Libya?

1. 71

   Reality Bytesposted 12 years ago

   U.S. Envoy to Libya Is Killed in Attack
   
   CAIRO — The United States ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens, was killed along with three of his staff members in a fiery and furious attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi on Tuesday night by an armed mob angry over a short American-made video mocking Islam’s founding prophet, the White House and Libyan officials said on Wednesday.
   
   In a statement confirming the four fatalities, President Obama said he strongly condemned the killings and had ordered increased security at American diplomatic posts around the world. It was the first death of an American envoy abroad in more than two decades.
   
   http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/world … wanted=all
   
   >>>>>>What is the repercussions from this action going to be?  Is history to repeat itself?
   
   Assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, 1914
   
   Two bullets fired on a Sarajevo street on a sunny June morning in 1914 set in motion a series of events that shaped the world we live in today. World War One, World War Two, the Cold War and its conclusion all trace their origins to the gunshots that interrupted that summer day.
   
   http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/duke.htm

   replyreport
   1. 75

      Billy Hicksposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Franz Ferdinand was the heir to the throne in 1914. Big difference between murdering a head of state and murdering an ambassador. Both are tragic, to be sure, but not on the same scale.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Petra Vlahposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         The killing of Ferdinand was intended and used as pretext to start the First World War. What could be the consequences of the Americans in Libya and how are they going to be used, remains to be seen

         replyreport
   2. 81

      Don Wposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      This has been condemned by Libyans, especially those in Benghazi. In this article from the New Yorker a Lebanese novelist talks about the reaction:
      
      "Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens was a popular figure in Libya, and nowhere more than in Benghazi. Friends and relatives there tell me that the city is mournful. There have been spontaneous demonstrations denouncing the attack. Popular Libyan Web sites are full of condemnations of those who carried out the assault. And there was a general air of despondency in the city Wednesday night. The streets were not as crowded and bustling as usual. There is a deep and palpable sense that Benghazi, the proud birthplace of the revolution, has failed to protect a highly regarded guest."
      
      I only wish the voices of Libyans saying "these people don't speak for us" could be heard over the din of sabre rattling.

      replyreport
      1. 76

         Uninvited Writerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I think it's being heard by those who are not making it an election issue.

         replyreport
         1. 81

            Don Wposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            In a way I hope Mitt Romney is just mouthing off because of the election. It's frightening to think that if he were President, he would actually engage in international politics in such a misjudged, ham-fisted, dangerous way. Say what you like about President Obama, nothing he has said or done suggests he is likely to accidentally start WWIII. As for Romney . . . It's really worrying.

            replyreport
2. 71

   Reality Bytesposted 12 years ago

   Latest updates on events:
   
   http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/12/u- … ness-says/

   replyreport
3. 76

   Uninvited Writerposted 12 years ago

   Why would this start a war? The Lybian government has apologized, this was perpetrated by extremists.
   
   Lovely remarks by Mr. Wonderful (I mean Romney)
   
   “I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi," Romney said in the statement. "It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”
   
   Of course, that statement of his was not true.Supposedly, even FOX News condemned what he said.

   replyreport
   1. 71

      Reality Bytesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      
      
      Seeing as the entire Middle East area is a powder keg, any spark could erupt the entire region.  Not just this action, what is the United States prepared to do in retaliation?  What will be the blowback from this?  There is definitely a looming confrontation in the region, whether it begins in Libya or Iran, I guess we will see.

      replyreport
4. 38

   wavegirl22posted 12 years ago

   News accounts indicate that the ambassador’s body was dragged or paraded through the streets. This photo is all over the internet already. It is said to be of Ambassador Stevens, and it certainly appears to be him. They are not saying if in this photo he was dead at this time or not. We can only pray he was not.
   
   <TOS violating photo removed>
   
   A truly Barbaric act by Barbaric people.The appropriate reaction to what happened last night in Cairo and, especially, Benghazi is fury. The question is, what are we going to do–not say, do–about it?

   replyreport
   1. 71

      Reality Bytesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       
      
      Whatever we do will only result in further blowback towards the U.S..  Marines are already in transit to the area!

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Repairguy47posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Then we better not do anything, we can hide under the blankets and they will surely go away.

         replyreport
   2. 75

      Billy Hicksposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The picture you posted shows Libyan civilians who, after seeing the attack, rushed into the burning consulate to help the Ambassador, and they carried him to a local hospital. Those same civilians also hid and sheltered some of the additional staff, keeping them safe until the crowd had dispersed.
      
      It was tragic, yes; and I personally feel that a strong military response is both warranted and necessary. However, it's important to remember that this attack was perpetrated by a "small and savage" group, and is not representative of the Libyan people at large.

      replyreport
      1. 76

         Uninvited Writerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         That certainly changes it. I love how some use a picture of someone being helped to show barbarism. I still think it's in bad taste to post it though.

         replyreport
   3. 60

      Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The problem you have is that (some) Libyans feel that this is exactly how the US treated Ghadafi, I'm not saying there's any comparison between Ghadafi and the US ambassador btw, nor am I saying that the US is entirely responsible for the same treatment which was given to Ghaddafi (more the UK, in my view)
      
      Some Libyans are Miffed to say the least, that G was not tried at the ICC, where he could have given evidence about Bliar and Bush, they believe it was a cover up to protect Bliar and they also believe that Bliar protects the US. Vicious circle.

      replyreport
   4. 65

      Cody Hodge5posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      http://news.yahoo.com/photos/libyans-de … slideshow/
      
      So it goes both ways for all the war hawks out there...

      replyreport
   5. 69

      rhamsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      This is the cost of running an empire and the cold hard fact is that people get hurt. Whether you want to believe it or not there is a different history taught about the US in foreign countries and its' forays into foreign governmental affairs. The backing of mobsters like Saddam and the Shah to more modern creeps like Mubarak and Karzai is a small sample which we like to forget. Look who backed Bin Laden in the beginning. America likes to adjust its' history to fit the situation. There is not many buttons that have to be pushed to anger these countries citizenry to acts such as this. Now we wish to retaliate with drone strikes and marine operations. Who is being stupid now? We just need to get the hell out now period.

      replyreport
      1. 74

         Zubair Ahmedposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         AGREE with your sentiment - But America is a great country we never intend to hurt anyone as long as they accept our way and do as we tell them to.  Otherwise will sanction them to death and make sure that they become public enemy number 1.

         replyreport
         1. 71

            Reality Bytesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            If you do not agree with the Government of the United states, you will be labeled the dreaded boogeyman title of Al Qaeda, evidence is not necessary.  Once labelled, you can be killed on sight!

            replyreport
            1. 61

               Petra Vlahposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               US has created monsters before and tried to get ride of them later (as the political, strategical or economic interest in the specific regions of the world have changed

               replyreport
5. 76

   Uninvited Writerposted 12 years ago

   I wish you hadn't posted this, it is offensive to the man and his family.

   replyreport
   1. 71

      Reality Bytesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      There is only concern for the family if it is a mass murdering terrorist we are speaking of, leaders of state, ambassadors, these pics we can see.  Pics of a dead Osama, no way!

      replyreport
      1. 78

         psycheskinnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         This is meant to be a conversation, not a show and tell with dead bodies.  My concern is for me, not needing to see a picture to know a man is dead--whoever he is.

         replyreport
         1. 71

            Reality Bytesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Proof.  Just as an atheist questions a believer for it!

            replyreport
            1. 78

               psycheskinnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Pictures are no more or less proof than words, and I don't come here to get some weird gratification from looking at corpses.  If it is considered vital info the general forum convention is to provide a link to graphic materials.

               replyreport
               1. 71

                  Reality Bytesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  I do not need to see pics in a forum, I posted none.  If an individual would like to see a picture as proof of a declaration from their government, that information should be free!
                  
                  When a decapitation video was released in Iraq, I refused to view it.  To this day, I will not watch such things, as you cannot ever remove the image from your subconscious.  So in that way I agree with you, disturbing images should not be forced upon an individual without their consent.

                  replyreport
                  1. 78

                     psycheskinnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Then I am not sure what we have been discussing.

                     replyreport
                     1. 71

                        Reality Bytesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        LOL,  I made a comment earlier in this thread concerning being able to see deceased heads of state, diplomats, soldiers, but somehow being able to view a single pic of Osama is out of the question.
                        
                        I was stating that those with doubt should have the ability to view absolute proof!

                        replyreport
   2. 38

      wavegirl22posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      so you would rather close your eyes and pretend it didnt happen? It did and people need to see what barbarians there are in the world. I am sorry you found it offensive, so did I but it is what it is and evil like this needs to stop.

      replyreport
      1. 76

         Uninvited Writerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         No, I know it happened. Parading a dead body on the Internet is just as bad as on the street. What is one of his children or a family member came upon it? Think of it from that perspective. If it's "all over the Internet" you could have posted a link.

         replyreport
      2. 65

         maxoxam41posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Iti is interesting that it is offensive to you whereas what Bush did to 3000 people did not catch your attention. Double standard!

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Repairguy47posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            What did Bush do?

            replyreport
            1. 61

               Petra Vlahposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               He allowed water boarding and other forms of  "enhanced interrogation" and the world has also seen the picture of American guards dehumanizing Iraqi-en prisoners.

               replyreport
6. 65

   maxoxam41posted 12 years ago

   Either the Americans were involved in the killing to give them a free pass to action in Lybia, either the Lybians did it because of the invasion they recently experienced and, it is payback time. If the Americans did it in few weeks military forces will be deployed.

   replyreport
   1. 89

      wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      You really do need to get a life.  Believe it or not, not every American death is the result of the American government murdering them.  Nor did Bush murder this ambassador.

      replyreport
      1. 65

         maxoxam41posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I do have a life. And, yes, history speaks for itself, the US is too much involved in assassinations, coups, tortures, birth of dictatorships, installation of Muslim governments, coverups... what would not surprise us from any dictatorship, it is outraging from a democracy!

         replyreport
   2. 75

      Billy Hicksposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      

      replyreport
7. 58

   mio cidposted 12 years ago

   The stupid remarks that Romney made have just costed him the election.There is no doubt President Obama will respond to these acts forcefully and reflectively ,and those that committed these cowardly attacks will see justice come their way in the same way bin laden did, and then Romney will stand there looking like the fool that he is.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Sarra Garrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Bin Ladin was actually killed 10 years ago in the mountains of Afghanistan!!! What Obama did was an attempt of his own propaganda to get reelected.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Petra Vlahposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         If that is true, Bush would have been fast to take credit for it

         replyreport
8. 60

   Hollie Thomasposted 12 years ago

   I'm afraid that once again, this is what we've done.
   
   http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree … extinguish

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Petra Vlahposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Here is a quotation from the link you posted and I TOTALLY agree with it
      
      "Once again, the western powers have started a fire they cannot extinguish. A year after David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy jointly travelled to Libya to lay claim to a liberator's bogus laurels, the Libyan revolution they fanned and fuelled is in danger of degenerating into a chaotic, violent free-for-all"

      replyreport
9. 65

   maxoxam41posted 12 years ago

   I was thinking, Dempsey's refusal to back up Israel's intention to attack Iran may have triggered Israeli intelligence to strike the American ambassador for the world to think that Muslims are savage, and therefore to have the blessing and the support of the US. The American people like during the September 11 event, outraged, pushed for the punishment. Is it a coincidence?

   replyreport
   1. 79

      Dr Billy Kiddposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Nice try. But all Bibi Natanyahu, Israel PM, has to do is say he's angry at the President Obama and the news cycle runs with it. And because he just said that, Obama may be forced to come off the campaign trait to meet Bibi when he's in New York.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Although, clearly, there is some anti Obama sentiment anyway, Bibi has not achieved the desired results, and, at the moment O is ahead in the polls. Bib wants war with Iran and I wouldn't put anything past him. As always in cases like these, nothing is quite as it seems.

         replyreport
10. 71

    Reality Bytesposted 12 years ago

    Protesters storm U.S. embassy in Yemen
    
    
    Chanting “death to America,” hundreds of protesters angered by an anti-Islam film stormed the U.S. Embassy compound in Yemen's capital and burned the American flag on Thursday, the latest in a series of attacks on American diplomatic missions in the Middle East.
    
    American missions have been attacked in three Arab nations — Yemen, Egypt and Libya — that have faced persistent unrest and are struggling to restore law and order after last year's revolts deposed their authoritarian regimes.
    
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/wor … le4541448/
    
    On the brink of a global conflict?

    replyreport
    1. 61

       Petra Vlahposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       "Once again, the western powers have started a fire they cannot extinguish. A year after David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy jointly travelled to Libya to lay claim to a liberator's bogus laurels, the Libyan revolution they fanned and fuelled is in danger of degenerating into a chaotic, violent free-for-all".
       
       P.S. quote from a link I got from this threat but I can't find it right now.

       replyreport
11. 60

    Evan G Rogersposted 12 years ago

    What the hell are we doing in Libya to begin with?
    
    What a waste of my money.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       EmpressFelicityposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Quite.

       replyreport
    2. 78

       psycheskinnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       The US and other government have been in there all along and have a lot to do with why it is like it is now.

       replyreport
    3. 74

       Zubair Ahmedposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       OIL the black gold - nothing more and nothing less.

       replyreport
12. 71

    Reality Bytesposted 12 years ago

    Yemeni Muslim protesters attack US Embassy
    
    
    
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9QohgyRJ2Q
    
    
    
    US officials say 2 warships moving toward Libya
    
    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Pentagon ordered two warships to the Libyan coast in the aftermath of the attack in Benghazi that killed the U.S. ambassador and three others, U.S. officials said Wednesday.
    
    http://news.yahoo.com/us-officials-2-wa … 47807.html

    replyreport
13. 71

    Reality Bytesposted 12 years ago

    US marines rejected by Sudan and Yemen after embassy attacks
    
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5b5M7lZpQA0

    replyreport
    1. 58

       mio cidposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       So the right thing to do is get our consulate and embassy people the hell out of there immediatelly.

       replyreport
       1. 71

          Reality Bytesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Exactly what I was thinking.  If it turns out that this is the only choice we have to keep our diplomats safe, if we leave we should threaten to not return!  Diplomatic relationship ended!

          replyreport
          1. 38

             wavegirl22posted 12 years agoin reply to this

             and then what?

             replyreport
             1. 71

                Reality Bytesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                With the end of diplomatic relationship, any financial assistance would also cease.  They would either allow us to protect our own diplomats or we would abandon the Embassies permanently.  I would wager, with an ultimatum such as this, our Marines would be welcome with open arms.
                
                Should we allow our diplomats to live in danger?  Should we trust the host nations to keep them safe?  No, whatever it takes to protect our people should be done, with no regards to the "feelings" of the host nations. Diplomat safety should be the absolute number one priority!

                replyreport
                1. 61

                   Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                   So say someone kills the Chinese ambassador in Washington tomorrow and some of his staff and gets away? Should they cut diplomatic ties and demand the immediate return of all debt?
                   
                   Because if that happens we are in it up to our neck.

                   replyreport
                   1. 71

                      Reality Bytesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                      No, we should not refuse their request to increase security in their embassies either.  If we do refuse, I would see no problem with the nation not having enough faith in our relationship to maintain it.
                      
                      Did you view the video I posted?

                      replyreport
                2. 38

                   wavegirl22posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                   and for what reasons do we have diplomats?

                   replyreport
                   1. 71

                      Reality Bytesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                      To conduct diplomacy.    Not to be in danger, and let their host country refuse to allow them to increase security.  How difficult would it be for these nations to allow 50-100 more Marines to protect the diplomats.   We just lost an Ambassador,  I for one would not risk the life of another for anything!
                      
                      That would include inserting as many Marines as necessary to maintain safety, even if done covertly or forcefully!

                      replyreport
                      1. 74

                         Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                         Isn't the whole point of embassies that they are safe, neutral zones?
                         If we have to guard our embassies with Marines, then are they really "embassies" anymore?
                         
                         Practical matter, however. It is not just our embassies that are being targeted.
                         Are we going to send in the Marines to guard every school and KFC restaurant, too?
                         And even if we did, would that not be perceived -- and railed against -- as US military occupation?
                         
                         Catch 22?

                         replyreport
14. 74

    Mighty Momposted 12 years ago

    If the US pulls out of diplomatic relations and withholds financial support as well,
    who wins? Who loses?
    I'm sure we could all think of some great domestic uses for those $ billions, but:
    1. By  retreating, are we not admitting defeat to terrorists?
    2. What happens to the nascent governments? Do they return to dictatorships (and not to be naive, but how would new dicators be selected, since the big names are ousted or dead?)
    3. What happens to the citizens who really are peacable and do not support these actions?
    4. What happens to oil interests (let's be honest about that)
    5. Does it not give the impression of  "admitting" we really do like Israel best?
    
    Philosophical question: Is the Middle East this century's Vietnam?

    replyreport
    1. 61

       Petra Vlahposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       It may very well be a new Vietnam. In both cases America is (or it was) fighting an ideology. One can't use bombs to change minds.

       replyreport
       1. 60

          sen.sush23posted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Isn't it funny, the way the Puritan American Mission to 'save the world' rests upon the shoulders of America, even to this day?

          replyreport