Started By
Message

re: It takes Trey Gowdy just three minutes to silence the media

Posted on 5/12/14 at 9:40 pm to
Posted by Paluka
One State Over
Member since Dec 2010
10763 posts
Posted on 5/12/14 at 9:40 pm to
So because of a video or simply opportunistic? Interesting conundrum. Waiting on your link for these eye witnesses.

Edit: thanks
This post was edited on 5/12/14 at 9:42 pm
Posted by StrangeBrew
Salvation Army-Thanks Obama
Member since May 2009
18186 posts
Posted on 5/12/14 at 9:42 pm to
quote:

that the attacks by Ansar Al Sharia were not in response to the video.
Rex what was the cause of the previous attacks on outpost in Benghazi, you know the ones that caused the British and Red Cross to withdraw? Is there a prequel to the one that caused the 9/11 attacks on the US compound?
Posted by Decatur
Member since Mar 2007
28719 posts
Posted on 5/12/14 at 9:43 pm to
quote:

And despite all that, there were witnesses who DID say there was a protest.


This AP article sheds some light on some of the confusion I think

quote:

TRIPOLI, Libya (AP) — It began around nightfall on Sept. 11 with around 150 bearded gunmen, some wearing the Afghan-style tunics favored by Islamic militants, sealing off the streets leading to the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. They set up roadblocks with pick-up trucks mounted with heavy machine guns, according to witnesses.

The trucks bore the logo of Ansar al-Shariah, a powerful local group of Islamist militants who worked with the municipal government to manage security in Benghazi, the main city in eastern Libya and birthplace of the uprising last year that ousted Moammar Gadhafi after a 42-year dictatorship.

There was no sign of a spontaneous protest against an American-made movie denigrating Islam's Prophet Muhammad. But a lawyer passing by the scene said he saw the militants gathering around 20 youths from nearby to chant against the film. Within an hour or so, the assault began, guns blazing as the militants blasted into the compound.

One of the consulate's private Libyan guards said masked militants grabbed him and beat him, one of them calling him "an infidel protecting infidels who insulted the prophet."

The witness accounts gathered by The Associated Press give a from-the-ground perspective for the sharply partisan debate in the U.S. over the attack that left U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead. They corroborate the conclusion largely reached by American officials that it was a planned militant assault. But they also suggest the militants may have used the film controversy as a cover for the attack.



U.S. officials say they are still investigating whether there is an al-Qaida connection. They say members of Ansar al-Shariah called members of al-Qaida's branch in North Africa outside of Libya and boasted of the attack. The administration has even said it is prepared to carry out drone strikes against the branch, known as al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb, or AQIM, if a link is proven. But the officials also acknowledge the calls alone do not yet prove AQIM was involved.

A day after the Benghazi attack, an unidentified Ansar al-Shariah spokesman said the militia was not involved "as an organization" — leaving open the possibility members were involved. He praised the attack as a popular "uprising" sparked by the anti-Islam film, further propagating the image of a mob attack against the consulate.

So far, the attackers' motives can only be speculated at.



The news trickled out slowly the night of the attack, with initial reports overshadowed by the storming of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo by protesters angry over the film. It was only the next morning that Stevens' death was confirmed.
On the day of the attack and the next day, The Associated Press referred to it as a mob attack, based on Libyan officials' comment that there was a significant unarmed protest at the time. In reporting the following days, AP referred to it as an "armed attack" and detailed its organized nature.

The past week, the AP has gathered accounts from five witnesses, including one of the embassy guards and several people living next door to the consulate compound who were present when the militants first moved in. Most spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals for talking about the attack.

The neighbors all described the militants setting up checkpoints around the compound at about 8 p.m. The State Department's timeline says the attack itself began at around 9:40 p.m.

Khaled al-Haddar, a lawyer who passed by the scene as he headed to his nearby home, said he saw the fighters gathering a few youths from among passers-by and urged them to chant against the film.

"I am certain they had planned to do something like this, I don't know if it was hours or days, but it was definitely planned," said al-Haddar. "From the way they set up the checkpoints and gathered people, it was very professional."

The guard said he saw no protesters. He heard a few shouts of "God is great," then a barrage of automatic weapons fire and rocket-propelled grenades began, along with barrages from heavy machine guns mounted on trucks.

The attackers set fire to the main consulate building. Stevens and another staffer, caught inside amid the confusion, died of smoke inhalation.

The attack came from the front and the side. A neighbor whose house is on side of the consulate compound said militants with their faces wrapped in scarves attacking.

Because of the checkpoints, "it felt like our neighborhood was occupied, no one could get out or in," he said.

The effectiveness of the roadblocks was later revealed in the State Department's account of the evacuation. It described how the rescue force came under heavy fire and grenade attacks as they tried to leave the consulate area.


LINK

And notice at the end

quote:

Osama Alfitory in Benghazi contributed to this report.


Osama is Suliman's wingman


quote:

Friday, 11 November 2011
Written by Rory Peck Trust

Suliman Ali Zway and Osama Alfitory, known to international journalists as the 'A Team' worked with many of the world's biggest news organisations to deliver accurate and ground breaking stories from Libya

The Rory Peck Trust today announced that Libyan fixers Suliman Ali Zway and Osama Alfitory will be the recipients of this year's Martin Adler Prize. Now in its fifth year, the prize recognises the dedication and bravery of local freelancers who have played a significant role in the reporting of a major news story. Suliman and Osama will be presented with the prize at the Rory Peck Awards ceremony on Wednesday 16 November at London’s BFI Southbank, hosted by BBC's Mishal Husain and Channel 4's Alex Thomson.

Known by international journalists as the "A Team", Suliman Ali Zway and Osama Alfitory, found themselves in every corner of the country during Libya's revolution, helping journalists deliver accurate and ground breaking news. Both had made comfortable livings working in the construction business but in early February, when many young people in eastern Libya were volunteering to help visiting journalists, the two men joined the wave. Suliman worked briefly with an Italian television crew, and for reporters working for the Washington Post. Osama first worked with a New York Times Magazine reporter.




LINK
This post was edited on 5/12/14 at 9:44 pm
Posted by Rex
Here, there, and nowhere
Member since Sep 2004
66001 posts
Posted on 5/12/14 at 9:48 pm to
I'm not an expert on these things... I don't get out to Libya very much.

What I know from news and Google accounts is that there is a history in Libya of extremists attacking diplomatic installations because of perceived insults to their prophet.


Posted by BBONDS25
Member since Mar 2008
48962 posts
Posted on 5/12/14 at 9:49 pm to
Still going for the video angle. Despite already admitting it had nothing to so with it??
Posted by Paluka
One State Over
Member since Dec 2010
10763 posts
Posted on 5/12/14 at 9:56 pm to
quote:

Posted by BBONDS25 Still going for the video angle. Despite already admitting it had nothing to so with it??


He is. It appears that those who were actually there say all was quiet. Those reporting DAYS AFTER the attack say "uh...yea...what the President said...that's it!"
Posted by Rex
Here, there, and nowhere
Member since Sep 2004
66001 posts
Posted on 5/12/14 at 9:58 pm to
You know, Decatur, all these links are quite damaging... well, let me make that "fatal", instead... to NHTiger's contention a couple of nights ago that there was only a tiny sliver (if that) of factual basis to believe the video was involved.

I fear he reads and reports with a very prejudiced mindset. I fear that tonight, for example, he found one article that could be misinterpreted to read that Mr. Bishari said the attacks had nothing to do with the video, when that was far from the case.

I think I'm seeing a clearer picture now after all this reading... that renegade Ansar Al Sharia members attacked the consulate using the video as the reason. Whether it was a mere pretext or not is still in question, but that they BLAMED the video seems to be beyond dispute at the moment.

Posted by Paluka
One State Over
Member since Dec 2010
10763 posts
Posted on 5/12/14 at 10:05 pm to


quote:

If 50 million people believe a foolish thing it is still a foolish thing.
This post was edited on 5/12/14 at 10:07 pm
Posted by 2close2Gainesville
Huge
Member since Sep 2008
4795 posts
Posted on 5/12/14 at 10:06 pm to
quote:


I fear he reads and reports with a very prejudiced mindset.


Can you honestly say that you have never done the same?
Posted by Rex
Here, there, and nowhere
Member since Sep 2004
66001 posts
Posted on 5/12/14 at 10:09 pm to
quote:

Can you honestly say that you have never done the same?

No, of course not... but I can admit when I'm obviously wrong.
Posted by Choctaw
Pumpin' Sunshine
Member since Jul 2007
77774 posts
Posted on 5/12/14 at 10:11 pm to
why weren't the requests for more security answered?

why weren't they evacuated like the others?


how about you answer some of the questions posed in the OP?
This post was edited on 5/12/14 at 10:14 pm
Posted by Rex
Here, there, and nowhere
Member since Sep 2004
66001 posts
Posted on 5/12/14 at 10:17 pm to
quote:

why weren't the requests for more security answered?

I think the matter of a "cover up" can be officially dispensed with... with just a little reading of the types of material provided here tonight... just as the matters of "stand down" and the "military did nothing" have been correctly discarded.

Your type of question, regarding preparedness, is really the only valid issue remaining. I personally don't know why those requests were not granted, but I believe the State Department has already testified about some of that... we had 281 missions around the world to protect, and hindsight is 20/20.




Posted by BBONDS25
Member since Mar 2008
48962 posts
Posted on 5/12/14 at 10:17 pm to
So were you wrong when you said the video had nothing to so with it, or are you wrong now?
This post was edited on 5/12/14 at 10:18 pm
Posted by Rex
Here, there, and nowhere
Member since Sep 2004
66001 posts
Posted on 5/12/14 at 10:20 pm to
What I said is that I believe the present view of the State Department and the White House is that the video had nothing to do with it.
Posted by BBONDS25
Member since Mar 2008
48962 posts
Posted on 5/12/14 at 10:24 pm to
Is that still your position?
Posted by Rex
Here, there, and nowhere
Member since Sep 2004
66001 posts
Posted on 5/12/14 at 10:28 pm to
quote:

Is that still your position?

At the moment I don't have a position. I might have been mistaken.

I will see if I can find if there's some sort of official or semi-official prevailing Administration position.

Perhaps you know?

Posted by CamdenTiger
Member since Aug 2009
62730 posts
Posted on 5/12/14 at 10:29 pm to
Here's the perception problem, or messaging issue that has them in trouble, and why we are here. White house says that their info comes from the talking points memo of the CIA, which says that there were some demonstrations. White house blames the demonstrations on a video, and the demonstrations got out of hand leading to those deaths. Cia has no clue about the video in their testimony, and then says there were never demonstrations, as they relied on analyst state-side, instead of their guy on the ground, who told them it was terrorist(Duh, its 911) ..White House now looks bad cause they had said it was the CIA's info, but it wasn't...And then the Rhodes piece ties the info directly to the White House, and Documents/emails still haven't been released. So, you have fingers pointing a lot of directions, and no one has been brought to justice, and people working at the embassy haven't been interviewed...Just a cluster-frick at the White House/CIA, for sure...I think everyone can agree with that, regardless of what your politics are...
Posted by BBONDS25
Member since Mar 2008
48962 posts
Posted on 5/12/14 at 10:37 pm to
I'm pretty confident. Was just hoping to get you on record saying it was the video. 2 days ago Decatur posted a diatribe about the video story being the fault of the CIA mistakingly believing media outlets. Now it's back to supporting the video theory. Just looking for consistency. Though...the fact there isn't any would support the need to fully investigate. Something you and Decatur are VERY against. Strange
Posted by Rex
Here, there, and nowhere
Member since Sep 2004
66001 posts
Posted on 5/12/14 at 10:44 pm to
What's important in the matter of a "cover up" is what Susan Rice had cause to believe at the time, not what we know now. There was no cover up.

I don't think a cover up is all that serious a matter, anyway, inasmuch as this was far from an episode that threatened national security and the Administration within a mere ten days was calling it "terrorism".
Posted by Decatur
Member since Mar 2007
28719 posts
Posted on 5/12/14 at 10:45 pm to
quote:

2 days ago Decatur posted a diatribe about the video story being the fault of the CIA mistakingly believing media outlets


Those stories were wrong about the existence of a protest/demonstration beforehand and not really so much about the motivations of the attackers.

You gotta learn how to separate the issues.
This post was edited on 5/12/14 at 10:47 pm
first pageprev pagePage 9 of 10Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram