re: #84 Charles Johnson

And again … how does this refute the evidence that the attack was a retaliation for the video?

It doesn’t.

Charles, I guess I just don’t get why you’re digging in on this. To me, it makes more sense, and better fits the facts as we now know them, to say that anger at the video was just a convenient cover for a pre-planned attack, rather than the prime motivation for one.

Can we at least agree that there would have been no attack were it not for that accursed video, and the reaction it provoked?

If further evidence comes out that pushes things back towards the original theory I will give you all the mea culpas you want.