These are the (orally released but the written text was not released at the time) talking points at the end of the week that contained Sept. 11, 2012 as read out loud by Senator Dianne Feinstein at or after a closed door hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee and published in at the end of an article by Eric Schmitt on page A10
of the Saturday, November 17, 2012 New York Times:

“The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex.

There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.

This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be
evaluated.

The investigation is ongoing, and the U.S. government is working with Libyan authorities to bring to justice those responsible for the deaths of U.S. citizens.”

Most of the time when the terrorists have demands, I think the demands are just a cover story to hide either their motivations, or sponsors, or true objectives, and not serious at all and claims of responsibility are only made to deceive.

There were no known objectives of the September 11th attacks, so they wouldn’t fit within the official definition of terrorism. I can figure out a few ideas (like diminishing the position of the United States in the world, and causing rebels in Afghanistan to give up hope of aid) but thdey still wouldn’t fit wihin the definition of terrorism.

I would define terrorism as an act of genocide or a war crime carried out by an organized group, that is too limited in scale to have even the remotest hopes of accomplishing by itself its apparent objective.

it wasn’t an act of terrorism

“It,” of course being he assault on the US Benghazi compound.

For instance, if they were trying to capture an arms cache. Or if the recent rumors are true, if the CIA was detaining prisoners and the purpose of the assault was to gain their release.

Ansar al Sharia may be an AQ affiliate. But if their objective was just a straightforward heist or a jailbreak then it wasn’t an act of terror.

228. What policy were they trying to affect?

Comment by Sammy Finkelman — 11/16/2012 @ 9:44 am

It’s spelled out in these:

bin Laden’s 1996 fatwa

bin Laden’s 1998 fatwa

SF: Well, as Jay Carney said, even a spontaneous attack that kills 4 Americans including the Ambassador to a country is still terrorism, and who wants to argue with that?

Steve57:

I do. The USG has an official definition of terrorism.

Official United States Government Definition of Terrorism

“[An] act of terrorism, means any activity that (A) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; and (B) appears to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping.”

(United States Code Congressional and Administrative News, 98th Congress, Second Session, 1984, Oct. 19, volume 2; par. 3077, 98 STAT. 2707 [West Publishing Co., 1984])

Under sucha definition, maybe Sept 11, 2011 might not be terrorism. What policy were they trying to affect?

2. If she believed those talking points, she clearly didn’t know what here own department had to say. The video? “That was not our conclusion.”

I think that’s true. It probably didn’t dawn on her that the position of her department could be different. (That there had never been a preliminary demonstration in Benghazi of any kind)

The CIA anyway is supposed to truymp the State Department when it comes to intelligence.

3. To still buy that story about the video six days after the Benghazi attack you’d have to be a credulous idiot.

Probably correct. Whatever made you think she was not a credulous idiot?

Do we really want someone who has worked at such a high profile job at DoS that she’s been given a cabinet position, yet still doesn’t know (I’m giving her the benefit of the doubt she wasn’t lying) that her own cabinet department had a position that was not what those talking points that were fed her said, a woman who isn’t aware of the intelligence function of her department, and is a gullible fool as SecState?

No. But then there also be a bunch of other people we also might not want confirmed to high positions, like say, well, James Clapper.

205. Comment by Steve57 — 11/15/2012 @ 2:03 pm

But, but, the President says he called it terrorism the very next day. And Candy Crowley backed him up when he told her to go to the transcript.

Well, as Jay Carney said, even a spontaneous attack that kills 4 Americans including the Ambassador to a country is still terrorism, and who wants to argue with that?

I do. The USG has an official definition of terrorism.

Official United States Government Definition of Terrorism

“[An] act of terrorism, means any activity that (A) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; and (B) appears to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping.”

(United States Code Congressional and Administrative News, 98th Congress, Second Session, 1984, Oct. 19, volume 2; par. 3077, 98 STAT. 2707 [West Publishing Co., 1984])

Terrorism is a matter of intent. Ergo a “crime of passion” such as “spontaneous movie criticism” doesn’t fit the definition of terrorism.

Makes it kinda sorta difficult to ‘splain how Ms. Rice could go on 5 Sunday talk shows 5 days later and say it was a spontaneous attack over a video

It’s easy to understand. On September 12, the CIA had not received or processed very much Sooper Sekrit intelligence about the Benghazi attack.

and how that was the “best understanding” of the intel at the time. Dontcha think?

You dare to question the judgement of CIA analysts?

Petreaus did, and look what happened to him.

Comment by Sammy Finkelman — 11/15/2012 @ 3:58 pm

Sammmy, first of all as I said in my previous post “intel” and “CIA” are not synonymous.

States Bureau of Intelligence and Research is also intel.

But, and again as I’ve said earlier (but not on this thread), the answer to the question “what happened in Benghazi” is not a matter of intelligence. It involves operational information.

The answers to the questions “why” or “who” involves intelligence. But what happened isn’t, and the Diplomatic Security people communicating the the DS agent in the TOC in the consulate in Benghazi knew what happened. That there was a coordinated assault on the compound and no protest was involved.