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

[First]

What is the cutoff age for overclocking?

Google it. Merriam Webster won't be much help, though.

 

[Matt1970]

Google it. Merriam Webster won't be much help, though.

Back your bullshit up. Post some data. And I am not the one who has a problem with Merriam Webster.

 

[monovillage]

Matt, the guy is trolling you....please don't feed him.

Yep, it's not even news that First is a troll and an asshole and again trying to derail a thread.

 

[Matt1970]

Well, I ignored him the first time he made fun of techies helping people with computers on a techie website, but now I am bored.

 

[esquared]

Stop with the thread derailing or I will lock this thread up.

I won't waste my time trying to clean up all these non-relevant posts.


esquared
Anandtech Forum Director

 

[Matt1970]

Stop with the thread derailing or I will lock this thread up.

I won't waste my time trying to clean up all these non-relevant posts.


esquared
Anandtech Forum Director

Thank you esquared.

 

[Bowfinger]

On numerous occasions you've read meaning into my words that wasn't there.

If so, it seems I'm not the only one. Once again I encourage you to consider spending a little more effort on making your points clearly and directly rather than making us guess.

If you have a problem understanding the points I'm making, then I suggest that you ask for clarification instead of making up crap and then knocking down your imagined strawmen.

I'll note that you once again ignore the great big "IF" I put in that remark. In English, that clearly shows the speaker is not making an assertion. It wasn't even an inflammatory remark. I just said that IF that was your point, "you are wrong" ... not an idiot or a liar or a raging asshat, just "wrong". And all you had to do, instead of responding with rage, was offer a simple, "No, I agree, Schiff did not say the NYT was biased." Easy and non-confrontational. Yet you chose instead to be belligerent about it.

I also tried twice since to get you to clarify exactly what your points were. Instead of doing so, simply and plainly, you chose to continue your attacks and continue raging about what your points are not. It's rather hypocritical of you to whine about others clarifying your points when you refuse to do so when asked.

You come across as an angry man who's combative and insulting in almost every post you make.

To borrow a phrase from our friend Moonbeam, you're seeing your own reflection. Though I am certainly a fallible human being, I try to respond to posts with similar tone, and only escalate if provoked. (Though I'll concede that many of us have been here long enough that past grievances can spill into new threads.) Ironically, I actually have more respect for you than most of the self-proclaimed conservatives here. I've seen you change your position in response to new information, and you are willing to call out useless trolls even when they are nominally on "your side". Most of your peers do neither.

So, go back through our exchange and note where the anger started. (Hint: look for "semantics my ass" and "credibility my ass".) From my perspective, it looks like you started with a chip on your shoulder and grew more and more enraged, even as it appeared you were actually agreeing with my responses.

I find that reasonable and honest dialog with you is nearly impossible, and frankly, not worth the effort.

So be it. Feel free to put me on ignore then. It makes it easier for me to correct misinformation without then getting pulled into a pointless pissing match. Or, you might just try not flying off the handle when I respond to you, and see if the ensuing discussion isn't more productive. Your call.


Let's try this one more time. I made two specific points. First, Schiff was generally supportive of the NYT investigation, though disagreed about the lack of an al Qaeda connection. Second, Schiff said nothing to suggest he agrees with cries of NYT showing partisan bias in this story. Plain and simple, do you agree or disagree with these two points?

Have a fine evening.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Let's try this one more time. I made two specific points. First, Schiff was generally supportive of the NYT investigation, though disagreed about the lack of an al Qaeda connection. Second, Schiff said nothing to suggest he agrees with cries of NYT showing partisan bias in this story. Plain and simple, do you agree or disagree with these two points?

Have a fine evening.

Agree on both counts. I hope you have a fine evening as well.

 

[Jhhnn]

From Schiff, the part you 're desperately avoiding-

So I think it adds some insights, but I don't think it's complete. And I don't think either paradigm is really accurate here.

He's quick to discount the Al Q song and dance, points out that they were, maybe, just part of everybody else & their dog who was around at the time.

WTF does this really mean, anyway?

the intelligence indicates that Al Qaeda was involved

The scenarios are endless, including coincidence.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

From Schiff, the part you 're desperately avoiding-



He's quick to discount the Al Q song and dance, points out that they were, maybe, just part of everybody else & their dog who was around at the time.

WTF does this really mean, anyway?



The scenarios are endless, including coincidence.

Tell me something please...was AQ involved with planning the attack to some degree or not?

 

[Jhhnn]

Tell me something please...was AQ involved with planning the attack to some degree or not?

How would I know? Schiff never offered that they did, anyway.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

How would I know? Schiff never offered that they did, anyway.

Did you not read the transcript of what he said that I posted at your request?

 

[werepossum]

Tell me something please...was AQ involved with planning the attack to some degree or not?

One of the phenomena of our time is how these disparate and formerly mutually antagonistic groups terrorist cooperate with each other. I would suspect that elements of external terrorist groups such as al Qaeda contributed intelligence and information on methods, but that local groups like Ansar al-Sharia made the actual decisions. They all want to establish Islamic theocracies, but they each want only THEIR hands on the whip.

 

[Jhhnn]

How would I know? Schiff never offered that they did, anyway.

Did you not read the transcript of what he said that I posted at your request?

I did indeed. Schiff said that there was some planning, and that Al Q was vaguely involved in the events. He didn't say they were the same thing.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I did indeed. Schiff said that there was some planning, and that Al Q was vaguely involved in the events. He didn't say they were the same thing.

AQ was involved in planning. That's all I wanted to hear...thank you.

 

[theeedude]

One of the phenomena of our time is how these disparate and formerly mutually antagonistic groups terrorist cooperate with each other. I would suspect that elements of external terrorist groups such as al Qaeda contributed intelligence and information on methods, but that local groups like Ansar al-Sharia made the actual decisions. They all want to establish Islamic theocracies, but they each want only THEIR hands on the whip.

That doesn't make sense to me. Local groups were armed, experienced and battle hardened from fighting in civil war, would have no need for AQ "information on methods." Plus we didn't see any fancy methods used, just your run of the mill mayhem that the local militia was perfectly capable of pulling on their own. And they are far more familiar with Benghazi than some foreigners, and would have no use for AQ "intelligence." They were in no need of any assistance from AQ. They managed to overthrow an entrenched brutal regime, so taking out a consulate was peanuts to these guys.

 

[werepossum]

That doesn't make sense to me. Local groups were armed, experienced and battle hardened from fighting in civil war, would have no need for AQ "information on methods." Plus we didn't see any fancy methods used, just your run of the mill mayhem that the local militia was perfectly capable of pulling on their own. And they are far more familiar with Benghazi than some foreigners, and would have no use for AQ "intelligence." They were in no need of any assistance from AQ. They managed to overthrow an entrenched brutal regime, so taking out a consulate was peanuts to these guys.

Al Qaeda has experience specifically in fighting Americans. Local groups do not.

 

[compuwiz1]

Trey Gowdy feels this whole thing and it's timing is designed to clear the way for Hillary so she won't have to deal with it if she runs for president.

Yeah, I know it's on Fox, but he also makes a lot of sense.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ngdw4dWJZRg

 

[theeedude]

Al Qaeda has experience specifically in fighting Americans. Local groups do not.

What specific experience would the local groups get from AQ that was used in Benghazi and they didn't already know how to do on their own?
If anything, AQ signature when it comes to diplomatic facilities would have been a big suicide bomb. This was an attack with small arms and RPGs, basically weapons and tactics that the local militia had already used in the civil war turned against Americans.

 

[theeedude]

Trey Gowdy feels this whole thing and it's timing is designed to clear the way for Hillary so she won't have to deal with it if she runs for president.

Yeah, I know it's on Fox, but he also makes a lot of sense.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ngdw4dWJZRg

He looks deranged.

 

[werepossum]

What specific experience would the local groups get from AQ that was used in Benghazi and they didn't already know how to do on their own?
If anything, AQ signature when it comes to diplomatic facilities would have been a big suicide bomb. This was an attack with small arms and RPGs, basically weapons and tactics that the local militia had already used in the civil war turned against Americans.

Just off the top of my head:
What sort of combat power can we expect from the local forces?
How quickly can I expect an organized reaction?
From where is that reaction likely to come?
What from will the relieving force likely take?
What level of force will the Americans likely bring to bear?
How can I best attack the relieving force?
When should I retire rather than fight?

This is critical intel. As Sun Tzu said:
Know yourself and not your enemy and you'll win half your battles.
Know yourself and know your enemy and you'll win all your battles.

Knowing someone as an ally helping you attack is not at all the same as knowing how that entity will react in defense.

 

[compuwiz1]

He looks deranged.

Do they teach you guys to say stuff like this in Liberal 101?

 

[Jhhnn]

AQ was involved in planning. That's all I wanted to hear...thank you.

Well, you certainly didn't hear it from me, or from Schiff, either.

OTOH, it being what you wanted to hear really explains everything.

 

[HomerJS]

Trey Gowdy feels this whole thing and it's timing is designed to clear the way for Hillary so she won't have to deal with it if she runs for president.

Yeah, I know it's on Fox, but he also makes a lot of sense.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ngdw4dWJZRg

Timing??

If it had come out 6 months ago 6 months later or 1 yr later he would have said the same thing.

 

[theeedude]

Just off the top of my head:
What sort of combat power can we expect from the local forces?
How quickly can I expect an organized reaction?
From where is that reaction likely to come?
What from will the relieving force likely take?
What level of force will the Americans likely bring to bear?
How can I best attack the relieving force?
When should I retire rather than fight?

This is critical intel.

That Al Qaeda didn't have. All of those things are situation dependent, and the local militia would know them far better than Al Qaeda, living right next to the Americans and being able to observe them.

As Sun Tzu said:
Know yourself and not your enemy and you'll win half your battles.
Know yourself and know your enemy and you'll win all your battles.

Knowing someone as an ally helping you attack is not at all the same as knowing how that entity will react in defense.

Yeah, this guy looks like a Sun Tzu scholar: