New Disclosures on Benghazi

[The Big Dog]

If we've known this for a long time, why are your links dated October 23, 2013?

Because they add additional details regarding the UN's action, and the hunt for the perpetrators.

You know, ANT, just like Liz Jones said on 9/12, and the FBI said a couple of days later.

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

9/12/2012. You ask a lot of questions about stuff we've covered in detail.

THANKS!!!

 

[A'isha]

Because they add additional details regarding the UN's action, and the hunt for the perpetrators.

Why did it take more than a year for the UN to update their information about the Muhammad Jamal network and to place it on their sanctions list? Why did it take more than a year for Fox News' "sources" to tell them about the information contained in their article? Why did they call that October 23, 2013 article an "exclusive" if all the information they're reporting has long since been known? Why, a year and a month after the attacks, is Mike Rogers being quoted as saying that "the ties to Al Qaeda senior leadership, also known as Al Qaeda core, are now established"?

 

[The Big Dog]

Why did it take more than a year for the UN to update their information about the Muhammad Jamal network and to place it on their sanctions list? Why did it take more than a year for Fox News' "sources" to tell them about the information contained in their article? Why did they call that October 23, 2013 article an "exclusive" if all the information they're reporting has long since been known? Why, a year and a month after the attacks, is Mike Rogers being quoted as saying that "the ties to Al Qaeda senior leadership, also known as Al Qaeda core, are now established"?

You know what is HILARIOUS? On the last page, lots of people were accusing me of JAQ'ing off! Hahahaha!!!!

Anyway, Ant, I have no idea whatsoever why it took them so long to PUBLISH what Avid Readers of this thread knew MONTHS ago.

In fact, MUHAMMAD JAMAL was identified in October 2012 in a Video taken from the compound.

Lets call these ARTICLES MORE CONFIRMATION and New Developments/status regarding the hunt for the terrorists.

Great stuff, really great stuff!

 

[A'isha]

In fact, MUHAMMAD JAMAL was identified in October 2012 in a Video taken from the compound.

October 2012?

Hmm...when was the memo drafted again?

 

[The Big Dog]

October 2012?

Hmm...when was the memo drafted again?

Memo? you mean this?

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

9/12/2012.

Kinda like a street gang, ANT, you get that then you work it and get the name of the perp.

They had the gang on 9/12/2012.

LOTS OF QUESTIONS! I bet you feel a might silly accusing me of JAQ'ing off this morning! Because that is what you are doing, and it is really not working out well for you.

Tell you what ANT, the NEXT question, you come back and tell us what you did to figure out the answer first? When you get stuck, I'll help ya out.

Show your work!

Ta Ta!

 

[A'isha]

Memo? you mean this?

No, I mean the talking points that the CIA put together.

Kinda like a street gang, ANT, you get that then you work it and get the name of the perp.

They had the gang on 9/12/2012.

Not according to the CIA during the drafting of the memo, they didn't. The CIA kept wanting to mention the video.

 

[The Big Dog]

No, I mean the talking points that the CIA put together.

Not according to the CIA during the drafting of the memo, they didn't. The CIA kept wanting to mention the video.

According to the CIA time line, the CIA's initial draft of the talking points, the State Department, The FBI, and The Administration, they did.

ANT, you could not be more wrong.

I LOVE THIS THREAD! So many people are learning so much!

 

[A'isha]

CIA's initial draft of the talking points

Oh, the one that emphasized the protests over the video?

 

[The Big Dog]

Oh, the one that emphasized the protests over the video?

Did you do your own research ANTPogo? Because not only did you not, you are moving the goalposts.

ANT: The CIA didn't mention Ansar Al Sharia.
Me: Sure they did.
ANT: non-existent video protest!
Me: LOLZ!

This is what JAQ'ing off looks like folks.

Hilarious, but unbelievable.

 

[elbe]

Hmm, the original talking points said this:

Initial press reporting linked the attack to Ansar al-Sharia. The group has since released a statement that its leadership did not order the attacks, but did not deny that some of its members were involved. Ansar al-Sharia's Facebook page aims to spread Sharia in Libya and emphasizes the need for jihad to counter what it views as false interpretations of Islam, according to an open source study.

That's not knowledge that they knew Ansar al-Sharia did it, just that accusations had been made that had not been corroborated.

It appears, that once again, Ant is right.

 

[The Big Dog]

Hmm, the original talking points said this:

That's not knowledge that they knew Ansar al-Sharia did it, just that accusations had been made that had not been corroborated.

It appears, that once again, Ant is right.

ME: They had the gang on 9/12/2012
ANT: Not according to the CIA they didn't
ME: according to the CIA time line, the CIA's initial draft of the talking points, the State Department, The FBI, and The Administration, they did.
ANT: non-existent video protest!
You: "Initial press reporting linked the attack to Ansar al-Sharia. The group has since released a statement that its leadership did not order the attacks, but did not deny that some of its members were involved."

So let me get this straight, you quoted something from the CIA specifically MENTIONING ANSAR Al-SHARIA and ADMITTING THAT ITS MEMBERS WERE INVOLVED and you claim that that it shows that ANT was right that the CIA didn't have the Ansar Al Sharia's identity?



If there was a conspiracy involved, elbe, you would definitely be in the running for the stundies!

/and that of course does not include: the CIA time line, the State Department, The FBI, and The Administration,

 

[elbe]

So let me get this straight, you quoted something from the CIA specifically MENTIONING ANSAR Al-SHARIA and ADMITTING THAT ITS MEMBERS WERE INVOLVED and you claim that that it shows that ANT was right that the CIA didn't have the Ansar Al Sharia's identity?

That would be what we call a "lie", or a severely faulty ability to read, either or.

 

[A'isha]

So let me get this straight, you quoted something from the CIA specifically MENTIONING ANSAR Al-SHARIA and ADMITTING THAT ITS MEMBERS WERE INVOLVED and you claim that that it shows that ANT was right that the CIA didn't have the Ansar Al Sharia's identity?

They didn't "have the gang". They thought there was a protest over the video that evolved into the attacks, and that Ansar al-Sharia members may have participated but whose leadership denied ordering the attacks, and that all of this was based on "initial reporting" that the CIA does not describe as confirmed.

And they didn't know Muhammad Jamal was there until a month later.

 

[elbe]

They didn't "have the gang". They thought there was a protest over the video that evolved into the attacks, and that Ansar al-Sharia members may have participated but whose leadership denied ordering the attacks, and that all of this was based on "initial reporting" that the CIA does not describe as confirmed.

And they didn't know Muhammad Jamal was there until a month later.

Yes, for all the hay made out of the talking points there really wasn't that much known information in the initial draft, just outside accusations, assumptions, and background information.

 

[The Big Dog]

That would be what we call a "lie", or a severely faulty ability to read, either or.

"Hmm, the original talking points said this:
Quote:
Initial press reporting linked the attack to Ansar al-Sharia. The group has since released a statement that its leadership did not order the attacks, but did not deny that some of its members were involved. Ansar al-Sharia's Facebook page aims to spread Sharia in Libya and emphasizes the need for jihad to counter what it views as false interpretations of Islam, according to an open source study.
That's not knowledge that they knew Ansar al-Sharia did it, just that accusations had been made that had not been corroborated.

It appears, that once again, Ant is right."

Wow. And you are ignoring the the CIA time line, the State Department, The FBI, and The Administration, again.

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

Yeah, they totally didn't know who Ansar al Sharia was

LOLZ! I love this thread!!!!

 

[elbe]

"I told him that the group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia..."
"Initial press reporting linked the attack to Ansar al-Sharia. The group has since released a statement that its leadership did not order the attacks..."

I see a serious disconnect. I wonder what it is... Oh well, I guess it's not as important as making blind accusations without evidence, which seems to be the theme of this thread - that and mocking/insulting anyone who dares question the whole "Benghazi-gate" thing.

 

[The Big Dog]

"I told him that the group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia..."
"Initial press reporting linked the attack to Ansar al-Sharia. The group has since released a statement that its leadership did not order the attacks..."

I see a serious disconnect. I wonder what it is... Oh well, I guess it's not as important as making blind accusations without evidence, which seems to be the theme of this thread - that and mocking/insulting anyone who dares question the whole "Benghazi-gate" thing.

Should I make this really big? I mean you called me a liar right! LETS DO IT!!!!!

you are ignoring the the CIA time line, the State Department, The FBI, and The Administration, again.

here is an actual quote from 9/12/2012:

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

Looking forward to your next post actually, you know, discussing these facts.

 

[elbe]

Should I make this really big? I mean you called me a liar right! LETS DO IT!!!!!

you are ignoring the the CIA time line, the State Department, The FBI, and The Administration, again.

here is an actual quote from 9/12/2012:

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

Looking forward to your next post actually, you know, discussing these facts.

I was pointing out what one thing, the infamous talking points, did not say what you really, really want it to. Look elsewhere for your smoking gun. And please try to keep a modicum of respect.

 

[A'isha]

Yeah, they totally didn't know who Ansar al Sharia was

No one is saying they didn't know who Ansar al-Sharia was.

The CIA did not at the time, however, have it confirmed that it was an Ansar al-Sharia-led attack and that the attack did not arise out of protests over the video. And they didn't know that Muhammad Jamal was involved at all.

 

[The Big Dog]

I was pointing out what one thing, the infamous talking points, did not say what you really, really want it to. Look elsewhere for your smoking gun. And please try to keep a modicum of respect.

OK, you ignored the other evidence again, and are now backtracking.

say lets talk about respect. Lets look at a quote:

"That would be what we call a "lie", or a severely faulty ability to read, either or. "

You wrote that.