Libyans See al Qaeda Hand in Embassy Attack

Unbelievable. Daily mail is a trash newspaper, the headlines are completely misleading. The article says:

A Libyan security officer has claimed that he warned American diplomats about the possibility of violent unrest three days before the attack on the U.S. consulate which left the ambassador dead along with three others.

Geez, there is a possibility of unrest, who would have known, great fucking intelligence.


The country's president also says that the deadly raid in Benghazi was 'pre-planned' by Al Qaeda and other 'foreigners'.

Geez, who would have known, I thought they just found the rockets lying by the roadside.

The point is: was there any credible intelligence information which was communicated about the SPECIFIC attack on Benghazi on the SPECIFIC day with details about the SPECIFIC levels of arms?

NO NON NULL NEVER.

So why are the dumbasses here complaining about the president not being informed of something which was not actually known to anybody outside of the terrorists doing the planning?

geez, I could weep. Why are you assuming connections when no connection exists? Originally Posted by essence

Keep weeping in your Kool Aid, dumbass.

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-09-15/m...ecurity-detail

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012...sulate-attack/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...k-8145242.html

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/ne...?service=Print

http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=284684

Libya claims U.S. was warned THREE DAYS in advance of consulate attacks

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2204112/Libya-claims-US-warned-THREE-DAYS-advance-consulate-attacks.html?ITO=1490

Odumbo's contingency plan: attend a fund raiser in Las Vegas. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Ive ask you several times and you refuse to answer, but I'll try again


if you were president and recieved a "CLAIM" from Libya, what would or could you have done in 3 DAYS to avert said attack?

inquiring minds want to know

Ive ask you several times and you refuse to answer, but I'll try again


if you were president and recieved a "CLAIM" from Libya, what would or could you have done in 3 DAYS to avert said attack?

inquiring minds want to know Originally Posted by CJ7

Go back and check your posts, jackass. Everyone of them was directed at COG.

Odumbo should have mandated higher security given the available intel and the significance of the date: he didn't. Then -- in a crass political move -- he flew off to attend a fund raiser in Las Vegas following the deaths of four Americans who died because of his negligence.

When you give me Odumbo's salary and office perks, I'll tell you what my other decisions would be. Until then, stick your question up your fucking ass and choke on it.

Go back and check your posts, jackass. Everyone of them was directed at COG.

Odumbo should have mandated higher security given the available intel and the significance of the date: he didn't. Then -- in a crass political move -- he flew off to attend a fund raiser in Las Vegas following the deaths of four Americans who died because of his negligence.

When you give me Odumbo's salary and office perks, I'll tell you what my other decisions would be. Until then, stick your question up your fucking ass and choke on it. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

that one wasnt dumbass ... answer the question

that one wasnt dumbass ... answer the question Originally Posted by CJ7

For the CBJ7, the Retard: Go back and check your posts, jackass. Everyone of them was directed at COG.

Odumbo should have mandated higher security given the available intel and the significance of the date: he didn't. Then -- in a crass political move -- he flew off to attend a fund raiser in Las Vegas following the deaths of four Americans who died because of his negligence.

When you give me Odumbo's salary and office perks, I'll tell you what my other decisions would be. Until then, stick your question up your fucking ass and choke on it.

For the CBJ7, the Retard: Go back and check your posts, jackass. Everyone of them was directed at COG.

Odumbo should have mandated higher security given the available intel and the significance of the date: he didn't. Then -- in a crass political move -- he flew off to attend a fund raiser in Las Vegas following the deaths of four Americans who died because of his negligence.

When you give me Odumbo's salary and office perks, I'll tell you what my other decisions would be. Until then, stick your question up your fucking ass and choke on it. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

thanks IB, you never cease to prove what a dipshit you are

thanks IB, you never cease to prove what a dipshit you are Originally Posted by CJ7

Once again for CBJ7, the Retard: Go back and check your posts, jackass. Everyone of them was directed at COG.

Odumbo should have mandated higher security given the available intel and the significance of the date: he didn't. Then -- in a crass political move -- he flew off to attend a fund raiser in Las Vegas following the deaths of four Americans who died because of his negligence.

When you give me Odumbo's salary and office perks, I'll tell you what my other decisions would be. Until then, stick your question up your fucking ass and choke on it.

Yeah, Ekim the Inbred, you're ludicrous. HINT: Odumbo is the Commander in Chief -- not an ambassador.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

God you are dumb ask CJ to explain it to you...

God you are dumb ask CJ to explain it to you... Originally Posted by ekim008

not me ... the broken record is on a roll.

I refuse to stop the display of IB's stupidity.

God you are dumb ask CJ to explain it to you... Originally Posted by ekim008

Still hasn't penetrated your Dim-witted head has it, Ekim the Inbred? Odumbo is responsible as the Commander in Chief -- not the ambassador.

not me ... the broken record is on a roll.

I rufuse to stop the display of IB's stupidity.

Originally Posted by CJ7

.

thanks dumbass

at least youre capable of something other than answering a simple question

Furthermore, after four American embassy personnel are assassinated, blames a clueless American film director for his foreign policy failures and flies off to Las Vegas to attend another fund raiser. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Geesh, you guys just have no relationship at all to reality do you? First off, the "American film director" you mention was actually an Coptic Egyptian film producer (in America) and pretty amateur by the looks of things. That is also just a red herring because the "film" which was actually a very badly done 15 minute clip with poor dubbing, was "released", actually uploaded to YouTube, in July. Two months later Imams and ME radio and TV talk shows tell their audiences about it to inflame anti-American sentiment. Now you tell me how this happened. What the film says, who did it, why and any other facts don't really matter as long as the Imams tell their followers it insults Mohammed. This was probably planned and possibly coordinated by Al-Qaeda affiliates and sympathizers. Other theories are that the producer works for the CIA or Mossad or is just a patsy for them (not that I buy that either would be so unsubtle).

Islam isn't any more "evil" than Christianity, Judaism or any other major religion any more than people in the Middle East are more "evil" than Westerners, Asians or Africans. They are a lot less affluent and educated in general so there is necessarily more anger and strife. Islam is also going through a more violent phase, but overall it has been known in history as quite a tolerant religion for most of its history, much more so than Christians who warred with each other and killed Christians who had only slightly different beliefs. There are and always have been fundamentalists in every religion who are ready and willing to kill anyone who doesn't believe exactly as they believe and for power over others.

As far as Al-Qaeda being in shambles, yes, it seems to be since it hasn't been able to cause serious disruption overseas, but there are many Al Qaeda "affiliates" across the middle east and they can plan and execute local attacks without the Al Qaeda heads in Pakistan and Yemen having much involvement other than perhaps providing inspiration. Al Qaeda and its affiliates are a loose confederation of radical Salafist Muslims who are now dangerous locally, but pose much less threat world-wide than they did 10 years ago. If we hadn't take a detour to an ill-conceived war in Iraq and taken our eye off the ball in Afghanistan, we probably could have done much more to eliminate these radical groups world wide. While I'm at it, Al Qaeda could and probably is involved in Syria, but likely after the fact because Al Qaeda is Salafist which means Sunni and Syria is an Iranian ally. Iran is Shia and the Salafists Sunnis hate Shites possibly worse than they hate us infidels.

Oh, and while I'm at it, the State building in Libya was a lightly guarded consulate in Benghazi not the heavily guarded embassy in Tripoli. The Egyptian embassy in Cairo did have its gate breached and some property destroyed because the host country is responsible for perimeter security, but the embassy was still secure and personal safe. Now they might not have been if a coordinated military style attack had been made there, but likely the Egyptian military would have come to the rescue pretty quickly because they don't put up with that shit in Egypt while they are trying to get their tourist economy back on track.

I'm sure this won't help those whose comments show they are willfully ignorant if not stupid, but maybe there are some independents who would like a more fact based view.

Geesh, you guys just have no relationship at all to reality do you? First off, the "American film director" you mention was actually an Coptic Egyptian film producer (in America) and pretty amateur by the looks of things. That is also just a red herring because the "film" which was actually a very badly done 15 minute clip with poor dubbing, was "released", actually uploaded to YouTube, in July. Two months later Imams and ME radio and TV talk shows tell their audiences about it to inflame anti-American sentiment. Now you tell me how this happened. What the film says, who did it, why and any other facts don't really matter as long as the Imams tell their followers it insults Mohammed. This was probably planned and possibly coordinated by Al-Qaeda affiliates and sympathizers. Other theories are that the producer works for the CIA or Mossad or is just a patsy for them (not that I buy that either would be so unsubtle). Perhaps you should invest in a dictionary. Check out the pejorative "clueless". Had you understood what you were reading, you wouldn't have gone off on a tangent.

The second word you should consider looking at is "naturalized". According to most MSM accounts, filmmaker Nakoula Basseley Nakoula is an Egyptian-born American and Coptic Christian.

Islam isn't any more "evil" than Christianity, Judaism or any other major religion any more than people in the Middle East are more "evil" than Westerners, Asians or Africans. They are a lot less affluent and educated in general so there is necessarily more anger and strife. Islam is also going through a more violent phase, but overall it has been known in history as quite a tolerant religion for most of its history, much more so than Christians who warred with each other and killed Christians who had only slightly different beliefs. There are and always have been fundamentalists in every religion who are ready and willing to kill anyone who doesn't believe exactly as they believe and for power over others. Asians and Westerners (Xerxes and the Greeks) were involved in monumental wars before there were Christians and Muslims. Religion has often been used as a veneer to pursue mundane political goals, and each instance of war and cruelty has to evaluated on its own merit to discover the true cause for conflict.

As far as Al-Qaeda being in shambles, yes, it seems to be since it hasn't been able to cause serious disruption overseas, but there are many Al Qaeda "affiliates" across the middle east and they can plan and execute local attacks without the Al Qaeda heads in Pakistan and Yemen having much involvement other than perhaps providing inspiration. Al Qaeda and its affiliates are a loose confederation of radical Salafist Muslims who are now dangerous locally, but pose much less threat world-wide than they did 10 years ago. If we hadn't take a detour to an ill-conceived war in Iraq and taken our eye off the ball in Afghanistan, we probably could have done much more to eliminate these radical groups world wide. While I'm at it, Al Qaeda could and probably is involved in Syria, but likely after the fact because Al Qaeda is Salafist which means Sunni and Syria is an Iranian ally. Iran is Shia and the Salafists Sunnis hate Shites possibly worse than they hate us infidels.

Oh, and while I'm at it, the State building in Libya was a lightly guarded consulate in Benghazi not the heavily guarded embassy in Tripoli. The Egyptian embassy in Cairo did have its gate breached and some property destroyed because the host country is responsible for perimeter security, but the embassy was still secure and personal safe. Now they might not have been if a coordinated military style attack had been made there, but likely the Egyptian military would have come to the rescue pretty quickly because they don't put up with that shit in Egypt while they are trying to get their tourist economy back on track.

I'm sure this won't help those whose comments show they are willfully ignorant if not stupid, but maybe there are some independents who would like a more fact based view. Yes, your willful ignorance in regards to what was actually posted is obvious. Originally Posted by austxjr

.

Keep weeping in your Kool Aid, dumbass. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

This is so painful and tedious, trying to make you into a thinking educated person.

Let's take one of your links:

American diplomats were warned of possible violent unrest in Benghazi three days before the killings of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three members of his team, Libyan security officials say.

The claim came as the country's interim President, Mohammed el-Megarif, said his government had information that the attack on the US consulate had been planned by an Islamist group with links to al-Qa'ida and with foreigners taking part.

Now, let me try again.

There were general, non specific warnings about security.

The attack is believed to have been planned. I myself can't see how it could not have been planned, at least for a few minutes, if not days.

BUT -- here is the point, but I don;t expect IBHillyBilly to get it -- there was no prior warning about the specific attack which was being planned. There was no prior knowledge about the specific attack, apart from within the group planning the attack.

You might ask why US intelligence has not infiltrated these groups so they can gather the information, but that is another story.

I believe the UK intelligence infiltrated IRA terror groups, it was extremely dangerous work, it took years, they were either very brave or maniacs, but I understand that they may have saved lives by warning the government about specific attacks.

What are the intelligence channels at present between western governments and al quada?

I just don't understand how people who have presumably gone through a western education system can be quite so wilfully dense.

This is so painful and tedious, trying to make you into a thinking educated person.

Let's take one of your links:

American diplomats were warned of possible violent unrest in Benghazi three days before the killings of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three members of his team, Libyan security officials say.

The claim came as the country's interim President, Mohammed el-Megarif, said his government had information that the attack on the US consulate had been planned by an Islamist group with links to al-Qa'ida and with foreigners taking part.

Now, let me try again.

There were general, non specific warnings about security. You equivocate. The article said the consulate was warned about the possibility of "violent unrest" in Libya by Libyan authorities near or on the anniversary of 9-11, and Odumbo, et al, did nothing.

The attack is believed to have been planned. I myself can't see how it could not have been planned, at least for a few minutes, if not days.

BUT -- here is the point, but I don;t expect IBHillyBilly to get it -- there was no prior warning about the specific attack which was being planned. There was no prior knowledge about the specific attack, apart from within the group planning the attack.
You equivocate. The article said the consulate was warned about the possibility of "violent unrest" in Libya by Libyan authorities near or on the anniversary of 9-11, and Odumbo, et al, did nothing.
You might ask why US intelligence has not infiltrated these groups so they can gather the information, but that is another story.

I believe the UK intelligence infiltrated IRA terror groups, it was extremely dangerous work, it took years, they were either very brave or maniacs, but I understand that they may have saved lives by warning the government about specific attacks.

What are the intelligence channels at present between western governments and al quada?

I just don't understand how people who have presumably gone through a western education system can be quite so wilfully dense . You are willfully dense. Originally Posted by essence

.