What's new

House Intelligence chair: Benghazi attack 'Al Qaeda-led event'

Zarvan

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
54,470
Reaction score
87
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
The 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya was an "Al Qaeda-led event" according to multiple on-the-record interviews with the head of the House Intelligence Committee who receives regular classified briefings and has access to the raw intelligence to make independent assessments.

"I will tell you this, by witness testimony and a year and a half of interviewing everyone that was in the ground by the way, either by an FBI investigator or the committee: It was very clear to the individuals on the ground that this was an Al Qaeda-led event. And they had pretty fairly descriptive events early on that lead those folks on the ground, doing the fighting, to the conclusion that this was a pre-planned, organized terrorist event," Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., told Fox News in a November interview.

"Not a video, that whole part was debunked time and time again," Rogers added of the attack which killed Ambassador Chris Stevens, Foreign Service officer Sean Smith and former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, "which just leads to questions of why the administration hung with that narrative for so long when all the folks who participated on the ground saw something different."

Asked in November what might explain the initial narrative that an anti-Islam film triggered the attack, Rogers did not answer directly but said all evidence points to the State Department, whose leadership skirted the security requirements for the Benghazi mission. "We think we can fairly sense what was going on here and I will tell you, the answers, I think, are going to lie within the State Department and the decision-making in the State Department," he said. "Lots of questions to be answered there."

In the same interview, Rogers also suggested there were attempts to connect between the assailants and the Al Qaeda senior leadership in Pakistan. "I can tell you we know the participants of the event were clearly Al Qaeda affiliates, had strong interest and desire to communicate with Al Qaeda core and others, in the process -- we believe before and after the event."

While there was no immediate response from the White House, State Department, National Security Council or Rogers to a New York Times investigation that "turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault," the Republican congressman who leads the House Intelligence Committee has consistently maintained, in on-the-record interviews, that the attack was premeditated terrorism and not linked to the anti-Islam film initially blamed by the Obama White House.

One day after the assault, on September 12, 2012, Rogers was among the first on Capitol Hill to describe the strike as a pre-planned attack. "I have no doubt it was a coordinated, military style commando-type raid that had both direct fire and indirect fire, military movements involved in it. This was a well-planned, well-targeted event. No doubt about it."

Separately, an intelligence source on the ground in Libya told Fox News on September 17, 2012, one day after Susan Rice's controversial claims on the Sunday talk shows that linked the attack to the video, that there was no demonstration outside the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi prior to the attack -- challenging the Obama administration's claims that the assault grew out of a "spontaneous" protest against the film.

"There was no protest and the attacks were not spontaneous," the source said, adding the attack "was planned and had nothing to do with the movie."

The source said the assault came with no warning at about 9:35 p.m. local time, and included fire from more than two locations. The assault included RPG's and mortar fire, the source said, and consisted of two waves.

In subsequent on-the-record interviews, as more has been learned about the attack, Rogers laid out a timeline which further supported the initial assessment of pre-meditated terrorism. "I believe that they had an operational phase that lasted at least a couple of weeks, maybe even longer," Rogers told Fox in an October 2013 interview. "Then an initiation phase that lasted a couple or three days prior to the event itself."

"It is accurate that of the group being targeted by the bureau (FBI) at this point, there’s strong Al Qaeda ties," Rogers said. "You can still be considered to have strong ties because you are in the ring of operations of Al Qaeda core. ... There are individuals that certainly fit that definition."

Separately, Fox News was first to report, based on sources familiar with the investigation who were not authorized to discuss the case with the media, that at least two of the key suspects in the Benghazi terror attack were at one point working with Al Qaeda senior leadership. Fox News was told that one suspect was believed to be a courier for the network, and the other a bodyguard in Afghanistan prior to the 2001 terror attacks.

The direct historic ties to Al Qaeda senior leadership appear to undercut early characterizations by the Obama administration that the attackers in Benghazi were isolated "extremists" with no organizational structure or affiliation. After the attack, Faraj al-Chalabi -- believed to be a former bodyguard for the network -- traveled to Pakistan, where he was detained, returned to Libya and eventually released before the FBI was granted access.

A former Guantanamo detainee, Sufian bin Qumu, who is suspected of training some of the operatives who took part in the assault, was in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, according to a knowledgeable source. Fox News was told last fall that the intelligence community was trying to determine whether he played any role directing the attack and whether he was physically on or near the consulate grounds.

While the New York Times investigation puts significant weight behind the video explanation, an independent analysis of social media traffic in Benghazi found that the first reference to the anti-Islam film was not detected until a day after the assault. The independent review of more than 4,000 postings was conducted by a leading social media monitoring firm in December 2012.

"From the data we have, it’s hard for us to reach the conclusion that the consulate attack was motivated by the movie. Nothing in the immediate picture – surrounding the attack in Libya -- suggests that,” Jeff Chapman, chief executive with Agincourt Solutions told Fox News three months after the assault.

Chapman said his analysts reviewed postings in Libya, including those from Benghazi, over a three-day period beginning on September 11. After identifying a geographic area and isolating a time frame, analysts "vacuumed" up the social media postings, which were then analyzed and translated.

"We have seen no traffic in Benghazi – in the immediate lead up to the attack - related to the anti-Islam film," Chapman said. "There is a single source reporting on the evening of 9/11 that roads leading to the U.S. consulate in Benghazi were blocked. We also believe we have identified at least one individual who may have been involved - based on our analysis - that he posted a picture of himself attacking the consulate with an RPG."

The first reference to the anti-Islam film, initially blamed by the Obama administration for provoking the violent attack in Benghazi, appears to be a retweet of a Russia Today story that was not posted until September 12 at 9:12 a.m. local time. The translation reads, "U.S. ambassador killed in Libya during his his country's consulate in Benghazi - Russia today http://t.co/SvAV0o7T response to the film abuser."

While the New York Times investigation found "Benghazi was not infiltrated by Al Qaeda, but nonetheless contained grave local threats to American interests" a State Department classified cable directly conflicts with the claim. A review of an August 2012 classified cable, by Fox News, shows Al Qaeda was active in Benghazi and the fact was known to the CIA and the State department on the ground.

The U.S. Mission in Benghazi convened an "emergency meeting" less than a month before the assault that concluded Al Qaeda had training camps in Benghazi and the consulate could not defend against a "coordinated attack."

The authenticity of the classified cable, addressed to the office of then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, has never been challenged. And while then Defense Secretary Leon Panettta, and the chairman of the joint chiefs, Martin Dempsey told lawmakers during congressional hearings on Benghazi that they were briefed on the cable, Mrs. Clinton claimed it was not brought to her attention.

The cable marked "SECRET" summarized an August 15, 2012 emergency meeting convened by the U.S. Mission in Benghazi. It states that the State Department’s senior security officer, also known as the RSO, did not believe the consulate could be protected.

"RSO (Regional Security Officer) expressed concerns with the ability to defend Post in the event of a coordinated attack due to limited manpower, security measures, weapons capabilities, host nation support, and the overall size of the compound," the cable said.

According to a review of the cable, the Emergency Action Committee was also briefed "on the location of approximately ten Islamist militias and AQ training camps within Benghazi … these groups ran the spectrum from Islamist militias, such as the QRF Brigade and Ansar al-Sharia, to 'Takfirist thugs.'" Each U.S. mission has a so-called Emergency Action Committee that is responsible for security measures and emergency planning.

In addition to describing the security situation in Benghazi as "trending negatively," the cable said explicitly that the mission would ask for more help. "In light of the uncertain security environment, US Mission Benghazi will submit specific requests to US Embassy Tripoli for additional physical security upgrades and staffing needs by separate cover." The details in the cable seemed to foreshadow the deadly September 11 attack on the U.S. compound.

While the administration’s public statements have suggested that the attack came without warning, the August 16 cable undercuts those claims. It was a direct warning to the State Department that the Benghazi consulate was vulnerable to attack, that it could not be defended and that the presence of anti-U.S. militias and Al Qaeda was well-known to the U.S. intelligence community.

The New York Times investigation also makes passing reference to the second wave of the attack on the CIA base, which included mortar fire, as "improvised that night." The second wave of the assault killed former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty who were defending the CIA annex from its roof top.

CIA personnel who testified on Capitol Hill in early December provided first hand accounts of the attack's premeditation, according to the Republican lawmaker who is leading the subcommittee investigation.

Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, R-Ga., told Fox News in an on-the-record interview, after the closed, classified session that all of the witnesses (eight total witnesses have now testified) were on the same page about the nature of the mortar attack.

"These were trained people and ... it was an attack. It wasn't over any type of film or propaganda," Westmoreland emphasized, referring to the administration's initial claims that an anti-Islam film triggered protests that led to the attack. "We don't know why the administration would have ever thought any differently," Westmoreland said. "Other than that them and the State Department were trying to make sure that they were covered because of the unpreparedness they were in."

The witnesses also testified that the mortar fire was accurate, professional and likely the work of a trained mortar team, which they believed included a spotter. Sources familiar with the testimony said the first mortar was about 25 meters short of the target, the second was closer and the next three were direct hits.

This is consistent with previous testimony that five mortars were fired in quick succession;previous witnesses testified those mortars were fired in under a minute. The New York Times investigation describes "people lingering in a nearby pasture, stirring fears that they were plotting coordinates for launching a mortar attack."

When the CIA personnel were asked for their reaction to the administration's initial explanation that an anti-Islam video and a demonstration gone awry were to blame for the attack, Fox News is told they were seething with anger because everything on the ground -- from their perspective -- showed it was a premeditated attack.

Some counterterrorism analysts concur with the assessment, describing the mortars used to strike the CIA annex in the second wave of the attack as potentially "smoking gun" evidence -- as mortars require skill and training to fire, and typically must be pre-positioned during daylight hours to ensure accuracy. If the mortar attack in the early morning hours of September 12th was spontaneous, the plates would have been set without a direct line of sight to the target because of the night sky; a scenario described as unlikely by military sources who have worked with mortars.

The opposing analysis is that the mortars were successfully set, and the assailants did not bring significant equipment with them to suggest pre-planning.


Catherine Herridge is an award-winning Chief Intelligence correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC) based in Washington, D.C. She covers intelligence, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security. Herridge joined FNC in 1996 as a London-based correspondent.
House Intelligence chair: Benghazi attack 'Al Qaeda-led event' | Fox News
 
Fox News...known to make this a severe issue only to defame the president.

And it wasn't an AQ led attack, as if that means anything either way.

It's sad to see a good employee getting along with the people be killed.

But they should not make this more than what it already is.
 
Fox News...known to make this a severe issue only to defame the president.

And it wasn't an AQ led attack, as if that means anything either way.

It's sad to see a good employee getting along with the people be killed.

But they should not make this more than what it already is.

No, Al-Qaida plotted the attack at the last moment by hijacking the protest.

It was an act of revenge against the US, after the assassination of the second higher command of Al-Qaida " Abo Yahia Al-Libi "
 
No, Al-Qaida plotted the attack at the last moment by hijacking the protest.

It was an act of revenge against the US, after the assassination of the second higher command of Al-Qaida " Abo Yahia Al-Libi "

Says who? You've gotta be kidding you guys just feed into this CIA fabricated nonsense that suits their agenda.

Have you not realized what this whole 'war on terror' is about by now? And you keep encouraging it by over exaggerating threats that most of the time are not even towards our country so you give these countries the excuse to fund dictators, promote instability, attack nations, establish a hegemony over the region and so on....
 
The CIA lied to the American people. They claimed that the perpetuator of this attack were ordinary people protesting against the innocence of Muslim movie.
Says who? You've gotta be kidding you guys just feed into this CIA fabricated nonsense that suits their agenda.

Have you not realized what this whole 'war on terror' is about by now? And you keep encouraging it by over exaggerating threats that most of the time are not even towards our country so you give these countries the excuse to fund dictators, promote instability, attack nations, establish a hegemony over the region and so on....

No exaggeration on this.
 
The CIA lied to the American people. They claimed that the perpetuator of this attack were ordinary people protesting against the innocence of Muslim movie.


No exaggeration on this.

Have you been following recent news? And what I don't appreciate is how we only want to express outrage over a few American lives but were cheering on while thousands of Iraqis were being killed and unconditionally support killing people's overseas.

Why put so much emphasis on only our people and viewing our lives as very precious lives yet when it comes to people overseas kill all em terrorists.

We have a scenario for example in Somalia...a so called peace keeping mission in which we killed thousands of Somalians in 3 days including 400 civilians at the least yet a movie published called 'Blackhawk Down' pushed a false narrative to American people.

Everyone here when they think of the battle of Mogadishu refer to this movie as if that's what occurred, a few dozen militants killed and a shameful act against killed American troops rather than pointing out thousands that were killed by American forces.

What is it in our culture that makes people here like this?
 
Have you been following recent news? And what I don't appreciate is how we only want to express outrage over a few American lives but were cheering on while thousands of Iraqis were being killed and unconditionally support killing people's overseas.

I never cheered or expressed any sort of feelings toward one group while ignoring the others. I just like to call a spade a spade to condemn violence against all people. The Americans who died in Libya are no exception to this rule unless you develop a certain kind of prodigious against them then that isn't my problem.

Why put so much emphasis on only our people and viewing our lives as very precious lives yet when it comes to people overseas kill all em terrorists.


This is incoherent to our discussion.

We have a scenario for example in Somalia...a so called peace keeping mission in which we killed thousands of Somalians in 3 days including 400 civilians at the least yet a movie published called 'Blackhawk Down' pushed a false narrative to American people.

Peace-keeping missions don't bear offensive arms, I don't know what you're talking about tbqh.


Everyone here when they think of the battle of Mogadishu refer to this movie as if that's what occurred, a few dozen militants killed and a shameful act against killed American troops rather than pointing out thousands that were killed by American forces.

Those Americans committed war crimes are on trail. Most of these barbaric acts come from contractors rather than the US force.


What is it in our culture that makes people here like this?

I didn't like any of that kind of culture. But Al-Qaida was responsible for terror attacks, and thus, they must be brought to justice dead or alive.


Idk what you think of that though.


Have you been following recent news? And what I don't appreciate is how we only want to express outrage over a few American lives but were cheering on while thousands of Iraqis were being killed and unconditionally support killing people's overseas.

Why put so much emphasis on only our people and viewing our lives as very precious lives yet when it comes to people overseas kill all em terrorists.


We have a scenario for example in Somalia...a so called peace keeping mission in which we killed thousands of Somalians in 3 days including 400 civilians at the least yet a movie published called 'Blackhawk Down' pushed a false narrative to American people.

Everyone here when they think of the battle of Mogadishu refer to this movie as if that's what occurred, a few dozen militants killed and a shameful act against killed American troops rather than pointing out thousands that were killed by American forces.

What is it in our culture that makes people here like this?
 
@Yzd Khalifa

I'm not referring to you rather the American people...

It's actually necessary for this discussion as that is the double standard seen in the 'war on terror'.

Yes it was a peacekeeping mission as they called it. Go look it up.

Who's on trial for what happened in Somalia? Thousands were killed, the US killed thousands of Somalians...it wasn't a decision a few soldiers decided to make.

Do you even know what I'm talking about?
 
@Yzd Khalifa

I'm not referring to you rather the American people...

It's actually necessary for this discussion as that is the double standard seen in the 'war on terror'.

Yes it was a peacekeeping mission as they called it. Go look it up.

Who's on trial for what happened in Somalia? Thousands were killed, the US killed thousands of Somalians...it wasn't a decision a few soldiers decided to make.

Do you even know what I'm talking about?

Yes.

I never said that the peace-keeping forces were or are on trail. I was referring to the war crime that took place in Iraq/Afghanistan such as this:

Twelve US soldiers face trial after Afghan civilians killed 'for sport' - whistle-blower originally ignored | Mail Online
 
Yes.

I never said that the peace-keeping forces were or are on trail. I was referring to the war crime that took place in Iraq/Afghanistan such as this:

Twelve US soldiers face trial after Afghan civilians killed 'for sport' - whistle-blower originally ignored | Mail Online

The Iraq war was state terrorism which demolish hundreds of thousands of buildings with thousand pound missiles and killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis including Iraqi civilians.

To me that is what defines terrorism.

I don't focused on the little picture like you by claiming a few recorded known about war crimes occurred which the media couldn't ignore ended with trials of American troops.

Do I need to show you videos of American destruction and murder against the Iraqi people? I'm not talking about graphic videos, but rather attacks...so you can see it for yourself I'm sure you'd justify that against our country....
 
This is what the terrorist @Yzd Khalifa supports....just on example of crimes of the American army in Iraq.

You support the mass murdering Americans and have the guts to tell people here what constitutes terrorism and who's good and bad.

Bombing a mosque in Iraq and American soldiers laughing and cheering:


You also support Israeli mass murder against Palestinians:


Then he has the shame to tell is we have no right to protect our people.

Imperialist terrorist mentality.
 
You now call me a terrorist just because we disagreed on some issues? I said I condemn all violence against anybody including the murder of American diplomats. I also made a valid point on the war crimes which took place.

This is what the terrorist @Yzd Khalifa supports....just on example of crimes of the American army in Iraq.

You support the mass murdering Americans and have the guts to tell people here what constitutes terrorism and who's good and bad.

Bombing a mosque in Iraq and American soldiers laughing and cheering:

You also support Israeli mass murder against Palestinians:

Then he has the shame to tell is we have no right to protect our people.

Imperialist terrorist mentality.

I told you several times that I'm against the BiBi's regime as much as I'm against Hamas, Hezbollah. Why do you assert them up in every debate we make? :lol:

You're just going defensive. Harassing me won't make you feel better anyway.
 
You now call me a terrorist just because we disagreed on some issues? I said I condemn all violence against anybody including the murder of American diplomats. I also made a valid point on the war crimes which took place.



I told you several times that I'm against the BiBi's regime as much as I'm against Hamas, Hezbollah. Why do you assert them up in every debate we make? :lol:

You're just going defensive. Harassing me won't make you feel better anyway.

Show me that you're anything else rather than a materialistic imperialist terrorist colonizer.

Truth is no matter how much you speak of civilians and your affection for them you support destruction of nations and mass murder against their people's.

It's not just about war crimes, it's about attacking and killing people left and right for unjustified reasons.

The number one perpetrator of violence in the world is the USA and was the USA even if recently claimed to withdraw from two nations which is a lie. We still support killing elsewhere and kill elsewhere.

So all you want to condemn is if a troop went and shot up civilians and it was a very clear case of a war crimes yet what constitutes the vast majority of death and destruction which are missiles falling on peoples massacring everybody in the vicinity, women, children, elderly you don't speak out against.

When you prove to me you're otherwise than I will consider not calling you an imperialist terrorist.

You're brainwashed.
 
Back
Top Bottom