Insight: Brazen Islamic militants showed strength before Benghazi attack

[Gerald]

(Reuters) - In the months before the deadly attack in Benghazi, Libya, U.S. and allied intelligence agencies warned the White House and State Department repeatedly that the region was becoming an increasingly dangerous vortex for jihadist groups loosely linked or sympathetic to al Qaeda, according to U.S. officials.

Despite those warnings, and bold public displays by Islamist militants around Benghazi, embassies in the region were advised to project a sense of calm and normalcy in the run-up to the anniversary of the September 11 attacks in the United States.

So brazen was the Islamist presence in the Benghazi area that militants convened what they billed as the "First Annual Conference of Supporters of Shariah (Islamic law)" in the city in early June, promoting the event on Islamist websites.

Pictures from the conference posted on various Internet forums featured convoys flying al Qaeda banners, said Josh Lefkowitz of Flashpoint-Intel.com, a firm that monitors militant websites. Video clips showed vehicles with mounted artillery pieces, he added.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...89F1SL20121016

Note: Tue Oct 16, 2012 7:19pm EDT

[Skybird]

This was already reported in two or three German newspapers on the day or a day later the attack took place. These reports also lined out that there was specific refusal by the WH to allow armed American guards in sufficient strength, instead only unarmed American guards were used, and armed Libyan guards. One did not want to give the appearance of being an armed-to-the-teeth bully.

The envoy and three others payed with their lives for this criminal easymindedness of the political leadership.

Anyway, this is what happens when wishful thinking is allowed to replace sense of realism, even if it is a reality that is not welcomed. realities do never care for wishful thinking. Never. Realities simply are.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Skybird

This was already reported in two or three German newspapers on the day or a day later the attack took place. These reports also lined out that there was specific refusal by the WH to allow armed American guards in sufficient strength, instead only unarmed American guards were used, and armed Libyan guards. One did not want to give the appearance of being an armed-to-the-teeth bully.

The envoy and three others payed with their lives for this criminal easymindedness of the political leadership.

Anyway, this is what happens when wishful thinking is allowed to replace sense of realism, even if it is a reality that is not welcomed. realities do never care for wishful thinking. Never. Realities simply are.

Reminds me of Clinton pulling out the heavy armor during the Somalia ops. Appearances are more important to some politicians that contingencies.

[nikimcbee]

Wait,

I thought they were all at home watching oh-fensive islam videos.

[August]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Reminds me of Clinton pulling out the heavy armor during the Somalia ops. Appearances are more important to some politicians that contingencies.

Exactly.

I can understand keeping up appearances in London or Berlin but not in Benghazi. In such an obvious high risk location there is no excuse not to have been prepared for an attack. Especially on the anniversary of 9-11.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by August

Exactly.

I can understand keeping up appearances in London or Berlin but not in Benghazi. In such an obvious high risk location there is no excuse not to have been prepared for an attack. Especially on the anniversary of 9-11.

Even now it's hard to believe they weren't better prepared/protected

[Gerald]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...89N02C20121024

Note: Update record, Tue Oct 23, 2012 9:11pm EDT

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by Skybird

This was already reported in two or three German newspapers on the day or a day later the attack took place. These reports also lined out that there was specific refusal by the WH to allow armed American guards in sufficient strength, instead only unarmed American guards were used, and armed Libyan guards. One did not want to give the appearance of being an armed-to-the-teeth bully.

The envoy and three others payed with their lives for this criminal easymindedness of the political leadership.

Anyway, this is what happens when wishful thinking is allowed to replace sense of realism, even if it is a reality that is not welcomed. realities do never care for wishful thinking. Never. Realities simply are.

I believe the crimes were committed by the attackers. You're blaming the victims here for allowing themselves to be overrun. A bit like blaming the raped woman for the rape because she was attractive.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

I believe the crimes were committed by the attackers. You're blaming the victims here for allowing themselves to be overrun. A bit like blaming the raped woman for the rape because she was attractive.

That is idiotic logic. Clinton was no victim. The victims all are dead - and they did not want a downgrading of security, as far as is known. nor did they recommend it. In fact it seems they have asked for more help in the days before the attack.

To use your comparison, a woman not only being attractive but also walking into a men's pub at the harbour skin-naked and behaving obscene and provocative, indeed asks for getting abused, and indeed it is just a question of time before she will get into trouble. Clinton send her girl into that club, so to speak, naked and with order to behave inviting.

And what the WH did when ordering security to be graded down, was asking for trouble, and giving a display of weakness to the enemy which he took as an invitation to catch some easy prey. I mean, the target was weak and unprotected, and although the Americans got warnings that something was coming at them, and the Libyan mission was aksing for more instead of less protection itseems, they - the government - did not react.

Sorry, that is an idiot's behavior. The four victims killed payed the price for the idiocy of their superiors in the government. That Clinton after the attack theatrically asked how this was possible and why it happened when one had meant it oh so well with the Libyans and their revolution, indicates how distanced from reality the dreamworld is she is stuck in, and how incompetent in assessing the realities in that region she is. Stupid she is. In an ideal world, I would even prosecute her at court for assisting in murder. And that I mean serious. Insurances do not need to pay if you set the fire in your house yourself, and do not pay if your home got robbed while you left your home with windows and doors wide opened. It seems the order to grade down security and not to react to the writing on the wall came form her office. She faces a good amount of guilt for having allowed this attack, having invited it, and having increased the chances for it going successful for the enemy.

If she were a soldier in an army and failed her duties that miserably, she would face court martial if it were war, or would face prosecution at an ordinary civilian court if it were at peacetimes..

[Buddahaid]

Your taking the analogy too literally, but by your "idiotic" logic, allowing oneself to be victimized by poor judgement is a crime. It may be stupid but it's not criminal. It's always easy to say what should have happened after the cows have left the barn.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

Your taking the analogy too literally, but by your "idiotic" logic, allowing oneself to be victimized by poor judgement is a crime. It may be stupid but it's not criminal. It's always easy to say what should have happened after the cows have left the barn.

No! No!! Neither Clinton nor Obama nor anyone else in WH victimized themselves. They victimized others , by their incompetence and wishful daydreaming, ignoring realities they did not want to take serious. They failed in their duty to take best care possible for those they put in the line of fire. This is what I take queer and do not forgive, and this is what they are guilty of.

I spit on politicians who expose subordinate personnel - or soldiers - to lethal dangers, then ignore warnings and prefer sticking with their illusions, and where their subordniates bite the dust, they say:, "Ooops , I'm sorry, how can the bad guy dare to behave like this. I certainly meant it well and I could not have known that the bad guy actually is that bad..." The bad guy was around, the WH was told he is around, the people exposed to the danger in Libya asked for more assistance and support, and the WH let them down because it did not like what it was told, and thought that wishful thinking would defeat reality. And Clinton afterwards dared to indicate that she could not have known. She knew - she was told by the very people she sent into harms way, and who then lost their lives due to her idiocy, with the envoy apparently having been raped or tortured, rumours say they did to him what they did to Gadhafi. The Libyan residents told the embassy that an attack was under preparation. Intel said so. Al Quaeda was avctive in the days before the attack in the very neighbourhood. And the WH kept on ignoring it all, preferring to dream that their good hopes and ignorant ideas would compensate for their cut of security.

You are wrong. The responsible decision makers did not victimize themselves. They left the dying to their subordinates at location. These are the victims, not the responsible ones at the top - the top leaders all get away with it, unharmed. Worst that could happen is that they quit office - and enjoy their wealth without needing to spend time at office work anymore. But to quit - even that seems to be asked too much of them.