« | »

Intel Chief: Libyan Attack Unplanned Terrorism

From CNN:

Intel official: Libya attack was terror act, but not planned in advance

By Pam Benson | September 19, 2012

The nation’s counterterrorism chief told Congress on Wednesday the assault on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans was a terrorist attack.

But National Counterterrorism Center Director Matthew Olsen said at a Senate hearing the best information so far indicates that armed extremists did not plan in advance to assault the Benghazi consulate last Tuesday, but took advantage of an opportunity to do so during a demonstration over an anti-Muslim film.

A terrorist attack cannot be spontaneous by definition. (Read the official US government definition.)

It isn’t terrorism unless there is a defined goal and purpose. But what are words to an Obama administration official?

Olsen said the investigation continues and facts are being developed. But he said it "appears that individuals who were certainly well armed seized on the opportunity presented as the events unfolded that evening and into the morning of September 12.

So now we have ‘sudden terrorism syndrome’ to go with ‘sudden jihad syndrome’?

"We do know that a number of militants in area, as I mentioned, are well armed and maintain those arms. What we don’t have at this point is specific intelligence that there was a significant advanced planning or coordination for this attack," he said.

The testimony of people on the ground, such as the Libyan guard, is not "specific intelligence"?

That point was stressed as well by White House spokesman Jay Carney on Wednesday.

"It is a fact that there are in post-revolution, post-war Libya armed groups, there are bad actors, hostile to the government, hostile to the West, hostile to the United States and as has been the case in other countries in the region, it is certainly conceivable that these groups take advantage of and exploit situations that develop when they develop to protest against or attack either westerners, Americans, western sites or American sites," Carney said…

In other words, just like in our country, terrorists in Libya don’t want to let a good crisis go to waste.

Meanwhile, Fox News is reporting:

Al Qaeda, ex-Gitmo detainee involved in consulate attack, intelligence sources say

Published September 19, 2012

Intelligence sources tell Fox News they are convinced the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was directly tied to Al Qaeda — with a former Guantanamo detainee involved…

Sufyan Ben Qumu is thought to have been involved and even may have led the attack, Fox News’ intelligence sources said. Qumu, a Libyan, was released from the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in 2007 and transferred into Libyan custody on the condition he be kept in jail.

He was released by the Qaddafi regime as part of its reconciliation effort with Islamists in 2008.

But to be fair, Mr. Qumu probably swore on a stack of Bibles that he would refrain from any more terrorism.

His Guantanamo files also show he has ties to the financiers behind the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The declassified files also point to ties with the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a known Al Qaeda affiliate

If this report is true, it would certainly not be any too surprising.

Except, maybe to the New York Times, who called Mr. Qumu an ally just a few months ago:

From April 2011 archives of the New York Times:

Libyan, Once a Detainee, Is Now a U.S. Ally of Sorts

By ROD NORDLAND and SCOTT SHANE | April 24, 2011

DARNAH, Libya — For more than five years, Abu Sufian Ibrahim Ahmed Hamuda bin Qumu was a prisoner at the Guantánamo Bay prison, judged “a probable member of Al Qaeda” by the analysts there. They concluded in a newly disclosed 2005 assessment that his release would represent a “medium to high risk, as he is likely to pose a threat to the U.S., its interests and allies.”

Today, Mr. Qumu, 51, is a notable figure in the Libyan rebels’ fight to oust Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, reportedly a leader of a ragtag band of fighters known as the Darnah Brigade for his birthplace, this shabby port town of 100,000 people in northeast Libya. The former enemy and prisoner of the United States is now an ally of sorts, a remarkable turnabout resulting from shifting American policies rather than any obvious change in Mr. Qumu

But the New York Times is always the last to know about these things.

This article was posted by Steve on Thursday, September 20th, 2012. Comments are currently closed.

3 Responses to “Intel Chief: Libyan Attack Unplanned Terrorism”

  1. AcornsRNutz says:

    I’m reminded once again of an event I witnessed as a kid in my own state senate on a field trip. A highly heated debate between a drunk and a known mischeif maker over whether naming a small pond “donavan’s dunk” would constitute a problem with the definition of bodies of water, and what would constitute a “dunk”, would every town in the future be forced to call every similar sized body of water a dunk, etc etc etc. This took up an entire morning session. I was 10, but I was amused and floored at the same time. We have now come to some sort of agreement on the definition of this act as “spontaneous terrorism”. Sounds like donavan’s dunk to me. Who the hell cares and why is it a debatable point? AMERICAN SOIL WAS ATTACKED ON 9/11/2012! What the hell is being done about it? NOTHING. That’s the problem, and that’s exactly why we are screwed as a country. Libs say it was un planned isolated incidents (20 some odd of them), while conservatives are ever willing to take the bait and argue the damn definition of terror and whether or not it was planned and did obama or the secstate, or state department or whatever do enough to stop it. Forget it, it’s done. The big problem is why the hell are Americans not screaming from the rooftops that no action at all has been taken.

    We should have kicked the ambassadors of each of those countries out, shuttered their embassies and cut off all funding immediately, to say nothing of vacating all of those countries ourselved. That’s only a start. The next step would be demands for some heads on a plate from the governments in these countries before we even consider helping them again.

  2. ilzito guacamolito says:

    My head is spinning from all the spin…make it stop…
    They are giving new meaning to the phrase, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”


  3. Reality Bytes says:

    Well at least we can use the word terrorism again. Guess that’s an Obama move to the center huh?

« Front Page | To Top
« | »