now at the UN conference once again declaring it was not planned. So I guess what the UN/US want us to believe is that there were some really angry punks in Libya, and there just HAPPENED to be weapons immediately available, and then just impulsively killed an ambassador right there? Because if that's not what happened, then it was, by definition, planned. That quote said they didnt have actionable intelligence that it was planned. Not that it wasn't planned. Or did I read wrong?
They were trying to make it appear it was a result of the video, that way there was no blame back on the government for not protecting their diplomats.
The Obama camp tried pretty damn hard to cover up this attack, when directly out the gate there was in fact massive intelligence stating it was a planned terrorist attack that was not related to the protests (which were not even happening at the embassy!, thats how bad this cover up was). It is about damn time they came out and admitted it was in fact a terrorist attack. It was puzzling to see how long they held off on saying it. Election polls fears brings out the worst of our government.
|
|
|
|