If you're talking about Libya and the killing of the ambassador and staff members, I feel that the democracy has just started. And, like any country, it has good guys and bad guys. Only it has the added complication of containing some very violent extremists. What the news media didn't show in their efforts to get that hot, negative moment, was that there were also a lot of Lybians trying to save those guys. People got them to the hospital, and doctors there worked on the ambassador for 90 minutes trying to save him. We can't paint whole countries with one brush. We get so upset when others do it to us.
I get a lot more upset when people....Ambassadors....are murdered. There was no justification for that.
That Arab Spring has brought forth a nation ruled by Muslim extremists.
I agree with you that there is no justification for that violence, and for killing peaceful representatives of the U.S.
However, we don't know exactly what happened. It was a timed attack by extremists. That does not say by any means that the whole country is full of extremists. To say it was the whole country that attacked the embassy is doing exactly what I mentioned above - painting the whole country with one brush. If they were all extremists, they would have been happy with Gaddafi, an extremist leader. But they weren't. Thousands of Lybians died to overthrow him. What little news there was about the attack on the embassy said that it was a "small group". If there were only 40 marines sent to bolster each of several other embassies, including possible targets in SE Asia, it's Al qaeda, not local people. Sending that small force of marines to other locations says to me that the military doesn't expect the embassies to be overrun by locals, but to be attacked by small groups of trained Al qaeda terrorists.
How can you say that when so many Muslims,have come out and said that they are disgusted by what happened? JS, your reaction is knee jerk, a man was murdered and it's despicable, but just pointing fingers at one religion and one nation is not the way to go. It won't stop atrocities like that happening in the future.
I love how you are the first person to cry that Christians are being oppressed and demonized but the first to jump on the let's blame Muslims train.
Because they did it Josak.
Who do you think did it? The Easter Bunny?
SO all Christians should be blamed for everything Christian extremists do?
I didn't blame ALL Muslims and you know that.
The ones who did it may have been extremist BUT they are STILL Muslims.
Just like 9/11.
Oh yeah it WAS on 9/11.
Allow me to extrapolate your logic to America assuming the Tea Party was the party in office. Christian extremists bomb abortion clinics. The Tea Party is anti abortion. Therefore the Tea Party is evil and murderous and we would be better off with a dictatorship.
That is... just horribly wrong.
The Muslim brotherhood is strongly Muslim and one might even say their polices are anti American but they do not support (in the mainstream anyway) assassinating American ambassadors therefore they are no more responsible for this crime than the Tea Party is for an abortion bombing which is not at all.
I am sorry Josak., I forget you believe we deserve this crap.
Then quit trying to convince me that this didn't happen the way it happened. Now apparently....in true George Bush fashion....the administration had intel that it would happen and did nothing.
The thing is no one knows what happened yet anyway. If the administration screwed up we will find out and there will be consequences hopefully but it's besides the point.
The point is simply this the fairly democratically elected government which we helped be established had nothing to do with this that we know of and thus democracy is great and you should stop tacitly supporting regimes that murdered hundreds of thousands of people by suggesting they are somehow better than a democratically elected government.
JSChams....Wow....what an interesting reply.
Good if they don't support it let them ACTUALLY GO SOMETHING GOOD AND GET THEM!
This is no longer a game friend. People are dying. I know, I know...it's just Americans.
Libya has chosen a path of freedom and democracy and the extremists hate it. They will do everything they can to destabilise Libya's fledgling democracy, including attacking her allies. If you give a knee-jerk, anti-Libyan, anti-Muslim reaction to these events, then you are simply supporting the extremists whose goal is to cause division and conflict, and drive a wedge between the Middle East and West. The best way to combat this is through the unity of Muslims, Christians, atheists etc. who deplore religious violence. The Libyan people and Muslims in general are not the enemy.
Democracy is great, it has nothing to do with individual criminals. Are you suggesting the country should have remained under the heel of oppressive and murderous dictators?
No...I am saying it is now under the heel of WORSE thugs and dictators. Just like happened in Iran.
The government was legitimately elected, the people have the right to choose whatever government they wish. I am no fan of religion full stop and I don't particularly like their choice but it's not up to us to take away or deny their rights because we don't like their choice or potential choice. In fact that is horribly horribly wrong.
What would you say if the socialist French were rumbling about how they helped us get our democracy and now look we elect fools obviously we would have been better off under the Brits?
The whole argument is totally ridiculous anyway because the government has no responsibility for what an extremist group does.
Where Josak? Where did i say deny anyone's rights?
And since when do they have the right to mudrder our ambassador?
When you say "what do we think of Democracy now" (I am paraphrasing I don't remember your exact words) and thus imply that giving people their democratic rights was a bad thing then you are supporting denying people their rights.
No one has the right to kill anyone else but of course the government did not kill the ambassador some brain dead religious extremist did which has zero impact on whether people should have the right to elect their leaders.
I put that in quotes because anyone with any sense knew that was exactly what they would not be getting.
There is no great history of it in the Middle Eastern nations ruled by Muslim extremists.
Think Iran again.
The elections were arbitrated by dozens of political bodies they all found them fair thus far at least it's a legitimate democracy. From what I understand Iran has been vote fixing to some extent and the Ayatollah isn't elected anyway so it's not really a democracy I think.
You say that... and it's completely untrue, after the elections Libya will be an entirely democratic constitutional Republic and Egypt already is so that is complete baloney. The elections were fair according to all bodies and they are real democracies.
Just like happened in Iran? You don't know 20th century Middle Eastern history. The Iranians threw out the Shah. Then they were electing a moderate. Our CIA went in and interfered, because we were concerned that our national interests wouldn't be served. So the moderate didn't make it. Result? There was a leadership vacuum. THAT was when the Ayatollah took over and what was about to become a democracy that might not be as favorable to us as the Shah had been, became a Theocracy. I think a major effort is being made not to make that mistake again.
Are the host nations not responsible for the safety of diplomats in embassies within their countries? Were these embassy attacks coordinated?
Oh yes they were coordinated. Violence continues in Egypt. You know. Where there is now "freedom".
One would think so, but in new governments without their parties and factions sorted out, I'd think that we would make more of a point of having bolstered protection for our diplomats. I mean, it was less than a year ago that Gaddafi was ousted, and even more recently, Mubarek was ousted. How stable would you expect a country to be that is still deciding what it is?
When you add the Al qaeda inciting people in every way they can, I think we may have been too complaisant about 9/11 coming up. (Of course, hindsight is 20/20.) If the attacks were coordinated, it definitely was Al qaeda.
I doubt the folks who are actually running the show had any doubts at all about what they were. They are showing you what they are right now.
Here's a description of the attack from Aljazeera. I wanted to see what a reporter from a Middle Eastern news service would get from the local people and say about the attack.
That report speculates that the attack was a coordinated effort to avenge the death of Al qaeda's second in command, Abu Yahya al-Libi, who was Lybian. He was killed by a drone. His death was just confirmed by Al qaeda.
Ten Lybian security guards were also killed in the attack.
Aljezeera states that:
"Quilliam, an British think tank that aims to oppose Muslim extremism, asserted on Wednesday that the attack on the consulate was not part of a protest but a "planned terrorist assault" to avenge Libi's death.
Quilliam said that the evidence pointing to such a conclusion came from witness statements that those outside the consulate were carrying RPGs and that the assault came in two apparently calculated waves, the second of which targeted the Americans after they had fled the consulate for a safe house.
Sharif said that those who attacked the consulate were more heavily armed that the Libyan security services tasked with protecting the embassy. "
Sounds like a highly trained group, which says Al qaeda to me. The general sense of it is that people in Egypt and Lybia were protesting the film done by a guy named Sam Bacile, which is not his real name, and Al qaeda took advantage of the protests to attack. (ABC news says that the attack was made by only 20 armed - and obviously trained - men.)
Bacile claimed to be an Israeli Jew, but others say he's neither Israeli nor Jewish. Here's a link to the Atlantic from a reporter who was trying to find him.
http://m.theatlantic.com/international/ … me/262290/
Aljazeera wrote that:
"The film was promoted by Morris Sadek, an extreme anti-Muslim Egyptian Christian who lives in California.
Speaking by phone to the Associated Press from an undisclosed location, the man calling himself Bacile remained defiant, maintaining that he intended his film to be a provocative political statement."
It makes me wonder if this film was another attempt to keep things hot and ugly in the Middle East, but by which group? Al qaeda? Extreme Christians from the Middle East? Some government? Who?
What’s Worse: No Marines, or (Possibly) Unarmed Marines?
Senior U.S. officials decline to discuss it, but it’s clear there were no U.S. Marines protecting U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and his beleaguered staff at the Benghazi consulate Tuesday night. Marines are routinely posted to U.S. diplomatic outposts around the world, but the “interim” facility in Benghazi apparently was defended only by a handful of U.S. security officers and local hires. The Marines have let it be known that the two unidentified U.S. officials who died at Benghazi were not Marines.
As any Marine’ll tell you, if there had been Marines at Benghazi, they’d be among those killed.
But what’s worse? No Marines or unarmed Marines?
[U.S. Ambassador to Egypt Anne Patterson] did not permit US Marine guards to carry live ammunition, according to USMC blogs. Thus she neutralized any US military capability that was dedicated to preserve her life and protect the US Embassy. In this respect, she did not defend US sovereign territory and betrayed her oath of office. She neutered the Marines posted to defend the embassy, trusting the Egyptians over the Marines.
Read more: http://nation.time.com/2012/09/13/whats … z26NNAo4bn
If this is true, U.S. Ambassador to Egypt Anne Patterson should be held accountable for a negligent order!
Right now, that's only rumor, apparently started by someone who's not even willing to give his so-called sources. So let's wait for the real information. If that's true, then people need either better judgement or more training. As I see it, it sounds like things were loud outside and there was vandalism, but nobody got into the inner compound at the Cairo embassy.
As for Libya, it looks like a total snafu to us in retrospect, but instead of thinking that Al qaeda would go for the weakest embassy - an interim embassy - the officials probably expected them to go for the main embassy in Libya if they were going to go for any one. They probably didn't like it that the Libyans liked Stevens, and that combined with the strategic weakness of the interim embassy made it a preferable target.
Even so, it seems reckless of the Marines not to have troops at all embassies on anniversaries of 9/11 in countries where Al qaeda is known to have been active. While it does no good for the people who were lost - both American and Libyan - and their loved ones, I'm sure that mistake won't happen again.
First, this was a consulate, the US Embassy for Libya is in Tripoli and it is guarded by Marines.
Second, I don't know who Time spoke to (I see they've already had to post an update correcting themselves), but Marines on guard duty are always armed, period; the Ambassadors don't have a say on that one.
by Alexander A. Villarasa5 years ago
Thanks to Gen. David Petraeus, the slow motion movie that is Benghazi-gate can now be sub-titled: "Sex,Lies,and Videotape."The terrorist attack on the US consulate in Sept 11 and the continuing ...
by Onusonus6 years ago
I find it odd that our president would characterize the changes being made in Egypt as a moderate Arab Spring. The sign with the swastika reads, "The gas chambers are ready."
by Reality Bytes5 years ago
Spin this:New Details From Libya Consulate Attack: State Department Abandons Claim Of Protest Outside GatesThe deadly September attack on a U.S. consulate in Libya was not precipitated by an anti-American protest, as...
by Quilligrapher4 years ago
In an interview with Fox News, Rep. Darrell Issa admitted, using more words than was necessary, that his May 8th hearing on the Benghazi terror attacks did not produce any new information.VAN SUSTEREN: "You have...
by TimTurner7 years ago
Most of you know I am very critical of Obama but it looks like he is going to send about 20,000 to 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan which is what needs to be done. At least, that is the rumor on the street.For...
by Mike Russo17 months ago
After more than two years and $7 million spent by the Benghazi Committee under taxpayer funds, it had to today report that it had found nothing — nothing — to contradict the conclusions that the independent...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.