Talk:2012 Benghazi attack/Archive 3

Battle Information Box
Now that it has been established that this was essentially a military style battle, isn't it appropriate to put in a full Battle information box such as the Battle of wanat which was a remote Afghan outpost that was hit and partially overrun by a combined Taliban and Al Qaeda force with similar numbers of commandos and firepower? The September 2012 Camp Bastion raid appears to be another battle that was part of this "outrage over the video" military campaign, as with the cyber attacks on US banks credited to Iran. Is there some central place that lists all of the attacks associated with the Innocence of Muslims movie? There has been speculation by Walid Shoebat that maker of the anti-Islam movie clearly associates with Arab fraud artists who appear to be funding terrorism, and the filmmaker's own statements make him out to be an Islamic scholar who as read the Koran and Hadith and hundreds of Islamic books who was observed by his cellmate to read the Korean. That he was rarely seen in any Coptic church may indicate that identity is just as false as his claim to be an Israeli.

If any direct link can be established between those that sponsored the film and those who promoted the anti-embassy riot in Cairo or Benghazi, then the film very much could be not only related but an integral part of the attack. Shoebat notes that the Sam Bacile youtube channel has links through comments and favorites to Wisam Abdul Waris, Waris and Nader Bakkar Bakkar, who were identified September 13th as being the two primary culprits behind the Cairo riots on 9/11. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redhanker (talk • contribs) 20:08, 29 October 2012‎ (UTC)
 * Thing is, we are not at war with Libya. The attack took place the aftermath of 2011 war - the Libyan government was still trying to pick up the pieces with support from local militias. Benghazi was just your not-so-friendly neighborhood where almost everybody carry an assault rifle for protection. o.0 The militias who attacked the diplomatic posts were not inline with the government and other militias, so I am inclined to agree to label them "terrorists", despite being somewhat worn-out with that term. Therefore, Infobox terrorist attack may be more accurate than Infobox military conflict. My 2 cents. :-/ — Hasdi Bravo &bull; 20:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

These people were clearly not from the neighborhood, and not your typical ex-school teacher or shopkeeper with no combat experience like most of the Feb 17 brigade guards. They had foreign accents,and were later arrested or killed all over the middle east from Tunisia to Egypt. That is the hallmark of a pan-Arab/islamist force such as Al Qaeda, Taliban and the combined force that hit the outpost at Wanat. The attackers in Benghazi had mortar skills honed well enough to kill rooftop machine gunners on the roof in only 3 shots, so they might well be veterans of Wanat where RPG fire was accurate enough to take out the mortar pit and TOW launcher at the beginning of the fight.

There is a narrative that these were just random neighborhood militia people in a game of pickup terrorist attack without planning, and that security was adequate in light of intelligence, and that the president is doing everything possible to secure the welfare of Americans under attack, and to identify and punish the attackers as soon as possible. That should obviously be seen as a misleading cover story being promoted by everyone from the Libyan government to Morsi, Iran and even the Obama administration. The opposite of that narrative is that it was a planned operation coordinated with a video that was specially produced and promoted as cover for the attacks. The filmmaker's own statements is that he an Islamic scholar. He was associated with fraudsters supporting terrorists, and has falsely claimed to be anti-Islamic, Israeli and Copt in an attempt to harm the groups he claims to be a part of.

The opposite narrative is that an obviously highly trained force executed a complex plan that aligned with forces that fly the same black flag as Al Qaeda, in the context of increasing presence of Al Qaeda assisted by Egypt and Iran, and they were just as skilled as the specially trained teams sent to Wanat and Camp Bastion. They were hindered by a CIA, Pentagon and White House that told the forces in the area to stand down and declined to send additional help, and initially denied there was any early evidence the attacks were planned by terrorists That alternative is only being promoted by Fox and rightbloggers while the western and Arab mainstream media is promoting the prior narrative. Both narratives should have a place in this article. Redhanker (talk) 18:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe, but you may have a hard time getting consensus placing both narratives until the election is over. Until then, I suggest you place cites in "Investigation timeline" section. Thanks! — Hasdi Bravo &bull; 02:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * We are merely fact-finders here. If someone wants to draw the conclusion that between 125 and 150 men armed with assault rifles (AK-47s and the Belgium-made NATO-issued FN F2000), rocket-propelled grenades, hand grenades, pre-loaded canisters of diesel fuel, mortars, and pick-up trucks mounted with artillery and anti-aircraft machine guns spontaneously drew road blocks to fence in the consulate, then attacked the compound, blowing holes in walls, then burned buildings to the ground, then attacked the fleeing Americans as they made their way to the annex, then laid precise mortar fire upon them there...let them. We are merely fact-finders here. To paraphrase Senator McCain: "Most people don't bring truck-mounted 14.5 mm anti-aircraft machine guns and artillery to demonstrations." ;) -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 03:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * That would actually make a pretty good lead, ending with the US government has not reached any conclusions who made the attack or why, but has assured the public that security precautions were adequate, no one denied any calls for help, and they are committed to identifying and punishing those who executed the attacks, though critics claim that the administration middle east policy of working with groups such as the Arab Spring and the Muslim Brotherhood is unraveling and resulted in a resurgence of radical groups like Al Queda in Libya and Egypt and lack of security for Israel.Redhanker (talk) 14:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Official investigations are all still ongoing, so no conclusions should be made EXACTLY about the who, what, when, where, how, and why. There's a lot of "evidence" out there right now, and I think everyone here (mostly) is trying to do a balancing act in what cites/info to accept, or not, and where to place them into the article. I was trying to be funny in my remarks above, of course. As Hasdi has pointed out numerous times, this is a hot political issue now because of the presidential election coming up; and it might not have drawn as much attention if not for that. In any event, we can still keep working on the article to add the best information in the best parts of the article to help give the best overall picture to people visiting the page about "what happened." Notice the quotation marks. To me this feels like we're putting together a giant jigsaw puzzle from 4 different boxes, but still trying to make one nice picture. Sometimes it ain't gonna look pretty! -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 17:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Ansar al-Sharia Pickup Trucks / Mechanicals
This video shows the huge Benghazi Ansar Al-Sharia (Arabic for the Freedom Fighters No Longer Known As Al Qaeda) rally in June where you can see various kinds of pickup trucks with distinctive markings mounting machine guns up to 14.5mm which may be been the very vehicles and people in Afghan garb who participated in the raid. In the second video on this page you can see two camo crew-cab pickups in ansar al-sharia markings parked outside the burning building. It is too bad that according to the president and secretary of state that there weren't any obvious clues as to what organization or militia might have been involved in this attack, or who might have been the leader. Redhanker (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I spent some time the other day re-working the first few (couple?) of paragraphs for the Attack section. Because for a Wikipedia page about an "Attack", the Attack section seemed terribly inadequate to me. It still is too light. Some editors had removed information from the timeline, but did not put it back into the Attack section; so the information just disappeared from the article. So, I found several timelines of the attack that are readily available, such as the ones from the AP, the New York Times, and the State Department. (I'm sure there are others out there.) These are all cited now in the first sentences of the Attack section. With some of the specific information you mention above. When I have time I will add more detail to the attack section from these reputable/reliable sources (Hasdi had a nice breakdown of the types/levels of cites); and at the same time remove those little bits of info from the "Investigation timeline". If others beat me to it that's fine, too. Happy fact finding. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We have to be careful not to jump to conclusions. As with gather more facts about, it is becoming more apparent to me at least that it is a false flag attack, an assassination attempt on Ambassador Stevens. It could be a foreign Al-Qaeda trying to shift the blame to the very militia that is providing security in Benghazi for the Libyan government, by using vehicles with Ansar Al-Sharia markings. When the second government email broadcast erroneously indicated that Stevens was still alive and secured, the group made another attempt a few hours later at the more heavily guarded CIA annex where the other consulate staff has been evacuated into, even when they knew the reinforcements were underway.
 * You'd think they'll strike the annex first where we have dozens of intelligence assets stationed there but Stevens was the primary target. I can only speculate why: killing the U.S. ambassador is tantamount to an act of war. Despite the Libyans being pro-American, this would turn the American public from the Libyans so its "bomb, bomb Libya." It may be an inside job; someone wanted Stevens dead while Obama is busy attending the 9/11 ceremonies. Or maybe Obama needed an alibi? Wouldn't it be more beneficial for him to be a "war-time president" like Bush was to boost him up, especially for the coming election? I guess we'll never know for sure. Like I said, let's just collect verifiable facts related to the attack, and withhold judgement while we carefully piece together the conflicting information. — Hasdi Bravo &bull; 18:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Embassy Uses Armored Toyota Land Cruisers
It looks like the US embassies in Africa and Pakistan have standardized on armored Toyota Land Cruisers that have taken a beating in other attacks that so far have not been linked, but may well be linked to this attack as the latest in a string of attacks against US diplomats, with the first in pakistan as revenge for killing Bin Laden by Al Qaeda allied terrorists. Vehicles on the Fox recreation look like a Tahoe, but there were clearly Land Cruisers among the torched vehicles. Could somebody do some research on who makes these, and what they are proof against? These took direct point-blank fire from AK-47 with 7.62 ammo, and grenades exploding beneath the vehicle, and drove with 2 flat tires. Fortunately it escaped fire by quad 14.5mm guns which could make swiss cheese out of a Bradley. It does not look like Embassies are equipped with armored humvees with roof mounted guns like the ones assigned to guard troop convoys. There may be enough incidents to create an article just about attacks on US diplomatic vehicles, of which this is just the latest one. Redhanker (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

http://freetown.usembassy.gov/business_opportunities.html Items to be acquired by us embassy Freetown, Sierra Leone, 3 Toyota Land Cruisers 200 Station Wagon STD V8 Twin TD 9 seats  Manual Transmission

May 20, 2011 Associated Press May 20: Pakistani police officers gather around a vehicle damaged in a roadside bomb explosion in Peshawar, Pakistan. (AP) PESHAWAR, Pakistan – A Taliban car bomb struck an armored vehicle taking American officials to the U.S consulate in northwest Pakistan on Friday, officials said, in a strike the militants said was in revenge for the raid that killed Usama bin Laden. Two Americans suffered minor injuries, but one Pakistani passer-by was killed and at least 10 others were wounded in the attack in the city of Peshawar, officials said. The strike was the first on Westerners since the May 2 raid by American commandos on bin Laden's hideout in an army town around three hours from Peshawar. Read more:

So-called Taliban attack on U.S. consulate convoy in Pakistan (Updated 11:00 AM ET) "Peshawar police chief Liaqat Ali told reporters the booby-trapped car appeared to have been parked at the side of the road and exploded as one consulate vehicle was near, forcing it to slam into an electricity pole." A Taliban group is claiming responsibility for the bombing but the modus operandi doesn't look like Taliban to me, and I don't think Taliban or al Qaeda in Pakistan have the kind of surveillance capabilities that would allow them to pinpoint when to detonate the booby-trapped car. 

U.K.) Daily Mail report 20th May 2011: An American diplomatic convoy was hit by a car bomb in Pakistan this morning in the latest attack in a surge of violence since Osama Bin Laden was killed. One local resident was killed and another 11 injured in the attack but no Americans were seriously wounded. Two American security guards were slightly hurt. The Pakistani Taliban claimed responsibility for detonating the 110-lb car bomb as the convoy from the US consulate passed in an area where many Western diplomats live.

AP Exclusive: US Embassy car was targeted in Mexico attack on CIA officers BY E. EDUARDO CASTILLO, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS OCTOBER 2, 2012 FILE - In this Aug. 24, 2012. file photo, an armored U.S. embassy vehicle is checked by military personal after it was attacked by unknown assailants on the highway leading to the city of Cuernavaca, near Tres Marias, Mexico. A senior U.S. official says there is strong circumstantial evidence that Mexican federal police who fired on a U.S. embassy vehicle, wounding two CIA agents, were working for organized crime on a targeted assassination attempt. (AP Photo/Alexandre Meneghini, File)

Why not linked to Sept 11 attacks?
Happened on 9-11, yet is not linked as a terrorist attack. Hasn't this been confirmed now? --College Watch (talk) 00:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I would say so. TomPointTwo (talk) 07:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you mean by "not linked". It's linked in the Terrorism Portal. Do you mean: include it in this template? -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 23:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

No evidence that either SEAL were DSS personnel.
Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, the former SEALs killed in the attack, are listed in this article as being part of the State Department's Diplomatic Security Service. The previous time this was brought there was no actual evidence supplied that either were DSS. Woods was cited in a funeral press release as being "stationed with the Diplomatic Security Service" but in gov/mil lingo this can mean many things. Contractors can be "with" any agency providing services without actually being part of that agency, it's one of the attributes which makes them contractors. There is no citation at all for Doherty being "with" or "in" the DSS.

DSS agents are not simply security guards, they're sworn law enforcement officers and direct GS employees of the federal government. I see no evidence that Doherty or Woods were either and, in fact, most press releases have rather decidedly declined to identify who Woods' and Doherty's actual employers were and what the specific nature of their work in Benghazi was, aside from general assertions of "security". All references to these two men being DSS should be removed until an actual citation can be provided identifying either of them as DSS agents. TomPointTwo (talk) 10:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently they are. See the following cites.
 * Hilary Clinton, speaking for our U.S. State Department, referred to them as "U.S. embassy security personnel". It is only later, unnamed officials in the Washington Guardian referred to them as "personal service contractors" who had other duties related to security. However, if you check the press release for the funeral of Tyrone woods...
 * Woods, stationed at Benghazi with the State Department Diplomatic Security service, and fellow Navy SEAL Glen Doherty saved the lives of many U.S. personnel, according to the State Department. When the consulate came under attack, Woods and Doherty immediately took up defensive positions trying to protect U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and the consulate compound. ... He served 20 years of honorable service in the U.S. Navy before joining State Department Diplomatic Security. As a Navy SEAL in 2005-06, Woods was awarded the Bronze Star with combat 'V' for valor in Iraq. He led 12 direct action raids and 10 reconnaissance missions leading to the capture of 34 enemy insurgents in the volatile Al Anbar province
 * The best I can surmise from the above cites is that Woods and Doherty work as security personnel with the State Department, but on a contract basis, much like what is happened with many of our local industries to save hiring costs. Until the have officially been identified otherwise, we should use the State Department's designation as "U.S. embassy security personnel". I would have incorporated / be more clear in the relevant section much earlier but I've been busy dealing with the bipartisan edit-whoring of this page. My apologies. — Hasdi Bravo &bull; 16:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, apparently the hush-hush about the nature of Woods and Doherty's roles in the embassy security has to do with the CIA agents stationed at the second compound, under diplomatic cover. See October 10 entry in the "Investigation timeline". — Hasdi Bravo &bull; 16:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Woods, stationed at Benghazi with the State Department Diplomatic Security service, and fellow Navy SEAL Glen Doherty saved the lives of many U.S. personnel, according to the State Department. When the consulate came under attack, Woods and Doherty immediately took up defensive positions trying to protect U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and the consulate compound. ... He served 20 years of honorable service in the U.S. Navy before joining State Department Diplomatic Security. As a Navy SEAL in 2005-06, Woods was awarded the Bronze Star with combat 'V' for valor in Iraq. He led 12 direct action raids and 10 reconnaissance missions leading to the capture of 34 enemy insurgents in the volatile Al Anbar province
 * The best I can surmise from the above cites is that Woods and Doherty work as security personnel with the State Department, but on a contract basis, much like what is happened with many of our local industries to save hiring costs. Until the have officially been identified otherwise, we should use the State Department's designation as "U.S. embassy security personnel". I would have incorporated / be more clear in the relevant section much earlier but I've been busy dealing with the bipartisan edit-whoring of this page. My apologies. — Hasdi Bravo &bull; 16:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, apparently the hush-hush about the nature of Woods and Doherty's roles in the embassy security has to do with the CIA agents stationed at the second compound, under diplomatic cover. See October 10 entry in the "Investigation timeline". — Hasdi Bravo &bull; 16:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

This article at Fox News identifies both men as being with the CIA, which makes much more sense. Doherty is specifically identified as, and Woods is alluded to being, in the CIA's Global Response Staff which provides security to the CIA through contracted former military personnel. At the very least all references to them being DSS should be removed until the picture is made more clear as additional biographical and operational information emerges. TomPointTwo (talk) 17:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks to you both, this has been a very informative, civil discussion. 71.52.199.48 (talk) 23:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Information out very recently has cited both gentleman is contractors for the CIA, working and stationed at another facility miles away from the embassy. I feel that is misleading to leave the current article as it is, labeling them as "US Embassy security" when it is clear that their mission in Libya had very little to do with providing security at the embassy, per se. ,  this is obviously more spin on gross negligence, and wikipedia should not endorse it. Neo1973 (talk) 19:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * If you wanted to change it to "security personnel" I don't see a big deal, that's much of the function of both the GRS and DSS. I'd refrain from assigning motive to anything, that's a tricky business and usually nonconstructive around here. Editors can only put into articles what reliable sources are saying and most reliable sources initially identified the two as "embassy security", DSS or the such, even though most of us more familiar with that slice of the world knew it was unlikely. TomPointTwo (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's start with that foxnews cite:
 * Tyrone Woods was later joined at the scene by fellow former Navy SEAL Glen Doherty, who was sent in from Tripoli as part of a Global Response Staff or GRS that provides security to CIA case officers and provides countersurveillance and surveillance protection.
 * What's in Tripoli? The main U.S. embassy to Libya. See official cover - the CIA personnel were station there under diplomatic cover, hence under protection of DSS. If they are not DSS, don't you think the Republicans will be jumping all over it? Look at their funeral press releases. So what if they are not directly hired by DSS? They still report to the State Department. Hiring under contract means the government can be easily lay them off without worrying about their severance package. The pay may be a bit higher to compensate for loss of job security, but it still sucks. That don't make them any less our guys. Shame on you for turning your backs on them. — Hasdi Bravo &bull; 00:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Who are those comments directed at? TomPointTwo (talk) 21:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC) TomPointTwo (talk) 21:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I was just upset that Doherty's and Woods' title as DSS personnel were removed, which effectively reduce them to "mere mercenaries". I have rewritten "Tyrone S. Woods" section with relevant cites that to show that they are DSS personnel working under contract and assigned to protect the CIA personnel stationed at the annex, not the Ambassador Stevens himself. The RGO assigned to Stevens is actually David Ubben who was seriously injured. If this is acceptable, I'd like to reinstate their title as DSS personnel. Thank you. — Hasdi Bravo &bull; 23:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody has reduced anyone to "mercenaries". The federal government is full of dedicated people who serve in a contracted status. Hell, half the National Clandestine Service is on contract status for a variety of fiscal, operational and logistical reasons. They're known within the community as "green badgers", when the distinction is made at all. Some of the most celebrated (and infamous) operatives and officers in the intel and military community, including Billy Waugh and Raymond Allen Davis, were/are green badgers. The "contractor as mercenary" meme is a contemporary one that arose out of the efforts of the ignorant or cynical to score political points against the Bush Administration during the Iraq war by painting the heavy use of PMCs to guard American assets on the ground as employing mercenaries in an illegitimate conflict. Back in the real world many patriotic and decent men a women are on contract status.


 * As for either man being with the DSS, the most recent and in depth citation we have identifies them as GRS (CIA) security staff. They were both at the nearby CIA annex when the attack started and responded from there in an attempt to relieve the besieged State Department personnel. I think who they worked for is clear, it was not State, but the CIA. TomPointTwo (talk) 07:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we both agree that Woods and Doherty are part of GRS at the annex and their security detail is to protect the CIA personnel, not the Ambassador. The point of dispute is whether the GRS members were contracted by DSS or by CIA. I would think its the former, since the CIA personnel are under diplomatic protection as part of their official cover, so this does not contradict your Fox News cite. The Libyan government knows they are there, and been helping them with intelligence gathering and sharing. Heck, their presence is an open secret to the locals. The CIA just don't want to advertise it but in hindsight they might as well have. Fox News is the first RS that mention their GRS status so I again, draw your attention to their quote:
 * Tyrone Woods was later joined at the scene by fellow former Navy SEAL Glen Doherty, who was sent in from Tripoli as part of a Global Response Staff or GRS that provides security to CIA case officers and provides countersurveillance and surveillance protection.
 * Tripoli embassy assigned both Woods and Doherty to GRS, therefore contracted by DSS as security detail to CIA. We knew that as early as September 14, e.g., "[Doherty] had been deployed by the US State Department on an intelligence gathering operation to find and destroy dangerous weapons. Glen Doherty, a 42-year-old former Navy SEAL, told ABC News only one month before his death that he had been contracted by the State Department to travel overseas in an effort to locate and eliminate MANPADS shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles." and "Doherty was assigned to a State Department security detail."
 * As for Woods, check his funeral press release, "Woods, stationed at Benghazi with the State Department Diplomatic Security service" and "He served 20 years of honorable service in the U.S. Navy before joining State Department Diplomatic Security." Woods' parents has been very critical of Obama and the State Department, so if they want to dispute the State Department's claim that he is an "embassy security personnel", I think they would have said something a long time ago. So, I suggest we consider as the null hypothesis that "Woods and Doherty were contracted by the State Department to provide security to CIA personnel at the annex" until we hear directly from the CIA or the State Department or other RS. I have yet to see any RS state otherwise even from The Daily Beast, just blogs and rumors and stuff. For your consideration, thank you. — Hasdi Bravo &bull; 17:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The GRS is part of the CIA. If you work for the GRS you work for the CIA. As is common with CIA personnel working out of Embassies and Consulates, their official cover was that they were working for the State Department. Initial reports coming out were confused and full of the usual cover stories. The most recent and detailed reliable source explicitly identifies them as being in the CIA. They were at the separate CIA compound when the attack started. I'm not sure where the confusion is coming from. They're aren't DSS personnel. TomPointTwo (talk) 20:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So officially they work for the State Department but unofficially, they work for the Central Intelligence Agency. Even if that's the case, we still have to put up the title for their official cover and make it clear somewhere that they really really work for U.S. intelligence. You still have reconcile that Doherty made it clear the month prior that he was contracted intelligence work for the State Department, so the public knew even back then that CIA is sourcing some of the intelligence work to the State Department. Just because the Tripoli embassy sent some DSS contracted personnel to do some CIA chores doesn't automatically mean they are CIA personnel per se, even if it is part of GRS. So far, Fox News is the only RS that is reporting their GRS status, so it is yet to be corroborated by RS and challenged. It's premature to drop their DSS title. — Hasdi Bravo &bull; 21:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The initial sources used were of poor quality, or issued as press releases not authorized to disclose any real information, as is often the case with breaking stories dealing with the CIA and the military. The best and most comprehensive reporting available explicitly identifies both men as CIA. Woods was working for the CIA at the nearby annex and Doherty was part of the quick reaction force the CIA dispatched. This is explicitly stated in the best sources we have available. When you have emerging coverage you don't give equal weight to all news sources, you give greatest weight to the most recent, accurate reporting available. That reporting is without any ambiguity in asserting both men worked for the CIA. Again, they were not part of, nor did the work for, the DSS. I don't understand on your insistence on labeling them as being with the Diplomatic Security Service. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Because it would contract other multiple RS that we already have. Anyhow, it's kinda moot now, with a another RS that supports Fox News cite on GRS. See . Tyrone Woods was a GRS stationed at Benghazi. Glen Doherty was a GRS flown in from Tripoli airport. There is also a fifth casualty, a State Department communication specialist. This is going to take a while to digest. — Hasdi Bravo &bull; 02:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, it's finally acknowledged by senior intelligence officials that Woods and Doherty were contracted by CIA, not the State Department, so I withdraw my objection. There is a butt-load of new information released since Thursday. The attack timeline has to revised. Good luck to all editors. @__@ — Hasdi Bravo &bull; 16:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And here: http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204712904578092853621061838.html?mod=ITP_pageone_0&mg=reno-wsj .... It also identified the two security contractors killed in the attack - former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty - as working for the Central Intelligence Agency and not the State Department. In a break from tradition, it said CIA director David Petraeus did not attend the ceremony when the coffins arrived back on American soil in order to conceal the CIA operation in eastern Libya.--80.136.34.192 (talk) 07:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

POV-check nomination until the election is over
This section is a continuation from the archived section. Again, I am nominating this page for POV-check until the 2012 United States elections is over. My concern is with the allegation of cover-up and duplicity by the U.S. administration under Barack Obama on the Benghazi attack, which cause his supporters to remove any facts that may incriminate him, and his opponents to expand on facts to criticize him. Let's focus on what had happened, not what should have happened. The investigation timeline can used to place uncategorized and unsummarized facts until the election is over. Thank you. — Hasdi Bravo • 20:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * As a side note. Is there any way we can slow down the archiving bot? It seems like threads are being archived too quickly. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose somebody could comment on this section every so often so it does not get archived, until the election is over. :-/ — Hasdi Bravo &bull; 18:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 01:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

What are the specific POV concerns with this article? If there are no specific concerns to be addressed the POV tag should be removed. --Gibberologist (talk) 00:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The concerns has been restated in the third sentence of this section, with details in the archive. In 48 hours, feel free to remove the tag. — Hasdi Bravo &bull; 01:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that these supposed POV violations are somehow only violations before the US election? And that somehow after the election they will no longer be violations?  This seems a strange position to take so please clarify.  --Gibberologist (talk) 01:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll make it simple. Obama supporters have been removing cites that may incriminate him, while his opponents have been exaggerating cites to condemn him. I fully expect this bipartisan edit-whoring to continue until the election is over, so I don't want readers to have any expectations of the truth on this page. Savvy? — Hasdi Bravo &bull; 01:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand your point but I fail to see how it justifies applying the tag. Either the article is neutral per policy or it is not.  If it is neutral it should not have a tag.  If it is not neutral it should be corrected.  Maybe I just don't understand the policy.  Where in the policy does it indicate that the POV tag can be applied because various partisan editors are arguing over partisan issues? --Gibberologist (talk) 01:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a not POV tag. It is a POV-check tag, i.e., to ask editors to check / watch out for POV issues. I would use a controversial instead but that tag is for use in a talk page only. In fact, I am going to put that tag up right now. — Hasdi Bravo &bull; 01:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

If this is an incorrect statement...
Then why is it included?

"Retired Army Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer told Fox News that he has sources saying President Obama was in the White House Situation Room watching the assault unfold in real time.[180] However, Obama was visiting wounded veterans at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Maryland for about two-and-a-half hours around that time-frame.[181]" 50.54.233.7 (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Because, assuming that it is an incorrect statement, it is made by a notable person, Retired Army Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer. He could have his facts mixed up (like so many people including Obama and Romney...) If Obama is busy with the ceremony then the person in charge in absence would be Joe Biden as VP. Obama would also be in the situation room for the attack on CIA attack, which could be what his source is referring to. We have to see how this shakes out in the coming weeks. Until then, withhold judgement. — Hasdi Bravo &bull; 22:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * give it up. wikipedia is a joke. rest assured, all the evidence of an obnama admin coverup will never make it into this article not after the election, or any time 72.37.249.60 (talk) 17:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That is one opinion. Like spray painting the side of a building. Rather than dump-n-run, why not roll up your sleeves and get your hands dirty doing the hard work of finding information to put into the article? And then, if there are disagreements with it, talk it out here on the article's talk page? -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 23:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Us editors do the best we can, but I would not recommend anyone to rely on Wikipedia as "the truth" on the alleged cover-up, per WP:SOAPBOX. There are better sites for that. Besides, with the CIA becoming clean about their security roles, it is clear that the response to the Benghazi attack is a bipartisan screw-up: the State Department led by a Hillary Clinton (a Democrat) and the CIA led by David Petraeus (a Republican). Before becoming a CIA director, Petraeus served under Bush and was even considered as Romney's running mate just a few months back.[ http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/what-you-dont-know-about-david-petraeus/ ] Come to think of it, it would explain how Republicans manage to get preliminary information on the attack before the Obama administration releases it officially under pressure from the Republicans. Hmmm... :-/ — Hasdi Bravo &bull; 18:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Bla, bla, bla.... Fact is: the Government knew about the attacks not been linked to some video. The government was informed, that Stevens multiple times asked for additional security. Woods and Doherty themselves asked for backup thrice, knowing that there was a platoon of marines not one hour away from the scene. 2 aircraft bases not one hour away frome the scene, AC130 Gunships being available. Parts of the government watched Woods and Doherty die from the situationroom and did nothing. Obama called the Seals and they got Bin Laden. When the Seals called Obama, they got denied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.156.68.147 (talk) 13:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

David Ubben versus Scott Strickland
Attention, CBS News just reported that Diplomatic Security agent Scott Strickland, not David Ubben as reported by The Daily Beast, was the one who escorted Stevens and Smith into the "safe haven". We may need to update this as the conflicting information is sorted out by the media. — Hasdi Bravo • 16:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I fixed this. Thanks for pointing it out. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

'Consulate' terminology is incorrect
The US does not have an embassy, a consulate, or a diplomatic mission in Benghazi. There are none listed on this State Department list of all the US embassies and consulates in the world. http://www.usembassy.gov/

On September 12, 2012, SecState Clinton made two statements. She never used the word “consulate.” To describe the place that was attacked in Benghazi she used instead the words ‘U.S. diplomatic post, compound, our buildings and our office.’ http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2012/09/197654.htm http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2012/09/197630.htm

It's unclear exactly what diplomatic status the Benghazi compound had. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.142.7 (talk) 06:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought another editor, Hasdi, had sorted through this, in another thread on the talk page. Hasdi? -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 23:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, about that. The latest official word from is that the term "consulate" is a misnomer because the building lack facilities for consular activities. They prefer the term "special mission", i.e., an local office away from the main embassy in Tripoli for Ambassador Stevens to conduct meetings with the Libyan officials in Benghazi. — Hasdi Bravo &bull; 01:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

What happened to the Talk page archives?
What happened to the Talk page archives from last month? I'm trying to find that nice resource list I compiled. Help! -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Try Talk:Attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi/Archives/2012/October — Hasdi Bravo • 23:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * u d man. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 01:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Removed original research
I remove the following original research:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Attack_on_the_U.S._diplomatic_mission_in_Benghazi&diff=521435836&oldid=521435628

The source sited does not mention or refute the preceeding claims made that Obama was watching the attack in real time. Neither does the source relate specifically to the topic of this article. Given the lack of direct connections to this article found within the source this content constitutes original research.

--Gibberologist (talk) 00:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read the archives. Request to remove Shaffer's accusation has been raised about 3 times. Obama can't be watching the attack in real-time if he is busy with the 9/11 ceremony. Unless he is using good body double, but to point that out would be original research. — Hasdi Bravo &bull; 01:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This is why original research is not allowed. You claim it is impossible for Shaffer's statement to be accurate based on a single imprecise article.  To quote from the source I removed:
 * "President Obama spent two-and-a-half hours this afternoon at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Maryland, visiting with wounded warriors on this 11th anniversary of 9/11."
 * Precisely which 2.5 hours were those? The article does not state.  So, for the sake of arugment, I'll assume 12PM until 2:30PM.  According to MapQuest Walter Read is about 8.25 miles from the White House, and for normal people it suggests about a 25 minute trip by car.  I suspect that a Presidential motorcade can make that a good deal faster, and even faster if he travels by Helicopter.  So he can easily be back at the White House by 3PM, 4PM if we assume 1PM until 3:30PM at Walter Reed.  According to this article the first attack began at 3:40PM Eastern time.  3:30?  3:40?  Perhaps this explains why Obama left Walter Reed after only a couple hours?
 * I am not claiming that this is the exact timing involved, I am merely pointing out that both reports could be completely accurate. They are not mutually exclusive as you claim.  Unless you have something that gives a more accurate timing for the Walter Reed visit than "this afternoon".
 * Regardless, unless you have a source that explcitily discusses this potential overlap any mention of it in the article is original research and not allowed. --Gibberologist (talk) 03:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * See here for Obama's schedule for that day (posted the day before).
 * On Tuesday morning at 8:45 AM EDT the President, First Lady, and White House staff will gather on the South Lawn of the White House to observe a moment of silence to mark the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.
 * Later in the morning, at 9:30 AM the President and First Lady will travel to the Pentagon Memorial to attend the September 11th Observance Ceremony.
 * In the afternoon, the President will travel to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland. Between 2:15 PM and 4:40 PM, the President will make a closed-press visit with Wounded Warriors who are being treated at the hospital and their families.
 * At 5:00 PM, the President and Vice President Joe Biden will meet with Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta in the Oval Office. The meeting is closed press.
 * If you check the archives and the edit history, someone (not me) took out the Shaffer cite for this reason, which I admit is very compelling. Rather than lose that Shaffer cite, I put it back with some caveat, as we have done on the October 10 entry for Patrick Kennedy's apparent contradictory statements. That usatoday cite is probably not complete but as Obama's whereabouts is public knowledge, I am sure there multiple RS we can use instead. Some of us has been busy on other sections to worry about that right now. — Hasdi Bravo &bull; 04:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

CIA Annex not a diplomatic compound.
The article refers to the CIA annex as a diplomatic compound in numerous locations. More and more information is coming out pointing to the CIA Annex as being a secret detention center. Of course, the CIA denies this and will continue to deny for as long as they possibly can. I think there is enough evidence out now that the article should stop referring to it as a diplomatic compound. Before I make any changes I'd like to get some feedback from more experienced editors. Eventually the title of the entry may need to be revised as well but I'm unsure of the procedure to do so. Byates5637 (talk) 15:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd also add that if there is not yet enough verifiable information to refer to the CIA annex as a detention center, I don't think there is any reason to continue to refer to it as a diplomatic compound either. The mission of the CIA is not and has never been to conduct diplomacy. Byates5637 (talk) 15:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You're probably right that the article's name will have to be changed sooner or later. I'm not sure exactly to what though. There were two distinct compounds, the diplomatic mission and the CIA annex, both were attacked. It's still not clear if the annex was a covert facility or an overt facility with a diplomatic cover. Many State Department facilities host CIA facilities in, on or near them. Whether it's a full blown CIA Station with its own compound or a locked room full of crypto next to the the janitor's closet you can find something in most major State complexes overseas. It's long been common practice for countries to mingle their diplomatic and intelligence services. Which is the long-winded way of saying that the annex might have been operationally run by the CIA but still owned by the State Department, we don't really know yet. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It may be right, in the end, but I think it's better to wait a while longer about renaming the article (yet again) and moving it (yet again). My .02 worth. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 01:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry for being late to the party but there is a WSJ article that confirm the CIA annex is under diplomatic cover. Unfortunately it requires subscription but you can get cache copies on blogs. See official cover. Thanks. — Hasdi Bravo &bull; 15:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Trimming down Fatalities section
There is a ton of superflous information here. I am going to remove the paragraphs that describe various politicians reaction to the deaths. The election is over now and I do not think that any of this is notable anymore. If you disagree, lets discuss here exactly how much should be included. Furthermore, I think the biographies of Doherty and Woods are out of place here and should be removed. Opinions? Byates5637 (talk) 15:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Disagree. Notability is not temporary. You assert that the reason for the notability is the election. Even if that is true, it is irrelevant. The controversy and debate, even if manufactured, is itself notable. I also think the biographies are important, as there are questions as to what role those men were serving in, who they were employed by, what status etc. (Were they CIA, military, contractors, etc) . Gaijin42 (talk) 15:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The information was never notable. WP:NOT There were several paragraphs about some random things politicians said in passing that are not encyclopedic.
 * If the biographies are important I would say they should have their own articles, but it looks like they did and were submitted to AfD, with a consensus to merge here. I'll leave them, but I have a lot of trouble seeing how the year these guys graduated from highschool is at all notable or relevant to the subject of this article.Byates5637 (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

If the quotes are sourced and here then it's attributable and someone thought it was notable. Why don't you start with specific examples and then follow up with why you think the additions are not relevant to the scope of the article. Bear in mind that the notability litmus for articles is not the same for the content within those articles. See WP:N. As for the more in depth biographical content of the deceased, I'm inclined to agree. I would say biographical information pertinent to the incident at hand is the appropriate scope over content for persons involved, i.e. professional status/history, notable personality traits relevant to decision making, etc. We don't need to know what high school they went to or how many kids they had. TomPointTwo (talk) 09:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This looks like it's OBE (overcome by events), right? Didn't this edit: 15:47, 14 November 2012‎ Byates5637 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (150,754 bytes) (-4,375)‎ . . (Removed not notable information from fatalities) take care of what you were talking about? I agree with the stuff about removing their year of HS graduation? Why was that even in there?? I've been away for several days; I need to catch up. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 01:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I have reduced the bios to only the information I considered pertinent. If anyone feels I removed too much then add back in what you think is relevant.Byates5637 (talk) 03:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Picture of Woods' funeral could be removed, too. I don't know what this adds to the article. However, if anyone knows how to get a new satellite image of the two compounds, THERE'S a photo the article needs! -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 01:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

FYI, the resolution in Articles for deletion/Glen Doherty on others is to WP:MERGE not WP:DELETE. If you we are going to trim down their bio this much, we might as well recreate their pages. Why don't look at other examples on how to handle "minor characters" (e.g., Characters of Glee), where only major character are notable enough to have their own page but bios on minor characters are simply consolidated on one page? Gah, I'd revert this but I get deadlines until the Christmas break. :-( — Hasdi Bravo • 16:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Usually I'm against deleting stuff [i.e. on other pages], but only a tiny portion of this page actually deals with the attack itself (though admittedly, the bulk is not this but instead the extended controversy in the US)... This is a real event, not a TV show. You could have one page for all the victims, perhaps? I would vote for that, for the same reason that I'd like to move all the US controversy stuff to its own page... --Yalens (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Looking at the that discussion, it looks like it was a pretty narrow verdict. I think its not really necessary to delete all off wikipedia entirely, just move it somewhere else, and this time we have the additional argument that it doesn't all belong on this page if anything comes up...--Yalens (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is a real event, not a TV show. Sad that wikipedia is willing to elaborate on fictitious minor characters of a racy teen show than minor players in a notable terrorist attack. Also, since the controversy still ongoing after the election, you may have a good case to WP:SPLIT it off some parts. We can use "September 11 attacks" as a guide. — Hasdi Bravo &bull; 15:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)