posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 09:12 AM
The "embassy" siege was as spontaneous as the spontaneous uprising instigated by British special forces and their Al Qaeda terrorist friends at the
beginning of the called Libyan revolution in 2011. Oh and the Libyan revolution was only called Libyan revolution, because we THE WEST thought it
should be called Libyan revolution, not because the majority for the people in Libya thought it would be appropriate to call it that way.
Apart from that there are a lot of interesting questions to raise:
Why does the US state department not even list a consulate, much less an embassy in Benghazi on their homepage?
Why was the ambassador there, especially on and around "9/11", because even the western media reported that he visited these "offices" only
sporadically, and it is not exactly close to Tripoli?
Wouldn't the US embassy in Tripoli have been much safer for him?
And why didn't the terrorists attack the embassy in Tripoli instead?
How did these people who stormed and burned down this consulate know that it is an American consulate in the first place? Most of the time these
buildings are anything but fancy from the outside.
Wouldn't it have been more obvious and made more sense (from a terrorist standpoint) to attack the embassy in Tripoli instead of a small office
Why have terrorists when they attack the US always better intelligence then the US has itself?
Why do I have the feeling that the stories that the US government tells us about terrorist attacks always stink?
edit on 18-9-2012 by
ALF88 because: (no reason given)