quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

Is it not accepted that the youtube video wasn't the cause of the Benghazi attack, and that it was a premeditated attack by al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists?

It seems pretty clear that you accept this but do you have some sort of validation so that others might also?

quote:

Initially, there was speculation that the attacks were a spontaneous response to a video, Innocence of Muslims,[11][12] but a U.S. State Department investigation found that it was a premeditated attack by Islamist militants.[13]

quote:

The report appeared to break little new ground about the timeline of the Benghazi attack during which Libyan Ambassador Chris Stevens, information specialist Sean Smith and former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods – who were contractors working for the CIA – were killed. Stevens' slaying was the first of a U.S. ambassador since 1988.
But it confirmed that contrary to initial accounts, there was no protest outside the consulate and said responsibility for the incident rested entirely with the terrorists who attacked the mission.
In the immediate aftermath of the attack, administration officials linked the attack to the spreading protests over an American-made, anti-Islamic film that had begun in Cairo earlier that day. Those comments came after evidence already pointed to a distinct militant attack. U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on numerous TV talk shows the Sunday after the attack and used the administration talking points linking it to the film.

quote:

Really? You disagree that the attack in Benghazi wasn't due to a youtube video?

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
quote:ORIGINAL: thompsonx
quote:Is it not accepted that the youtube video wasn't the cause of the Benghazi attack, and that it was a premeditated attack by al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists?

quote:

Really? You disagree that the attack in Benghazi wasn't due to a youtube video?

quote:

The cites provided validate only that it was a premeditated attack. The role of the vidio has yet to be assessed but the cites provided do not comment to that issue. No responsibility was shown in the links provided, only speculation. To say that they were "terrorists" one needs to ascribe to the fiction that there is some entity called "terror" against whom we have declared war and the soldiers of that entity are necessarily called "terrorist" much as those against whom the drug war is fought might ncessarily be called druggist(drug dealers).
So now we are down to the fact that some armed folks did a premeditated assault on an entity that has declared war on it. That is what I see...what do you see?

quote:

Initially, there was speculation that the attacks were a spontaneous response to a video, Innocence of Muslims, but a U.S. State Department investigation found that it was a premeditated attack by Islamist militants.

quote:

The report appeared to break little new ground about the timeline of the Benghazi attack during which Libyan Ambassador Chris Stevens, information specialist Sean Smith and former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods – who were contractors working for the CIA – were killed. Stevens' slaying was the first of a U.S. ambassador since 1988.
But it confirmed that contrary to initial accounts, there was no protest outside the consulate and said responsibility for the incident rested entirely with the terrorists who attacked the mission.
In the immediate aftermath of the attack, administration officials linked the attack to the spreading protests over an American-made, anti-Islamic film that had begun in Cairo earlier that day. Those comments came after evidence already pointed to a distinct militant attack. U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on numerous TV talk shows the Sunday after the attack and used the administration talking points linking it to the film.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice
FR
I know it's a bit goofy, but I can't resist sharing this.
[image]https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/970897_10151674543041081_1333700755_n.jpg[/image]

quote:

Actually, my "Really" question is marked incredulity that you don't know that the video wasn't the cause.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

Actually, my "Really" question is marked incredulity that you don't know that the video wasn't the cause. /quote]
The cites provided validate only that it was a premeditated attack. The role of the vidio has yet to be assessed but the cites provided do not comment to that issue.

Reading is Fundamental.

Get on with your big bad self, though.

Enjoy.

quote:

We have a statement here that says that initially, the speculation was "A." With a comma and then the next phrase starting, "but..." means that the first part ("A") wasn't correct and the following portion is. So, we have speculation that it was a youtube video and more in the very same sentence states that was incorrect and that the attack was premeditated (meaning, not a spontaneous reaction to a video). Basic rules of English there.

quote:

Understanding that a youtube video wasn't to blame in Benghazi shouldn't be difficult for people with at least a working grasp of English language sentence structure rules.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

Actually, my "Really" question is marked incredulity that you don't know that the video wasn't the cause. /quote]
The cites provided validate only that it was a premeditated attack. The role of the vidio has yet to be assessed but the cites provided do not comment to that issue.

Reading is Fundamental.

Get on with your big bad self, though.

Enjoy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
quote]ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

Actually, my "Really" question is marked incredulity that you don't know that the video wasn't the cause.

The cites provided validate only that it was a premeditated attack. The role of the vidio has yet to be assessed but the cites provided do not comment to that issue.

Reading is Fundamental.
Get on with your big bad self, though.
Enjoy.