Hiya Moot. :2wave: No.....there were prior attacks on the Consulate. They Attempted to assassinate the Brits Ambassador and the Italians. They Attacked the Red Cross Offices.
There was No Protestors or demonstration in Benghazi.....that is the whole point. It was a Pre-Planned attack, Organized, and for Over a Month Team Obama denied it saying all was connected to the Video.....until finally admitting to it after others had already told the media it was an Attack.
Course now we know they knew all along.
Hi MMC
Suppose the attack was the protest? Since none of the attackers have been arrested then how do they know they weren't motivated by the protests in Cairo to attack the compound and the CIA annex in Benghazi?
Yes, there were previous attacks in Benghazi and each of those attacks were from different groups with different motivations. For instance, the attack on June 8, 2012 was carried out by individuals affiliated with Ansar Al-Sharia Libyain in protest of Tunisian artists against Islam. Other attacks were by other groups in retaliation for drone assassinations. The point is they were different groups with different motivations attacking different sites all over Benghazi.
This webpage lists the attacks in 2012 in Bengazi and the groups and their motivations....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack
The attack on 9/11 happened on the same day as the protest in Cairo and it was being broadcast all over the Middle East. Gregory Hicks was watching it on TV when Stevens called him to tell him that the compound was under attack. I find it very difficult to believe that the Islamic extremists and militant factions in Benghazi weren't watching it as well.
The FBI isn't having much luck with it's investigation. The Libyan government is reluctant to help and witnesses on the street are reluctant to talk to the FBI for fear of retaliation. Imo, the Libyan president was a little too quick to come out and say it was a terrorist attack and had nothing to do with the Cairo protests against the video. Obviously it was an "act of terror" but how would he know who or what the motivation was?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/11/w...pers-benghazi-assault-investigation.html?_r=0
ADMIRAL MULLEN who co-authored the ARB report says there were gaps in intelligence and there wasn't any warning of the attack. That would suggest it could have been a spontaneous act of terror....
"...We found that there was no immediate tactical warning of the September 11th attacks, but there was a knowledge gap in the intelligence community’s understanding of extremist militias in Libya and the potential threat they posed to U.S. interests, although some threats were known. In this context, increased violence and targeting of foreign diplomats and international organizations in Benghazi failed to come into clear relief against a backdrop of ineffective local governance, widespread political violence, and inter-militia fighting, as well as the growth of extremist camps and militias in eastern Libya...."
Briefing on the Accountability Review Board Report
The CIA doesn't seem to have any solid answers for motivation either. All they can surmise is that the attack was carried out by Islamic extremists and a few of the perps may have had sympathetic ties to Al Qaeda. In other words, they don't know who or what the actual motivation for the attack was.
So whose to say it wasn't both...an act of terror in protest of the video AND carried out by terrorists?
Cease the baiting.