[Just trying to be helpful] The way this argument goes is that poor and uneducated societies produce radicalism because of the extreme pressure they are under. It is the empowered among them -- wealthy and educated -- that engage in radicalism as a vanguard on behalf of their countrymen who are not so empowered to be able to fight back against the world that represses them. You can call it the Bolshevik model, since that's what Lenin had consciously expressed about how he saw the Bolshevik party as a party of intelligentsia fighting on behalf of the worker and farmer as the vanguard to the real communist revolution to come later. So, pointing out the affluence and accomplishments of particular radicals doesn't debunk the theory -- it actually reinforces the idea of radicals as a vanguard for an oppressed people. [/just trying to be helpful]
Chris Stevens's sister on latest Bengazi report and answering questions related to all the points you brought up here: http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...amily-dont-blame-hillary-clinton-for-benghazi
Here is another opinion piece.... http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/28/5-big-takeaways-from-the-house-benghazi-report/
