What really happened in Beghazi and the "Video"

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Jan 13, 2014 at 15:33

Mr Rosenthal wrote

This evidence is drawn precisely from social media.

Then we do have a problem as you will find anything and every thing in social media even wishful thinking and poor reconstruction of what really happened and if Mr Rosenthal thinks that he is correct because of building his evidence on a web site of those Jihadis then I have a bridge to sell him

The real issue here this is a case of "effect" looking for a "cause" and if this video did not exist then those criminals could have blamed the thousands of anti-Islam and anti-Muhammad and anti-Alllah that one can find on youtube

And here is the real problem Mr Rosenthal does not seem to be aware of the anti-Islam videos on youtube and he fails to tell us what was so special about this video when there are very similar videos on youtube

It seems to me that the obvious elephant in the room was the symbolic value to Islamists of an attack on 9/11 and because al-Gadhafi was gone there was no one to stop those criminals and it is as simple as that.

Also notice that David Kirkpatrick tells us that the attack was:

> "fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam."

But he fails to tell us what else could it have been fueled by? As in cause and we know what the effect was

As for Rosenthal's remark:

there is in fact hard evidence that the local Islamist scene in Benghazi was in uproar about the "anti-Islam video" in the run-up to the attack, and that this outrage figured prominently among the motivations of the assailants

Again who are they as in names? and where is the evidence? and if he is building his case on the basis of a social media site then he proved nothing

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".