NYTimes: Al-Qaeda not behind Bengahzi attacks (video in part to blame)

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

SparkyJJO

Lifer
May 16, 2002
13,357
7
81
lol.

Like I said, this belief in media bias is an article of religious faith. You guys won't let facts harm your bubble any more than the fundamentalists let the fossil record undermine their faith in creationism.

Must be nice.

You don't see the bias because 1) it matches your bias and 2) you don't want to see it.

You may tell me that "well fox news is biased right wing" (possibly with some colorful derogatory language added) and I would most certainly agree with you that they are. What you need to come to grips with is there is no true unbiased news source. None. Zip. Nada. Some are more painfully obvious and heavily biased, others not as bad, but they all are.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
You don't see the bias because 1) it matches your bias and 2) you don't want to see it.

You may tell me that "well fox news is biased right wing" (possibly with some colorful derogatory language added) and I would most certainly agree with you that they are. What you need to come to grips with is there is no true unbiased news source. None. Zip. Nada. Some are more painfully obvious and heavily biased, others not as bad, but they all are.

Pretty much that.
 

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,464
2
0
This is really sad. I guess there's no reaching someone once he's written off all connection to reality and only believes sources that tell him exactly what he wants to hear. You do understand it's not just 'his opinion vs. your opinion, both of which are equally valid,' and that there's actually a reality out there to measure things against, right? The NYT is one of the most widely respected and read papers in the world, based on its consistent high quality including things like breaking major stories such as the Pentagon Papers. Infowars is a conspiracy theory website. That's the beauty of conspiracy theory thinking, though - anything that might contradict your beliefs are just part of the conspiracy/cover-up, while anything that support it, however worthless the source, must be a brave voice being persecuted!

You truly are a brilliant snowflake, internet user Double Trouble! Congratulations on being so very smart and special, seeing through the nasty calls for 'evidence' and 'rational thinking' and understanding YOUR truths, which must be as good as everyone else's!

Wow, really? Pentagon Papers? Anything from this century?
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
I trust the NY Times more than Republicans in Congress. Not even in the same ballpark.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
I trust the NY Times more than Republicans in Congress. Not even in the same ballpark.

Of course you do, it's because the NY Times is biased on your side of the political spectrum. Thank you for being honest about it.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Of course you do, it's because the NY Times is biased on your side of the political spectrum. Thank you for being honest about it.

NY Times is biased toward facts, GOP Congressmen are biased towards what suits their political goals. They couldn't care less about what happened in Benghazi, they only care about Hillary Clinton in 2016.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,147
55,676
136
You don't see the bias because 1) it matches your bias and 2) you don't want to see it.

You may tell me that "well fox news is biased right wing" (possibly with some colorful derogatory language added) and I would most certainly agree with you that they are. What you need to come to grips with is there is no true unbiased news source. None. Zip. Nada. Some are more painfully obvious and heavily biased, others not as bad, but they all are.

Nah, like I said before there is actual empirical research on this subject. You can go with your gut and what 'feels' true if you would like, but I go with the research.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
NY Times is biased toward facts, GOP Congressmen are biased towards what suits their political goals. They couldn't care less about what happened in Benghazi, they only care about Hillary Clinton in 2016.

It's the Times that changed their story about Benghazi after earlier reporting the facts. Sorry I actually gave you credit for being honest.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
It's the Times that changed their story about Benghazi after earlier reporting the facts. Sorry I actually gave you credit for being honest.

If he was so interested in fact and truth then they would be ripping Obama a new one like the rest of us.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
If he was so interested in fact and truth then they would be ripping Obama a new one like the rest of us.

Shouldn't you be helping someone OC their shitty AMD rig?





Personal attacks aren't allowed and you're thread derailing on top of it.


esquared
Anandtech Forum Director
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
Shouldn't you be helping someone OC their shitty AMD rig?

Take a look on the left of your screen and see how many of the categories deal with computers. Little hint, you are on a technology website. The vast majority of the categories on the forum are computer related.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Take a look on the left of your screen and see how many of the categories deal with computers. Little hint, you are on a technology website. The vast majority of the categories on the forum are computer related.

implied-facepalm-jpg.424589
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
It's the Times that changed their story about Benghazi after earlier reporting the facts. Sorry I actually gave you credit for being honest.

Sounds to me like you are confusing "facts" with assumptions that you agree with.
NY Times is reporting that some of the attackers were motivated by the video. To prove otherwise, you'd have to:
1. Find EVERYONE involved in the attack.
2. Ask them what they were motivated by.
3. Discover that NONE were motivated by the video.
Get started :)
 
Last edited:
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
Blaming the video is blaming free speech. If Christians did this based on a video then the usual suspects would blame the Christians and not the video.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
So you are going to make fun of someone being a techie on a techie website. Keep facepalming, it just might knock some sense into you.

I'm making fun of you because you're a low information troll who still overclocks. FYI.
 

berzerker60

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2012
1,233
1
0
It's the Times that changed their story about Benghazi after earlier reporting the facts. Sorry I actually gave you credit for being honest.

So the NYT underwent investigations on the ground, learning new things, after which they changed their story to reflect the new information. And that's a bad thing to you? That's how learning and understanding works when you don't just adopt whatever story best fits your ideology and cling to that 'truth' no matter what.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
So the NYT underwent investigations on the ground, learning new things, after which they changed their story to reflect the new information. And that's a bad thing to you? That's how learning and understanding works when you don't just adopt whatever story best fits your ideology and cling to that 'truth' no matter what.
The NYT is getting a lot of push back on that article from members of the House Intelligence Committee and those who were on the ground the night of the attack. The NYT article was generally good but they made a couple conclusions which are highly questionable (1) “no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.” and (2) "was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam".

I think the New York Times did exactly as you suggested...adopted a story that best fits their ideology.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ghazi-challenge-nyt-report/?intcmp=latestnews

Fifteen months after the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi which killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, the narrative of the attack continues to be shaped, and reshaped, by politicians and the press.

But a New York Times report published over the weekend has angered sources who were on the ground that night. Those sources, who continue to face threats of losing their jobs, sharply challenged the Times’ findings that there was no involvement from Al Qaeda or any other international terror group and that an anti-Islam film played a role in inciting the initial wave of attacks.

“It was a coordinated attack. It is completely false to say anything else. … It is completely a lie,” one witness to the attack told Fox News.

Sean Smith, a foreign service officer, and former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were also killed in the 2012 assault.

The controversial Times report has stirred a community that normally remains out of sight and wrestles with how to reveal the truth, without revealing classified information.

Fox News has learned that the attack on the consulate started with fighters assembling to conduct an assault.

"Guys were coming into the compound, moving left, moving right…and using IMT (individual movement techniques). … That’s not a spontaneous attack,” one special operator said.

"One guy was shooting, one guy was running. There are guys watching the gates. … The bosses on the ground were pointing, commanding and coordinating -- that is a direct action planned attack."

The community of operators in Libya that night and since includes the CIA, FBI, U.S. military, U.S. State Department and contractors working for the United States in a number of capacities. According to multiple sources on the ground that night, all the intelligence personnel in Benghazi before the attack and there now understand Al Qaeda is a significant threat in Libya.

Recent reports also suggest that Libyan militia leader Ahmad Abu Khattallah is the mastermind of the attack and had no real connections to Al Qaeda or terrorist organizations.

Multiple sources, though, challenged that claim. They insist that while Khattallah was found responsible for the actions at the actual consulate and was essentially the ground force commander that night, he is also clearly tied to Ansar al-Sharia and to the broader terrorist network.

“There is direct evidence linking him before the attack and after the attack to terrorist groups. An opportunity came, and Khattallah conducted an assault on the consulate. To say that it wasn’t tied to Al Qaeda is completely false. There is literal evidence in many forms and shapes, directly linking him,” one source said.

Khattallah is also a member of the militia group the Libyan Shield, which was formed to protect Benghazi and is operating separate from Tripoli.

Other militias are not inclined to turn Khattallah in, because they are also tied to Ansar al-Sharia. Commanders from some of these militias thought to be friendly to the United States and who have worked with American special forces, the CIA and State Department personnel have flipped sides and affiliated with Ansar al-Sharia. Sources say the terrorist group is saturating the whole region of eastern Libya with money, training and personnel. "They are now the biggest organization in town,” one said.

Sources also tell Fox News that while Khattallah is responsible for the ground actions that night, he also reports to other commanders in Ansar al-Sharia. He is seen as a relatively small piece of the terror puzzle in the region, which includes Al Qaeda ambassadors. Some in the intelligence community call these terrorist ambassadors “Amirs,” and there has been one stationed in Libya for some time, as they are the liaison for intelligence and direction for operations. Libyan Shield, which has different offshoots in different locations, also has members directly affiliated with terrorist organizations and Al Qaeda. Bomb-making materials have been found with some of these groups as well.

Fox News has also learned there was a week of briefings by the head of counterintelligence in the entire region that identified Al Qaeda as the largest and most significant element infiltrating Libya, with the final briefing on Sept. 10.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
Sounds to me like you are confusing "facts" with assumptions that you agree with.
NY Times is reporting that some of the attackers were motivated by the video. To prove otherwise, you'd have to:
1. Find EVERYONE involved in the attack.
2. Ask them what they were motivated by.
3. Discover that NONE were motivated by the video.
Get started :)

nope, they originally said that Al Qaeda was involved in the attack, so did Democrat and Republican Congress folks. This particular Times commenter then said there was no link between the Al Qaeda and the attack. Either the Times was lying or wrong in their first story or they are lying or wrong in this story.