Jump to content

Benghazi Report: No Terrorists, No Al Qaeda Yes It Was The Anti Muslim


skews13
 Share

Recommended Posts

Al-Qaeda had no direct involvement in the attack on the US mission in Benghazi that left four Americans dead on September 11 last year, The New York Times reported on Saturday.
the-us-consulate-compound.jpgThe US consulate compound in Benghazi is seen after the attack that killed four Americans. (AFP/File - Gianluigi Guercia)

NEW YORK: Al-Qaeda had no direct involvement in the attack on the US mission in Benghazi that left four Americans dead on September 11 last year, The New York Times reported on Saturday.

In an investigation published on its website and based on extensive reporting in the Libyan city, the Times said the killing of US ambassador Chris Stevens and three of his countrymen was the work of local fighters.

 

The report could likely stir up controversy in Washington, where the Obama administration has repeatedly been accused of covering up what happened in Benghazi -- a charge it denies.

The newspaper also said the attack may indeed have been sparked by citizens who headed to the US mission after being angered by an anti-Islamic video that had aired on local television channels.

Based on interviews with Libyans in Benghazi that the Times said had direct knowledge of the attack, the newspaper "turned up no evidence that Al-Qaeda or other international groups had any role in the assault," it said.

 

"The attack was led, instead by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO's extensive air power and logistics during the uprising," against the country's long-time dictator Muammar Gaddafi, killed in October 2011.

 

The newspaper, citing American officials briefed on a criminal probe into the killings, alleged that a local rebel leader named Ahmed Abu Khattala, said to have disdain for the United States despite its help to overthrow Gaddafi, is the prime suspect for orchestrating the Benghazi killings.

The Times report placed him at the US mission at the time of the attack and in an interview with the newspaper he said he was indeed present, but denied he was responsible.

 

"Mr Abu Khattala declared openly and often that he placed the United States not far behind Colonel Gaddafi on his list of infidel enemies," the newspaper said.

"But he had no known affiliations with terrorist groups, and he had escaped scrutiny from the 20-person CIA station in Benghazi that was set up to monitor the local situation," the report added.

 

The Times said Abu Khattala was "a central figure" in what unfolded, citing numerous Libyans present at the time, but also reported that the attack had "spontaneous elements."

Initially, the sacking of the mission was described by American officials as having been sparked by the anti-Muslim video "Innocence of Muslims," which triggered protests across the Arab world.

But US officials later said that some of those behind the assault had links to organised Al-Qaeda extremists and that it was an act of terrorism.

 

The Times on Saturday reported: "Anger at the video motivated the initial attack. Dozens of people joined in, some of them provoked by the video and others responding to fast-spreading false rumors that guards inside the American compound had shot Libyan protesters."

- AFP/nd

 


 

Al-Qaeda had no direct involvement in the attack on the US mission in Benghazi that left four Americans dead on September 11 last year, The New York Times reported on Saturday.
the-us-consulate-compound.jpgThe US consulate compound in Benghazi is seen after the attack that killed four Americans. (AFP/File - Gianluigi Guercia)

NEW YORK: Al-Qaeda had no direct involvement in the attack on the US mission in Benghazi that left four Americans dead on September 11 last year, The New York Times reported on Saturday.

In an investigation published on its website and based on extensive reporting in the Libyan city, the Times said the killing of US ambassador Chris Stevens and three of his countrymen was the work of local fighters.

 

The report could likely stir up controversy in Washington, where the Obama administration has repeatedly been accused of covering up what happened in Benghazi -- a charge it denies.

The newspaper also said the attack may indeed have been sparked by citizens who headed to the US mission after being angered by an anti-Islamic video that had aired on local television channels.

Based on interviews with Libyans in Benghazi that the Times said had direct knowledge of the attack, the newspaper "turned up no evidence that Al-Qaeda or other international groups had any role in the assault," it said.

 

"The attack was led, instead by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO's extensive air power and logistics during the uprising," against the country's long-time dictator Muammar Gaddafi, killed in October 2011.

 

The newspaper, citing American officials briefed on a criminal probe into the killings, alleged that a local rebel leader named Ahmed Abu Khattala, said to have disdain for the United States despite its help to overthrow Gaddafi, is the prime suspect for orchestrating the Benghazi killings.

The Times report placed him at the US mission at the time of the attack and in an interview with the newspaper he said he was indeed present, but denied he was responsible.

 

"Mr Abu Khattala declared openly and often that he placed the United States not far behind Colonel Gaddafi on his list of infidel enemies," the newspaper said.

"But he had no known affiliations with terrorist groups, and he had escaped scrutiny from the 20-person CIA station in Benghazi that was set up to monitor the local situation," the report added.

 

The Times said Abu Khattala was "a central figure" in what unfolded, citing numerous Libyans present at the time, but also reported that the attack had "spontaneous elements."

Initially, the sacking of the mission was described by American officials as having been sparked by the anti-Muslim video "Innocence of Muslims," which triggered protests across the Arab world.

But US officials later said that some of those behind the assault had links to organised Al-Qaeda extremists and that it was an act of terrorism.

 

The Times on Saturday reported: "Anger at the video motivated the initial attack. Dozens of people joined in, some of them provoked by the video and others responding to fast-spreading false rumors that guards inside the American compound had shot Libyan protesters."

- AFP/nd

 

 

President Obama, Hillary Clinton totally vindicated. Republicans, Fox, and every rightwinger on this board now look like the total fucking fools that you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 130
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

Al-Qaeda had no direct involvement in the attack on the US mission in Benghazi that left four Americans dead on September 11 last year, The New York Times reported on Saturday.
the-us-consulate-compound.jpgThe US consulate compound in Benghazi is seen after the attack that killed four Americans. (AFP/File - Gianluigi Guercia)

NEW YORK: Al-Qaeda had no direct involvement in the attack on the US mission in Benghazi that left four Americans dead on September 11 last year, The New York Times reported on Saturday.

In an investigation published on its website and based on extensive reporting in the Libyan city, the Times said the killing of US ambassador Chris Stevens and three of his countrymen was the work of local fighters.

 

The report could likely stir up controversy in Washington, where the Obama administration has repeatedly been accused of covering up what happened in Benghazi -- a charge it denies.

The newspaper also said the attack may indeed have been sparked by citizens who headed to the US mission after being angered by an anti-Islamic video that had aired on local television channels.

Based on interviews with Libyans in Benghazi that the Times said had direct knowledge of the attack, the newspaper "turned up no evidence that Al-Qaeda or other international groups had any role in the assault," it said.

 

"The attack was led, instead by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO's extensive air power and logistics during the uprising," against the country's long-time dictator Muammar Gaddafi, killed in October 2011.

 

The newspaper, citing American officials briefed on a criminal probe into the killings, alleged that a local rebel leader named Ahmed Abu Khattala, said to have disdain for the United States despite its help to overthrow Gaddafi, is the prime suspect for orchestrating the Benghazi killings.

The Times report placed him at the US mission at the time of the attack and in an interview with the newspaper he said he was indeed present, but denied he was responsible.

 

"Mr Abu Khattala declared openly and often that he placed the United States not far behind Colonel Gaddafi on his list of infidel enemies," the newspaper said.

"But he had no known affiliations with terrorist groups, and he had escaped scrutiny from the 20-person CIA station in Benghazi that was set up to monitor the local situation," the report added.

 

The Times said Abu Khattala was "a central figure" in what unfolded, citing numerous Libyans present at the time, but also reported that the attack had "spontaneous elements."

Initially, the sacking of the mission was described by American officials as having been sparked by the anti-Muslim video "Innocence of Muslims," which triggered protests across the Arab world.

But US officials later said that some of those behind the assault had links to organised Al-Qaeda extremists and that it was an act of terrorism.

 

The Times on Saturday reported: "Anger at the video motivated the initial attack. Dozens of people joined in, some of them provoked by the video and others responding to fast-spreading false rumors that guards inside the American compound had shot Libyan protesters."

- AFP/nd

 

President Obama, Hillary Clinton totally vindicated. Republicans, Fox, and every rightwinger on this board now look like the total banned word fools that you are.

 

Just because the New York Slimes, a notorious left leaning state controled media outlet says something is true doesn't make it true. The Fact still remains Obama and Hillary Denied, while our Ambassador and 3 seals died. There was a cover up. What they said happened, didn't actually happen. A US Citizen was wrongly arrested for inciting those terrorist attacks. I know the official story was he was picked up on a parole violation, but we all know why he was arrested. The Obama Admin couldn't risk him blabbing his side of the story, so the chose to silence him by using some BS made up PV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Just because the New York Slimes, a notorious left leaning state controled media outlet says something is true doesn't make it true. The Fact still remains Obama and Hillary Denied, while our Ambassador and 3 seals died. There was a cover up. What they said happened, didn't actually happen. A US Citizen was wrongly arrested for inciting those terrorist attacks. I know the official story was he was picked up on a parole violation, but we all know why he was arrested. The Obama Admin couldn't risk him blabbing his side of the story, so the chose to silence him by using some BS made up PV.

This is a fucking disaster for the Republicans. The cable news cycles next week now have their lead story and they're going to stick it up Rush Limbaughs, Sean Hannity's, Sarah Palins, Fox News, Darryl Issa's, John McCains, Lindesy Grahams, and the tea partys ass. I wonder how many of them will be hiding their pathetic fucking faces from public next week? :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a banned word disaster for the Republicans. The cable news cycles next week now have their lead story and they're going to stick it up Rush Limbaughs, Sean Hannity's, Sarah Palins, Fox News, Darryl Issa's, John McCains, Lindesy Grahams, and the tea partys ass. I wonder how many of them will be hiding their pathetic banned word faces from public next week? :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

None of us will hide, because the fact still remains Hillary and Obama where lying and denying, while our Ambassador and 3 SEALS were Dying. Obama and Ms. Clinton are responsible for the murder of 4 US Citizen on US Soil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really do abhor Darryl Issa's crazy congressional investigations. It's an extension of phony FOX propaganda for the most part. This guy who goes by the screen name "rushlimbaughfan", it just doesn't matter to him where the truth lies. Look, if the fat man Rush would simply make a thoughtful argument based on fact that could be construed as newsworthy, I would shout amen to that, even though I dislike the character study that he has become --- simply by his own fat decrees.

 

Peace!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really do abhor Darryl Issa's crazy congressional investigations. It's an extension of phony FOX propaganda for the most part. This guy who goes by the screen name "rushlimbaughfan", it just doesn't matter to him where the truth lies. Look, if the fat man Rush would simply make a thoughtful argument based on fact that could be construed as newsworthy, I would shout amen to that, even though I dislike the character study that he has become --- simply by his own fat decrees.

 

Peace!

Here is a thoughtful arguement you twit: Obama and Hillary Lied and Denyed, while our ambassador and 3 seals died. That is fact. More importantly than my silly catch phrase tho, is the fact that Hillary and Obama both refuse to help American Citizens who were under attack thus resulting in their deaths. The the entire Obama Admin went o0n national tv and lied about why this happened, and refuse to acknowledge that it was in fact a actual Terrorist Attack. Look IRDC if it Was Al Qaeda or not. To me if they are Muslime and from the Middle East, they are Al Qaeda. Here are the facts as we now them to date People of terrorist decent attacked our Embassy, 3 Navy SEALS Heroically went to lend aid to the Embassy Personnel. Said people of terrorist descent Tourtured, Raped, and then Murdered our Ambassador. They Also Murdered the three seals. At no time during these attack did Obama or MS. Clinton order people to go help the Ambassador and Embassy Personnel even tho there were assets in place tasked to do just that. Obama and his Admin then went on nation tv and lied about the events, saying that this was a protest in response to some obscure video that insulted the prophet and Islam. It wasn't until days later that they actually broke down and admitted it was a terrorist attack. They Hillary Clinton had the balls to Claim "What does it matter" referring to questions being asked about the incident, and why aid wasn't given, and where was she and the President. Everything that I have stated is well know fact

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Al-Qaeda had no direct involvement in the attack on the US mission in Benghazi that left four Americans dead on September 11 last year, The New York Times reported on Saturday.
the-us-consulate-compound.jpgThe US consulate compound in Benghazi is seen after the attack that killed four Americans. (AFP/File - Gianluigi Guercia)

NEW YORK: Al-Qaeda had no direct involvement in the attack on the US mission in Benghazi that left four Americans dead on September 11 last year, The New York Times reported on Saturday.

In an investigation published on its website and based on extensive reporting in the Libyan city, the Times said the killing of US ambassador Chris Stevens and three of his countrymen was the work of local fighters.

 

The report could likely stir up controversy in Washington, where the Obama administration has repeatedly been accused of covering up what happened in Benghazi -- a charge it denies.

The newspaper also said the attack may indeed have been sparked by citizens who headed to the US mission after being angered by an anti-Islamic video that had aired on local television channels.

Based on interviews with Libyans in Benghazi that the Times said had direct knowledge of the attack, the newspaper "turned up no evidence that Al-Qaeda or other international groups had any role in the assault," it said.

 

"The attack was led, instead by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO's extensive air power and logistics during the uprising," against the country's long-time dictator Muammar Gaddafi, killed in October 2011.

 

The newspaper, citing American officials briefed on a criminal probe into the killings, alleged that a local rebel leader named Ahmed Abu Khattala, said to have disdain for the United States despite its help to overthrow Gaddafi, is the prime suspect for orchestrating the Benghazi killings.

The Times report placed him at the US mission at the time of the attack and in an interview with the newspaper he said he was indeed present, but denied he was responsible.

 

"Mr Abu Khattala declared openly and often that he placed the United States not far behind Colonel Gaddafi on his list of infidel enemies," the newspaper said.

"But he had no known affiliations with terrorist groups, and he had escaped scrutiny from the 20-person CIA station in Benghazi that was set up to monitor the local situation," the report added.

 

The Times said Abu Khattala was "a central figure" in what unfolded, citing numerous Libyans present at the time, but also reported that the attack had "spontaneous elements."

Initially, the sacking of the mission was described by American officials as having been sparked by the anti-Muslim video "Innocence of Muslims," which triggered protests across the Arab world.

But US officials later said that some of those behind the assault had links to organised Al-Qaeda extremists and that it was an act of terrorism.

 

The Times on Saturday reported: "Anger at the video motivated the initial attack. Dozens of people joined in, some of them provoked by the video and others responding to fast-spreading false rumors that guards inside the American compound had shot Libyan protesters."

- AFP/nd

 

President Obama, Hillary Clinton totally vindicated. Republicans, Fox, and every rightwinger on this board now look like the total banned word fools that you are.

 

Where are all of the usual rightards? This is the biggest story circulating on the internet.

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/bombshell-york-times-report-benghazi-210144227.html

 

What, nothing to say on the issue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does this "vindicate" anybody?

No matter WHO started it or was behind it, the fact remains that our embassy was attacked and this administration did nothing to assist them or prevent it.

Help was available and they refused to send it

The blood is on their shoulders

 

Just one more step in our deteriorating foreign relations under this regime,,,,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey there Chuck,

 

Part of what you say is true. The Congress wouldn't support more money for protection. And, it wasn't the U.S. Embassy it was a Consulate to the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli. Yes, it was a mess that should have not have been. I harken back to the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon which also very much should have been avoided.

 

Peace!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The White House Situation Room didn't cancel the helicopters because they didn't have the money, and the difference between the Consulate and the Embassy doesn't make it any more acceptable. Those side issues only serve to distract from the leadership, or lack thereof, from this administration, and so does Lebanon.

 

Are you saying that what was good enough then is good enough now?

Is that the change you were hoping for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Chuck,

 

I'm in no way suggesting a regressive stature regarding how our State Department handles dangerous places our diplomats are sent, rather the opposite. In 1983, what did we learn? That's important. What was Ambassador John Steven's mission in Tripoli, what is not being addressed by the Darryl Issa investigation?

 

It's plain as dirt something should have prevented this. It's also plain as dirt that Mr. Stevens knew very well how dangerous a mission he was on. At issue here is a lot of stuff isn't being said.

You and myself as well, are less than informed by this so-called investigation regarding the truth.

 

BTW, Libya use to be a jewel. I happen to know people who lived there right after WWII. Do you and I both want to trust our Government, hell yes we do. Do I trust Darryl Issa's absurd political agenda,

absolutely not. It's not Republican or Democrat to me, I could give a damn about either political party or extreme. There happens to be a hell of a lot more truth in the NYT reporting than what's been investigated thus far by Darryl Issa's bull--- stain.

 

Peace!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Old Mack,

 

Clinton resigned? Is that all you got? Like the IRS so-called scandal. You got to hate the IRS was all the propagandized chatter. Cut taxes, time for austerity. Down sizing government necessarily means outsourcing. Destroy peoples pensions, especially those government worker pensions... Who negotiated those pensions, those government ones? Politicians, mind numbingly foolish ones who thought they'd

be thrifty and not raise wages, instead they said, here take a bigger pension down the road, meanwhile nothing went into the pension fund. Alas, whose responsible. Where's the buck stop?

Nobody knows...

 

Oh thank Citizens United, and a lowered IRS workforce. Thank a lot of reality that's seldom discussed, for a reason it seems.

 

Well, a lot of U.S. Corporations are working really hard in China right now. Along with China's governmental policy they are piecing together all kinds of factories, and a lot of jobs. Sadly that's money the U.S. economy will never see. I feel like a broke record.

 

Peace!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

skews13, on 28 Dec 2013 - 8:42 PM, said:

Hillary Clinton totally vindicated.

 

...fools that you are.

GEE...WHY DID CLINTON RESIGN, I MEAN QUIT HER POST ???

 

Why are ultraliberals so detached and in denial ?

 

Why are ultraliberals so full of hate and rage ?

 

Wilton2lg.jpg

 

Obama administration admits terrorist attacks in Mideast

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/3/obama-administration-admits-terrorist-attacks-in-m/

 

President Obama did not himself address the connection to terrorism, but White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters on Wednesday that "It is the president's view that it was a terrorist attack," underscoring Obama's own pledge before the U.N. to seek out and destroy the perpetrators.

 

http://www.thewire.com/global/2012/09/obama-administration-finally-admits-libya-attack-was-terrorism/57323/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Chuck,

 

I'm in no way suggesting a regressive stature regarding how our State Department handles dangerous places our diplomats are sent, rather the opposite. In 1983, what did we learn? That's important. What was Ambassador John Steven's mission in Tripoli, what is not being addressed by the Darryl Issa investigation?

 

It's plain as dirt something should have prevented this. It's also plain as dirt that Mr. Stevens knew very well how dangerous a mission he was on. At issue here is a lot of stuff isn't being said.

You and myself as well, are less than informed by this so-called investigation regarding the truth.

You're right, prevention failed

I'm not even sure prevention was planned

I think it was supposed to go down pretty much like it did

And I think THAT is the reason for the inaction when it happened

We had plenty of time to respond, why didn't we?

 

 

BTW, Libya use to be a jewel. I happen to know people who lived there right after WWII. Do you and I both want to trust our Government, hell yes we do. Do I trust Darryl Issa's absurd political agenda,

absolutely not. It's not Republican or Democrat to me, I could give a damn about either political party or extreme. There happens to be a hell of a lot more truth in the NYT reporting than what's been investigated thus far by Darryl Issa's bull--- stain.

 

Peace!

How do you know?

Were you there?

I think you are beginning with your conclusion and are looking for evidence to support it

I have my own questions, and no one has the answer to them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

responding to Chuck's post:

 

How do I know Libya was a jewel after WWII. Well, no I wasn't there myself. I just know people who were and firsthand told me about it later on. Actual people I know and trust, like a woman who was a nurse stationed in Africa, and the dude she met there and married who was a pilot. Short story, after flying in the U.S. military in WWII he got a job flying cargo and they lived in Libya for about ten years. There words not mine,

"It was the best place we ever lived, the area was beautiful and the people there all were extremely kind". But don't take that couple's word, who I know firsthand. Read some history about the place.

Same thing with Lebanon back then.

 

Peace!


Chuck, you can tell by a lot of the so called lack of world history by most who post here, and how that they don't know much about the world. People in the U.S. really do deserve to get a D or even worse when it comes down to geography and world history for the most part.

 

Some gal just posted a thread about history that makes absolutely zero sense. It would be a waste of time to reply to that kind of utter nonsense

 

Peace!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, first read the story through. The story cites actual people, were those people all there, or did those cited actually know something more than what has been said in the official affidavit's supplied by the Congressional hearings... much of what is said in the NYT story is backed up by what was said in the Congressional hearings. Was I there. No.

What do I earnestly think? If it matters at all, here's what I think...

There was a whole lot of unrest after the rebels took over Tripoli. This fact was widely reported on by numerous sources at the time, and so there appears to clearly be a good deal of truth there when taken as a whole. So you need to deduce what that means. You do have to rely on common sense here. No abrupt revolution leaves a perfect harmonious state. The rebels were armed to the hilt. Certainly they were not all pro-western leaning, to say the least. Yes, I myself don't agree with the NYT, they have in some ways a neo-liberal agenda, which I very much disagree with. But I read a lot, always have.

 

Peace!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So because the NYtimes says they did an investigation that is the truth to you libs, you are fools and queers and fudge packers.

 

I laugh at your stupidity!!! morons.


Well, first read the story through. The story cites actual people, were those people all there, or did those cited actually know something more than what has been said in the official affidavit's supplied by the Congressional hearings... much of what is said in the NYT story is backed up by what was said in the Congressional hearings. Was I there. No.

What do I earnestly think? If it matters at all, here's what I think...

There was a whole lot of unrest after the rebels took over Tripoli. This fact was widely reported on by numerous sources at the time, and so there appears to clearly be a good deal of truth there when taken as a whole. So you need to deduce what that means. You do have to rely on common sense here. No abrupt revolution leaves a perfect harmonious state. The rebels were armed to the hilt. Certainly they were not all pro-western leaning, to say the least. Yes, I myself don't agree with the NYT, they have in some ways a neo-liberal agenda, which I very much disagree with. But I read a lot, always have.

 

Peace!

just a made up piece of shyt story to help obama and hillery cover it all up,,, nothing there but lies

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...