Al Qaeda Behind Libyan Consulate Attack

U.S. Names al Qaeda in Libya Attack

Report: Suspect in U.S. ambassador's death is al Qaeda member

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/19/libya-attack-us-consulate-terrorist-attack-benghazi_n_1897428.html

Surprise, surprise...it wasn't over a stupid film released months ago no one watched.

Lots of "al qaeda may have had a connection". Person0

He wouldn't have said that had Al Qaeda had absolutely nothing to do with it. Now it's just a matter of how many and to what extent Al Qaeda was involved.

[QUOTE="Person0"]Lots of "al qaeda may have had a connection". KC_Hokie

He wouldn't have said that had Al Qaeda had absolutely nothing to do with it. Now it's just a matter of how many and to what extent Al Qaeda was involved.

>may have had connections

>may

ongoinginvestigation.jpg

[QUOTE="Person0"]Lots of "al qaeda may have had a connection". KC_Hokie

He wouldn't have said that had Al Qaeda had absolutely nothing to do with it. Now it's just a matter of how many and to what extent Al Qaeda was involved.

What part of "may have" do you struggle to comprehend?

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="Person0"]Lots of "al qaeda may have had a connection". -Sun_Tzu-

He wouldn't have said that had Al Qaeda had absolutely nothing to do with it. Now it's just a matter of how many and to what extent Al Qaeda was involved.

>may have had connections

>may

ongoinginvestigation.jpg

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]The director of the National Counterterrorism Center stated there are "...indications that individuals involved in the attack may have had connections to al Qaeda or al Qaeda affiliates, particularly Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb" at a Senate hearing today.

He wouldn't have said that had Al Qaeda had absolutely nothing to do with it. Now it's just a matter of how many and to what extent Al Qaeda was involved.

KC_Hokie

>may have had connections

>may

ongoinginvestigation.jpg

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] >may have had connections to al Qaeda

>may have had connections

>may

ongoinginvestigation.jpg

-Sun_Tzu-

If your boss and his spokespeople for a week said 'Bob' wasn't involved and it wasn't a terrorist attack....you don't then tell the Senate out of the blue 'Bob may have been involved and it was a terrorist attack'

lol!

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Why would he even bring that up if they had nothing to do with it as the Obama administration said? The guy is part of the executive branch of government. On top of that he said it was a terrorist attack and not some random protest over a stupid movie.KC_Hokie

If your boss and his spokespeople for a week said 'Bob' wasn't involved and it was spontaneous....you don't then tell the Senate out of the blue 'Bob may have been involved and it wasn't spontaneous'

lol!

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Why would he even bring that up if they had nothing to do with it as the Obama administration said? The guy is part of the executive branch of government. On top of that he said it was a terrorist attack and not some random protest over a stupid movie.KC_Hokie

If your boss and his spokespeople for a week said 'Bob' wasn't involved and it was spontaneous....you don't then tell the Senate out of the blue 'Bob may have been involved and it wasn't spontaneous'

lol!

Umm, people discuss possibilities. Everyone, including you, knows this.

I am now convinced that KC_Hokie has been trolling all along.

Well played.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] He brought it up because it is possible that Al Qaeda might've played some role in the attack. I don't understand what you don't understand. -Sun_Tzu-

If your boss and his spokespeople for a week said 'Bob' wasn't involved and it was spontaneous....you don't then tell the Senate out of the blue 'Bob may have been involved and it wasn't spontaneous'

lol!

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] He brought it up because it is possible that Al Qaeda might've played some role in the attack. I don't understand what you don't understand. Brosephus_Rex

If your boss and his spokespeople for a week said 'Bob' wasn't involved and it was spontaneous....you don't then tell the Senate out of the blue 'Bob may have been involved and it wasn't spontaneous'

lol!

Umm, people discuss possibilities. Everyone, including you, knows this.

I am now convinced that KC_Hokie has been trolling all along.

Well played.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Why even bring it up?

If your boss and his spokespeople for a week said 'Bob' wasn't involved and it was spontaneous....you don't then tell the Senate out of the blue 'Bob may have been involved and it wasn't spontaneous'

lol!

KC_Hokie

And that after we flew so many air cover sorties for them. :(

It's sad when one's consulates are attacked by one's own allies!

I hope we can smooth over the differences and remain friends with Al Qaeda until we've destabilized and impoverished the rest of the Middle East.

:|

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] When has anyone in the Obama administration made a definitive statement that al Qaeda wasn't involved? -Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]They instantly stated this was spontaneous over a stupid movie....nothing else to see here. KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] No, what the Obama administration said initially was that the attack seemed to have been instigated by the trailer for The Innocence of Muslims and that they are investigating the attacks. They never made any definitive statements about who was and wasn't involved, and they still don't know who was and wasn't involved. -Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, etc. all said it was a protest that was hijacked and it wasn't terrorism.

KC_Hokie

May != likely.

Why are people so bad with probability?

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, etc. all said it was a protest that was hijacked and it wasn't terrorism.KC_Hokie

We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo, Rice said. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons And it then evolved from there.

Olsen said whether the attack was planned for Sept. 11 was under investigation, but the information so far indicated it was "an opportunistic attack" that "began and evolved, and escalated over several hours."

How are these statements different?

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] They said it was a protest that was hijacked by terrorists. And that is consistent with what Matthew Owens said in his testimony. Brosephus_Rex

May != likely.

Why are people so bad with probability?

Owens testified it certainly was terrorism in front of the Senate and there are indications Al Qaeda may have been involved.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] They said it was a protest that was hijacked by terrorists. And that is consistent with what Matthew Owens said in his testimony. -Sun_Tzu-

We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo, Rice said. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons And it then evolved from there.

Olsen said whether the attack was planned for Sept. 11 was under investigation, but the information so far indicated it was "an opportunistic attack" that "began and evolved, and escalated over several hours."

How are these statements different?

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]When you say something isn't terrorism you rule out groups like Al Qaeda. That's what the Obama administration first told us. This guy today was the first to not only acknowledge it was terrorism but likely indicates Al Qaeda. KC_Hokie

We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo, Rice said. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons And it then evolved from there.

Olsen said whether the attack was planned for Sept. 11 was under investigation, but the information so far indicated it was "an opportunistic attack" that "began and evolved, and escalated over several hours."

How are these statements different?

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo, Rice said. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons And it then evolved from there.

Olsen said whether the attack was planned for Sept. 11 was under investigation, but the information so far indicated it was "an opportunistic attack" that "began and evolved, and escalated over several hours."

How are these statements different?

-Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="Brosephus_Rex"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]When you say something isn't terrorism you rule out groups like Al Qaeda. That's what the Obama administration first told us. This guy today was the first to not only acknowledge it was terrorism but likely indicates Al Qaeda. KC_Hokie

May != likely.

Why are people so bad with probability?

Owens testified it certainly was terrorism in front of the Senate and there are indications Al Qaeda may have been involved.

May still != likely. You are conjecturing out your ass, and yet somehow conjure up a quantitative statement. Excel plots or GTFO.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="Brosephus_Rex"]

May != likely.

Why are people so bad with probability?

Brosephus_Rex

Owens testified it certainly was terrorism in front of the Senate and there are indications Al Qaeda may have been involved.

May still != likely. You are conjecturing out you ass, and conjure up a quantitative statement. Excel plots or GTFO.

[QUOTE="Brosephus_Rex"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Don't you get it? Everyone in the Obama administration for a week told us it wasn't terrorism (which rules out groups like Al Qaeda) and it was completely spontaneous over a video.

Owens testified it certainly was terrorism in front of the Senate and there are indications Al Qaeda may have been involved.

KC_Hokie

May still != likely. You are conjecturing out you ass, and conjure up a quantitative statement. Excel plots or GTFO.

Conjecture/bull sh!t. I want stat plots, now.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"] You mean when he said it was a terrorist act not a protest gone bad?KC_Hokie

The Obama administration never "ruled out" terrorism (whatever that's suppose to mean). They never "ruled out" al Qaeda involvement. All they have said (Matthew Owens included) is that as of now, the attack on the US consulate appears to have been a spontaneous protest over a youtube video that was used opportunistically (i.e. hijacked) by extermists (who may have connections to al Qaeda) to assault the consulate.

[QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]The Obama administration ruled out terrorism and terrorist groups for a week. The hearing today was the first time an Obama official admitted it was terrorism. And not only was it terrorism but specifically Al Qaeda was involved. KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] He called it an "opportunistic attack," which is pretty much exactly what Susan Rice called it a few days earlier. -Sun_Tzu-

The Obama administration never "ruled out" terrorism (whatever that's suppose to mean). They never "ruled out" al Qaeda involvement. All they have said (Matthew Owens included) is that as of now, the attack on the US consulate appears to have been a spontaneous protest over a youtube video that was used opportunistically (i.e. hijacked) by extermists (who may have connections to al Qaeda) to assault the consulate.

The information we're getting now states they were b.s.ing.

Look at Obama defending thecitizens of the US from terrorism...oh wait..:roll:

Christmas Day Bomber and now this, what a joke.

Look at Obama defending thecitizens of the US from terrorism...oh wait..:roll:

Christmas Day Bomber and now this, what a joke.

kingkong0124

They told us without a doubtKC_Hokie

Look at Obama defending thecitizens of the US from terrorism...oh wait..:roll:

Christmas Day Bomber and now this, what a joke.

kingkong0124

smh

/kingkong logic

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]They told us without a doubt-Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]They told us without a doubtKC_Hokie

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]They told us without a doubtKC_Hokie

-Sun_Tzu-

Mexico, one of the most corrupt and dangerous countries in the entire world..I can't blame him.

Regardless, nice to see you dodge the issue. Obama has not done a good job defending America from terrorism. Simple as that. I find it hilarious how voters tend forgot about happened in Christmas 09.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] [citation needed]Brosephus_Rex

1) The protests were completely spontaneous

2) Due to a film on youtube no one watched

3) No terrorism

End of story. Nothing else to see here.

Except the facts are starting to get out. And the Obama administration is looking pretty stupid jumping to conclusions they've stuck with for a week.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

kingkong0124

Mexico, one of the most corrupt and dangerous countries in the entire world..I can't blame him.

Regardless, nice to see you dodge the issue. Obama has not done a good job defending America from terrorism. Simple as that. I find it hilarious how voters tend forgot about happened in Christmas 09.

[QUOTE="Brosephus_Rex"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]If you could provide a source where the Obama administration states there was a possibility the stupid movie wasn't the catalyst and/or terrorist groups may have been involved that would be super!KC_Hokie

1) The protests were completely spontaneous 2) Due to a film on youtube no one watched 3) No terrorism

End of story. Nothing else to see here.

Except the facts are starting to get out. And the Obama administration is looking pretty stupid jumping to conclusions they've stuck with for a week.

:trollface editorial:

[QUOTE="kingkong0124"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

l4dak47

Mexico, one of the most corrupt and dangerous countries in the entire world..I can't blame him.

Regardless, nice to see you dodge the issue. Obama has not done a good job defending America from terrorism. Simple as that. I find it hilarious how voters tend forgot about happened in Christmas 09.

People don't, thankfully. Any September 01 was the first major terrorist attack on U.S. soil. Things were a lot different before it, terrorism was on the back of people's minds. in 2009 (and today) terrorism was in everybody's mind. By then, all Americans clearly knew that it was a very real threat.