New Disclosures on Benghazi

[A'isha]

Muhammad Jamal al Kashef, Sheikh Adel Shehato and Nasr City terrorist cell. Those are the foreign terrorists that we talked about in this very thread.

No, they're not. Shehato and his cell in Nasr City (a suburb of Cairo) were tied to the protests over the video in front of and subsequent assault on Embassy Cairo. Egyptian authorities claimed that al-Kashef, who had associations with Shehato and his cell, was tied to the Benghazi attack because he ran terrorist training camps in Libya during the civil war that some of the other Benghazi attackers (again, there were people other than Ansar al-Sharia members among the attackers) may have trained at.

So, no, your bringing up the arrest of Shehato and his cell and al-Kashef does not address TellyKNeasuss' or my posts about your newfound focus on foreign planning and execution of the attacks versus your previous beliefs that Ansar al-Sharia was so culpable for the planning and execution of the attacks that you declared the omission of their name from the talking points memo to be a near-criminal action (despite the fact that the memo didn't mention the name of any of the other groups involved).

That is what I get for trying to give you a compliment.

You're not fooling anyone, you know.

 

[The Big Dog]

No, they're not. Shehato and his cell in Nasr City (a suburb of Cairo) were tied to the protests over the video in front of and subsequent assault on Embassy Cairo. Egyptian authorities claimed that al-Kashef, who had associations with Shehato and his cell, was tied to the Benghazi attack because he ran terrorist training camps in Libya during the civil war that some of the other Benghazi attackers (again, there were people other than Ansar al-Sharia members among the attackers) may have trained at.

So, no, your bringing up the arrest of Shehato and his cell and al-Kashef does not address TellyKNeasuss' or my posts about your newfound focus on foreign planning and execution of the attacks versus your previous beliefs that Ansar al-Sharia was so culpable for the planning and execution of the attacks that you declared the omission of their name from the talking points memo to be a near-criminal action (despite the fact that the memo didn't mention the name of any of the other groups involved).

.

Yes, actually we did talk about them in this thread, and yes they are wanted for more than just activities in Egypt, and yes I'm impressed that you are prepared to speak so confidently about who trained the terrorists and who the attackers actually are (you should go to work for the FBI!)

And you are not kidding anyone when you suggest that I have a new found focus regarding the attackers. I'll freely admit that I have pointed out that the attackers were the Al Qua'ida Affiliated Ansar al-Sharia REPEATEDLY, and as such, where in the hell do you think the Al Qua'ida part of that statement came from????

By the way, you sound like Ansar al Sharia's publicity agent. How's that pay?

 

[A'isha]

Yes, actually we did talk about them in this thread, and yes they are wanted for more than just activities in Egypt, and yes I'm impressed that you are prepared to speak so confidently about who trained the terrorists and who the attackers actually are (you should go to work for the FBI!)

Despite your apparent misconceptions, there have been some new details released about the attackers since the first week after the attacks occurred, thanks to actual investigations into the matter. Nothing that I've said is new, unusual, or even unknown.

Well, except to you, it seems.

I'll freely admit that I have pointed out that the attackers were the Al Qua'ida Affiliated Ansar al-Sharia REPEATEDLY

Yes you have. That, in fact, is what struck TellyKNeasuss and I considering your sudden shift.

By the way, you sound like Ansar al Sharia's publicity agent. How's that pay?

You must be realizing that your argument isn't faring all that well, if this is what you're reduced to.

 

[The Big Dog]

Despite your apparent misconceptions, there have been some new details released about the attackers since the first week after the attacks occurred, thanks to actual investigations into the matter. Nothing that I've said is new, unusual, or even unknown.

Well, except to you, it seems.

Yes you have. That, in fact, is what struck TellyKNeasuss and I considering your sudden shift.

You must be realizing that your argument isn't faring all that well, if this is what you're reduced to.

Lolz. I like the part where you said you know who they trained. I also have learned new details, unfortunately they involve learning about your fairly impressive ability to make stuff up including who exactly trained at terrorist training camps.

You also, curiously, missed this:

Where the hell do you think al qua'ida came from?

Pro tip: not Libya. You are persistent though!

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Where the hell do you think al qua'ida came from?

Pro tip: not Libya. You are persistent though!

Al Quaida isn't a nationality.

The group in question is a Libyan group.

And how many of them were killed in the attack?

Pro tip: if we had 100 dead bodies, it would be a lot easier to figure out who did it.

 

[jj]

Al Quaida isn't a nationality.

The group in question is a Libyan group.

And how many of them were killed in the attack?

Pro tip: if we had 100 dead bodies, it would be a lot easier to figure out who did it.

Good luck convincing that debater. I think some folks never quite grok the "fog of war", or realize that maybe, just maybe, the bad guys may have used a tiny bit of deceit along the way. Gee, y'think?

But, of course, since this was on "Obama's Watch" this is much more terrible than all of the mess on Bush Sr's watch, or the I80 bridge terrorism, or the WTC ...

Or so it seems if you listen to some folks.

 

[A'isha]

Lolz. I like the part where you said you know who they trained. I also have learned new details, unfortunately they involve learning about your fairly impressive ability to make stuff up including who exactly trained at terrorist training camps.

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2012/11/more_al_qaeda_links.php

Another one of the Nasr City cell's suspected leaders is Muhammad Jamal al Kashef (a.k.a. Abu Ahmed). Jamal has "petitioned" Ayman al Zawahiri to start his own al Qaeda affiliate, according to The Wall Street Journal, and has also received financing from al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP).

Some Arabic press accounts have claimed that Jamal now leads al Qaeda's operations in Egypt and other locations. Al Hayat, a London-based Arabic newspaper, recently reported that Ayman al Zawahiri has given Jamal the go-ahead to launch terrorist attacks in Egypt, Libya, and elsewhere.

Jamal has longstanding ties to at least three of the al Qaeda-linked jihadists who, along with Shehato, incited protesters in Cairo on Sept. 11.

Jamal established terrorist training camps in Libya, and some of his trainees took part in the Sept. 11 terrorist assault on the US Consulate in Benghazi.

You also, curiously, missed this:

Where the hell do you think al qua'ida came from?

Pro tip: not Libya.

I didn't "miss" it. I ignored it, because it's a massively stupid question. As JoeTheJuggler pointed out, "al-Qaeda" isn't a nationality, it's a terrorist network formed of people from many different nationalities, which include Libyans. The assertion that "al-Qaeda" automatically equals "Not Libyan" is seriously one of the dumbest things I've seen in this thread.

 

[The Big Dog]

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2012/11/more_al_qaeda_links.php

I didn't "miss" it. I ignored it, because it's a massively stupid question. As JoeTheJuggler pointed out, "al-Qaeda" isn't a nationality, it's a terrorist network formed of people from many different nationalities, which include Libyans. The assertion that "al-Qaeda" automatically equals "Not Libyan" is seriously one of the dumbest things I've seen in this thread.

HILARITY! Oh man, you just posted something that flat out said that "foreign" al qua'ida assisted in the training for the attack, yet claim that the President of Libya's statement that the attack was led by foreign interests "monumentally stupid"? That is hilariously sad pedantry.

Let me break it down and explain it in terms as if explaining to a child.

Elizabeth Jones told the Libyans: 'I told him that the group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic terrorists.'

The FBI has released photos of three men who are thought to be members of Ansar al-Shariah, the Libyan militia group whose fighters were seen near the U.S. diplomatic facility prior to the violence.

The FBI concluded the men have also been in contact with a network of regional Jihadists, including al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb.

As noted, the Egyptian government detained Egyptian Islamic Jihad member Muhammad Jamal Abu Ahmad for possible links to the attack.

And as we have been saying all along, heck as Jones said the group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic terrorists, and the "affiliated terrorists" were foreign Nationals!

QED.

It is beyond belief that I have to explain this stuff in such detail because of ridiculous strawmen like "AL Qua'ida is not a nationality." Cripes, who ever said it was???

 

[A'isha]

HILARITY! Oh man, you just posted something that flat out said that "foreign" al qua'ida assisted in the training for the attack, yet claim that the President of Libya's statement that the attack was led by foreign interests "monumentally stupid"? That is hilariously sad pedantry.

No, I called your statement monumentally stupid. "Foreign" al-Qaeda set up a training camp where some of the (many different) attackers received training (not training specifically for the September 11 consulate attack in Benghazi, just terrorist training).

And that was separate from Ansar al-Sharia...the camps trained a number of different people belong to a number of different groups, some of whom participated in the Benghazi consulate attack along with Ansar al-Sharia.

Contrary to your constant assertions, Ansar al-Sharia appears not to have had any kind of primary role as "perpetrators" of the attacks, may have been outnumbered by the members of other groups that participated, and depending on whether you believe the statements of their leadership may not have even had any operational role at all and merely was involved in the attack on an individual membership basis.

Elizabeth Jones told the Libyans: 'I told him that the group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic terrorists.'

Which they are. However, Ansar al-Sharia themselves are not foreign, but are Libyan, led by Benghazi natives.

The FBI has released photos of three men who are thought to be members of Ansar al-Shariah, the Libyan militia group whose fighters were seen near the U.S. diplomatic facility prior to the violence.

See above regarding that.

The FBI concluded the men have also been in contact with a network of regional Jihadists, including al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb.

The emails about the talking points specifically state that the FBI was focusing on AQ in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, not AQIM.

As noted, the Egyptian government detained Egyptian Islamic Jihad member Muhammad Jamal Abu Ahmad for possible links to the attack.

Yes, and his links were that he operated terrorist training camps in Eastern Libya that some of the attackers may have been trained at.

It is beyond belief that I have to explain this stuff in such detail because of ridiculous strawmen like "AL Qua'ida is not a nationality." Jesus Christ, who ever said it was???

You, because that's the entire foundation of your claim that "Ansar al-Sharia perpetrated the attacks" and "the attacks were carried out by foreigners from Algeria and Mali" are identical statements, as well as the foundation of your claim that the removal of the mention of Ansar al-Sharia from the memo and saying "there are indications that extremists participated" was so contradictory to what Magariaf said that it damaged diplomatic relations between the two countries.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And again, who has the 100 dead bodies of these non-Libyan members of Ansar al-Shariah, 16.5? Were there another 100 of them to haul away the 100 dead?

Your fictional world is quickly unraveling into a series of unfounded incredible claims and contradictions, 16.5.

And why would the Obama administration overtly lie to deflect responsibility for the deaths from this humongous group of non-Libyan Ansar al-Shariah? Or is it your claim that even though these non-Libyan members of Ansar al-Shariah carried out the attack, someone else was somehow responsible for it?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

duplicate post deleted

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It is beyond belief that I have to explain this stuff in such detail because of ridiculous strawmen like "AL Qua'ida is not a nationality." Cripes, who ever said it was???

Either that's what you meant or your reply below is simply an incoherent non sequitur. Your choice.

Most of us gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you were making the assumption that "Al Qaida affiliated" somehow means non-Libyan. That assumption is false. You can duck responsibility for that false assumption by admitting that you made an incoherent non-sequitur in response to TellyKNeasuss' post.

You've been complaining about the absence of any mention of Ansar al Sharia in the final report, but now you're endorsing the statement of the Libyan President who said that the attack was planned by foreigners. Are you dropping the claim that Ansar al Sharia planned and carried out the attack?

You mean Al Qua'ida affiliated Ansar al-Sharia? No.

 

[A'isha]

Either that's what you meant or your reply below is simply an incoherent non sequitur. Your choice.

Most of us gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you were making the assumption that "Al Qaida affiliated" somehow means non-Libyan. That assumption is false. You can duck responsibility for that false assumption by admitting that you made an incoherent non-sequitur in response to TellyKNeasuss' post.

This is what I was trying to get at. Either 16.5 thinks that foreigners planned and carried out the attack (ie, were the perpetrators), or he thinks that Ansar al-Sharia planned and carried out the attack (ie, were the perpetrators).

Given the composition of the membership and leadership of Ansar al-Sharia, it can't be both.

 

[The Big Dog]

This is what I was trying to get at. Either 16.5 thinks that foreigners planned and carried out the attack (ie, were the perpetrators), or he thinks that Ansar al-Sharia planned and carried out the attack (ie, were the perpetrators).

Given the composition of the membership and leadership of Ansar al-Sharia, it can't be both.

You'd better tell that to the Ansar Al Sharia militia who were identified at the consulate AND the Al Qua'ida members from Yemen who were photographed there:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/02/world/africa/us-libya-benghazi-suspects

Jones and the FBI and the CIA say otherwise, but I am certainly willing to listen to your explanation why they were wrong when they said the attack was perpetrated by Al Qua'ida affiliated Ansar al sharia and your claim that they didn't work together.

(protip: the CIA released a statement in November that Ansar al Sharia conducted the attack, remember?)

 

[A'isha]

You'd better tell that to the Ansar Al Sharia militia who were identified at the consulate AND the Al Qua'ida members from Yemen who were photographed there:

Haven't I been trying to tell you all this time that Ansar al-Sharia were not the only ones involved? Did you even read my post above?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/02/world/africa/us-libya-benghazi-suspects

Three guesses what militia group isn't named anywhere in that article.

Oh, and I see it also says this:

Another source briefed on the Benghazi investigation said Western intelligence services suspect the men may have been sent by the group specifically to carry out the attack. But it's not been ruled out that they were already in the city and participated as the opportunity arose.

EDIT: Here it is, nine months after the attacks, and they still don't know if these people preplanned the attack or participated in a spontaneous attack because they were already there. And yet you insist the administration knew within the first week after the attacks and covered up their knowledge?

Jones and the FBI and the CIA say otherwise, but I am certainly willing to listen to your explanation why they were wrong when they said the attack was perpetrated by Al Qua'ida affiliated Ansar al sharia and your claim that they didn't work together.

(protip: the CIA released a statement in November that Ansar al Sharia conducted the attack, remember?)

So you didn't read my post above, then. Okay.

 

[The Big Dog]

This is what I was trying to get at. Either 16.5 thinks that foreigners planned and carried out the attack (ie, were the perpetrators), or he thinks that Ansar al-Sharia planned and carried out the attack (ie, were the perpetrators).

Given the composition of the membership and leadership of Ansar al-Sharia, it can't be both.

Haven't I been trying to tell you all this time that Ansar al-Sharia were not the only ones involved? Did you even read my post above?
....

So you didn't read my post above, then. Okay.

The claim was "Given the composition of the membership and leadership of Ansar al-Sharia, it can't be both" and after I note the evidence that BOTH were involved, we get this:

"Haven't I been trying to tell you all this time that Ansar al-Sharia were not the only ones involved?"

And you said it couldn't be both.

face palm.

 

[A'isha]

The claim was "Given the composition of the membership and leadership of Ansar al-Sharia, it can't be both" and after I note the evidence that BOTH were involved, we get this:

I didn't say that both couldn't be involved (which is, again, what I've been trying to tell you). What I said is that it can't be both that Ansar al-Sharia are the ones who plotted and carried out the attacks, and that it was non-Libyan foreigners who plotted and carried out the attacks. Because Ansar al-Sharia are not non-Libyan foreigners.

But guess what scenario fits the description of multiple different groups, some foreign, some local, some terrorist, some militia, and some entirely civilian, participating in the attacks? If the attacks arose spontaneously that day in response to the Cairo protests earlier.

You know, like the CIA talking points memo drafted during the first week after the attacks said.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You'd better tell that to the Ansar Al Sharia militia who were identified at the consulate AND the Al Qua'ida members from Yemen who were photographed there:

But again, your reply to TellyKNeasus is either a non sequitur or it depends on the false assumption that members of Ansar Al Sharia are non-Libyans. [ETA: Telly's post observed that you endorsed the president of Libya's assertion that no Libyans were involved in the attack and that you've endorsed the idea that Ansar Al Sharia were involved.]

Protip: The fact that you've still never substantiated or retracted your claim about the 100 people killed in the attack or your allegation that the Obama administration overtly lied to deflect responsibility for the deaths trashes your credibility.

 

[The Big Dog]

I note that Sean Smith's mother shares the outrage regarding the President's provocative appointment of Susan Rice as NSA. she objected on the basis that Susan rice is a proven liar, and it is hard to argue with her, given the loss of her son to al qua'ida and its local ally ansar al sharif.

It is hard not to wonder whether the 100 dead terrorists are worth even one Sean Smith.

 

[The Big Dog]

While ordinarily I would say something about "the very latest" but clearly other news is absolutely dominating the news cycle.

For example, other than confirming that Pickering gave his statement last Monday, I have not seen anything since.

We know that the response to the Congressional Subpoena is due today. It remains to be seen whether the documents will be produced.

I'm sure we can all understand the frustration that Sean Smith's Family is feeling in the lack of developments.