Us Ambassador Chris Stevens Killed In Libya

[Javabear]

Some interesting background from The Associated Press on Sam Bacile, the films maker, a 56 year old California real estate developer who identifies himself as an Israeli Jew, said, 'This is not a religious film, it is a political film'. He also says he believes the movie will help his native land by exposing Islams flaws. He obviously knew what the likely result would be after putting this film out, as do his 100 like minded financial backers, they clearly have an agenda. Meanwhile the headlines in The FT right now,"US and Israel in open feud over Iran". But i'm sure that's just a coincidence.

100 financial backers? What did they give, 25 cents each? The clip I saw on YouTube was the lowest quality I've ever seen. Really, we made 8mm films when I was a kid back in the 70s that was of a higher quality than that piece of garbage. My acting was also better if I do say so myself.

The west had better start getting used to this kind of thing, it's what happens when we get into bed with these fanatics, arming them, financing them, using them as our soldiers on the ground while our Air Forces bombed Libya on a daily basis for weeks on end, pretty much destroying the infrastructure of what was, by the standards of the region, an advanced and stable country. Now our new allies are in charge, looting, stringing up dark skinned Libyans from lamp posts, driving out Christians who had always been free to practice there, including smashing up the graves of allied servicemen from WW2, all the while firing their weapons in the air and shouting Allah Akbar. Meanwhile poor old Hilary Clinton says, "How could this happen in a country we helped liberate"? ! Does she really believe this c--p? Is that how she really believes these people see us? Talk about naive and totally inept. Meanwhile the usual suspects on this forum,(although the cat seems to have got their tongue on this topic), were acting as cheerleaders for these so called "rebels" during the assault on Libya with post after post insisting they were defenceless civilians, never mind that they were 'defenceless civilians' with kalashnikovs, rocket launchers and God knows what else. And now, on any post about Syria they are doing the same thing, acting as cheerleaders to overthrow another regime which was stable and secular, and replace it with the same lunatics who are now running amok in Libya. I fully expect to see similar stories to this one emanating from Syria on a regular basis next year. But i suppose when it comes to the geopolitical interests of The USA and their allies, i.e The big prize, Iran, if they fail to install a compliant regime no longer allied with them, the next best thing is the country in chaos so that they are in no position to act as an ally. Unfortunately one of the side effects of this cynical type of policy, when so called civilised nations choose to abandon their morals and scruples by allying themselves with sworn enemies in pursuit of their own perceived naked self interests, is that events such as the ones today in Libya and Egypt will start happening on an increasingly regular basis. Sadly, decent people like Ambassador Chris Stevens, will always be the ones paying the ultimate price. Also sadly, there will probably be some decision makers in the upper echelons of power who will cynically shrug their shoulders, and declare it 'a price worth paying'. The ends justify the means.The world is on a slippery slope.

Since they will never leave us alone even if all Western nations pulled out of the Middle East completely, I guess the only alternative for peace is the nuclear option.

We already know how to drill through glass!

[Javabear]

Some interesting background from The Associated Press on Sam Bacile, the films maker, a 56 year old California real estate developer who identifies himself as an Israeli Jew, said, 'This is not a religious film, it is a political film'. He also says he believes the movie will help his native land by exposing Islams flaws. He obviously knew what the likely result would be after putting this film out, as do his 100 like minded financial backers, they clearly have an agenda. Meanwhile the headlines in The FT right now,"US and Israel in open feud over Iran". But i'm sure that's just a coincidence.

100 financial backers? What did they give, 25 cents each? The clip I saw on YouTube was the lowest quality I've ever seen. Really, we made 8mm films when I was a kid back in the 70s that was of a higher quality than that piece of garbage. My acting was also better if I do say so myself.

The west had better start getting used to this kind of thing, it's what happens when we get into bed with these fanatics, arming them, financing them, using them as our soldiers on the ground while our Air Forces bombed Libya on a daily basis for weeks on end, pretty much destroying the infrastructure of what was, by the standards of the region, an advanced and stable country. Now our new allies are in charge, looting, stringing up dark skinned Libyans from lamp posts, driving out Christians who had always been free to practice there, including smashing up the graves of allied servicemen from WW2, all the while firing their weapons in the air and shouting Allah Akbar. Meanwhile poor old Hilary Clinton says, "How could this happen in a country we helped liberate"? ! Does she really believe this c--p? Is that how she really believes these people see us? Talk about naive and totally inept. Meanwhile the usual suspects on this forum,(although the cat seems to have got their tongue on this topic), were acting as cheerleaders for these so called "rebels" during the assault on Libya with post after post insisting they were defenceless civilians, never mind that they were 'defenceless civilians' with kalashnikovs, rocket launchers and God knows what else. And now, on any post about Syria they are doing the same thing, acting as cheerleaders to overthrow another regime which was stable and secular, and replace it with the same lunatics who are now running amok in Libya. I fully expect to see similar stories to this one emanating from Syria on a regular basis next year. But i suppose when it comes to the geopolitical interests of The USA and their allies, i.e The big prize, Iran, if they fail to install a compliant regime no longer allied with them, the next best thing is the country in chaos so that they are in no position to act as an ally. Unfortunately one of the side effects of this cynical type of policy, when so called civilised nations choose to abandon their morals and scruples by allying themselves with sworn enemies in pursuit of their own perceived naked self interests, is that events such as the ones today in Libya and Egypt will start happening on an increasingly regular basis. Sadly, decent people like Ambassador Chris Stevens, will always be the ones paying the ultimate price. Also sadly, there will probably be some decision makers in the upper echelons of power who will cynically shrug their shoulders, and declare it 'a price worth paying'. The ends justify the means.The world is on a slippery slope.

Since they will never leave us alone even if all Western nations pulled out of the Middle East completely, I guess the only alternative for peace is the nuclear option.

I think you have got it the wrong way round. The West are the ones invading, bombing and attacking their countries, not the other way round. But of course, it's their fault, they have abundant natural resources and have the temerity to want to keep it for themselves. Just a pity they don't have cabbages in the ground instead of oil, we wouldn't have bothered them then!

History shows us that when the "people" in the middle east figured out that we wanted their oil they welcomed us with open arms to show them how to get it out of the ground. I would think it would be incredibly difficult to drill for oil with nothing but a camel, a wife or 3, and a flock of young boys whose only skill is how to pull a vaccuum. After we showed them how to get the oil and paid them for it, they then nationalized the oil industries and essentially stole all the equipment. After that they started charging much more for the oil that we showed them how to get.

[KKvampire]

So the Ambassador is murdered in Libya and Romney cant attack the President about that so He chooses another event(statement) in another country to make political gain, compare that to Presidents statement and Secretary of states. Not worthy of The Office of President Mr Romney. A weazling , bigoted candidate.

Edited September 12, 2012 by KKvampire

[geriatrickid]

Some interesting background from The Associated Press on Sam Bacile, the films maker, a 56 year old California real estate developer who identifies himself as an Israeli Jew, said, 'This is not a religious film, it is a political film'. He also says he believes the movie will help his native land by exposing Islams flaws. He obviously knew what the likely result would be after putting this film out, as do his 100 like minded financial backers, they clearly have an agenda. Meanwhile the headlines in The FT right now,"US and Israel in open feud over Iran". But i'm sure that's just a coincidence.

Not so fast;

No one seems to be able to identify Sam Bacile.

A search of public records and inconsistencies in Bacile's own accounts, as well as information from a radical Christian who helped produced the movie all suggest that "Sam Bacile" is a pseudonym and is not Israeli but an Arab Christian. Klein said Bacile was not Israeli or Jewish, and suggested he was an Arab Christian who was a U.S. citizen. "I've met him twice. He is not a citizen of Israel. He is in hiding," Steve Klein, a member of a far-right anti-Islamic Christian group who says he helped with the film's production, told ABC News.Three U.S. Christian groups, including two identified as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Council, and a third that advocates for Egyptian Christians, or Copts, have been linked to the production or eventual distribution of the movie.

The controversial Florida Pastor Terry Jones, who in 2010 sparked riots in Afghanistan after burning copies of the Koran, told ABC News in that he had been contacted to help distribute the film.

Klein, a member of the Church of Kaweah, listed as an anti-Muslim hate group, said Bacile and the film's other backers were "refugees from the Middle East."

"The folks that I'm working with have come from a culture where they've been tracked down, driven from their homes. Close family members have been kidnapped, raped and murdered," said Klein of the filmmaker.

Christians in much of the Middle East are persecuted and their plight has been made a cause for many American fundamentalist Christians.

Care to comment now?

Edited to provide link http://abcnews.go.co...ory?id=17222103

2nd edit to add Guardian link indicating that Sam Bacile does not exist

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/12/mystery-sam-bacile-innocence-muslims

Bacile was also linked to Morris Sadik, an Egyptian Coptic Christian based in California who runs a small virulently Islamophobic group called the National American Coptic Assembly. He promoted a clip of the film last week.

Most curious. The Coptic Christians of Egypt have been horrifically persecuted and I can understand why some would have hateful sentiments.

How will TVF's resident conspiracy promoters react to these developments?

Edited September 13, 2012 by geriatrickid

[Ulysses G.]

http://www.slate.com...y_protests.html

In any case, the blog that was posted here with the dragged body lies was clearly from an unreliable source, yes, that happened to be right wing, with an obvious agenda. Hard to run from those kinds of realities.

An obvious agenda. An unreliable source. You must be referring to your link to Slate.

[geriatrickid]

Inciting racial hatred through speech, press or expression has been a capital crime at least since 1946 when Julius Streicher was hung at Nurnberg.

You have quite a road ahead of you to support an allegation of inciting racial hatred in regard to this abomination of a video.

Poor production quality, bad taste, vulgarity and other negative adjectives are not proof of incitement of racial hatred.

[Ulysses G.]

Not so fast;

No one seems to be able to identify Sam Bacile.

A search of public records and inconsistencies in Bacile's own accounts, as well as information from a radical Christian who helped produced the movie all suggest that "Sam Bacile" is a pseudonym and is not Israeli but an Arab Christian.

Correct. Most news outlets are now reporting this as a likely deception.

In two back-to-back interviews, Bacile gave conflicting and inconsistent pieces of information to two news outlets.

In an interview with the AP, Bacile, said he was 56 years old, in another, with the Wall Street Journal, he said he was 52. According to his YouTube profile he is 75 years old. http://abcnews.go.co...ory?id=17222103

[Ulysses G.]

Inciting racial hatred through speech, press or expression has been a capital crime at least since 1946 when Julius Streicher was hung at Nurnberg.

You have quite a road ahead of you to support an allegation of inciting racial hatred in regard to this abomination of a video.

Poor production quality, bad taste, vulgarity and other negative adjectives are not proof of incitement of racial hatred.

Don't forget terrible acting!

[simple1]

Stupidity and ignorance by extremists elements from both sides of the religious / political divide that has lead to the murder of a good man and his aides.

I saw a interview on CNN a few weeks ago, cannot remember the name of the person. He was forecasting that once the oil/gas reserves in North Africa/Middle East are depleted in the coming 50 years or so, the region will again fall back into insignificance. The political leadership in the region are currently completely failing their people by not investing in alternative industry that will also ultimately lead to economic collapse. My personal opinion is their will not be a Clash of Civilisations as suggested by some posts on this forum.

For background on the debate of Peak Oil the following may be of interest. http://www.guardian....landpetrol.news

EDIT: Contrary to some posts US fighter/bomber aircraft were not used in the attacks on the Gaddafi regime military assets in support of the uprising, they were supplied by European NATO allies

Edited September 13, 2012 by simple1

[geriatrickid]

There was no dragging of a body. Both Republican and Democrats with experience in diplomacy are singing from the same songbook. Libyan friendlies intervened to try and assist and took the attack victims to the hospital.

There was no apology made by the U.S. government. At the height of the protests outside the embassy in Egypt a local embassy official made a statement intended to calm things down. The statement itself was not an apology and was neither issued by the US ambassador nor approved by the state department. Experienced diplomats, from both parties said it was an appropriate statement considering what was occurring.

Only an idiot would misconstrue as an apology, the following statement that was issued

"The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims -- as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions,"

This is not an apology and echoes the U.S. government statements made previously by officials in both Democrat and Republican administrations. It was a responsible statement intended to save lives and to prevent bloodshed. It is also in line with statements made by eladers of major religious groups in the USA whenever someone does something offensive.

[Ulysses G.]

Apology or not, the statement did not calm anything down and ignored the fact that America is not responsible for what some nut posted on the internet.

The substance of what Romney said at the time was absolutely right," syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer said about the situation in Libya and Egypt on "Special Report" tonight. "The problem is he needs to make a larger argument. There is a collapse of Obama's policy. It began with the Cairo speech, it began with the apologies to Iran. It began with regret for the Iraq war, it began with the so-called outreach and it completely collapsed. It has gotten nowhere on Iran. These are the fruits of appeasement and apology." http://www.realclear...nd_apology.html

Edited September 13, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[simple1]

@ulysses g. "ignored the fact that America is not responsible for what some nut posted on the internet". Sure, but the people of the street will not understand this as their is no freedom of speech in their country

[geriatrickid]

Apology or not, the statement did not calm anything down and ignored the fact that America is not responsible for what some nut posted on the internet.

The substance of what Romney said at the time was absolutely right," syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer said about the situation in Libya and Egypt on "Special Report" tonight. "The problem is he needs to make a larger argument. There is a collapse of Obama's policy. It began with the Cairo speech, it began with the apologies to Iran. It began with regret for the Iraq war, it began with the so-called outreach and it completely collapsed. It has gotten nowhere on Iran. These are the fruits of appeasement and apology." http://www.realclear...nd_apology.html

Unforrtunately, Mr. Romney's statements showed poor timing and that he has received poor advice from his foreign affairs "experts" such as defeated former Senator

Norm Coleman. I think Ed Rogers a respected Republican strategist said it best; "Somebody call Condi Rice and make Romney listen,"

First off, he had his facts wrong and secondly, the campaign official who authorized the release of the statement knowing what was going on, is an incompetent that embarrassed Mr. Romney.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The gunfire at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, had barely ceased when Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney seriously mischaracterized what had happened in a statement accusing President Barack Obama of "disgraceful" handling of violence there and at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.

"The Obama administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks," Romney said in a statement first emailed to reporters at 10:09 p.m. Eastern time, under the condition it not be published until midnight.

In fact, neither a statement by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo earlier in the day nor a later statement from Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton offered sympathy for attackers. The statement from the Cairo Embassy had condemned anti-Muslim religious incitement before the embassy walls were breached. In her statement, issued minutes before Romney's, Clinton had offered the administration's first response to the violence in Libya, explicitly condemning the attack there and confirming the death of a State Department official.

"I condemn in the strongest terms the attack on our mission in Benghazi today," Clinton said in a written statement received by The Associated Press at 10:08 p.m. "As we work to secure our personnel and facilities, we have confirmed that one of our State Department officers was killed. We are heartbroken by this terrible loss."

Then, at 10:24 p.m., a Romney spokeswoman lifted the release restriction on the Republican's statement, and it was widely published.

Many Republicans were aghast and taken aback by the timing of Mr. Romney's statements.

- Romney's "rush to condemn Obama" was "as tortured in its reasoning as it is unseemly in its timing," Mark Salter, a longtime aide to Arizona Sen. John McCain,

- Romney's "timing and tone" were questionable. Bill Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard

- Ed Rogers, a longtime Republican strategist, penned an opinion piece on the Washington Post's website that maligned Romney's response.

"At this solemn, serious moment, Mitt Romney had to be crisp and precise. He was neither," he wrote. "At times, Romney jumbled his words and appeared to be winging it. The president had to display stature and resolve. He did both .... I'm stunned that Romney didn't take more time to have a clear, well-delivered statement regarding our ambassador's murder in Libya."

- The Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan said on Fox News that Romney "has not been doing himself any favours … I always think discretion is the better way to go."

- Granted anonymity, Republican critics were far more brutal, with one describing the presidential nominee as "not ready for prime time" in a Buzzfeed article.

Others compared Romney to Sarah Palin, who was roundly accused of ignorance on foreign policy issues as McCain's running mate, and called the White House hopeful's reaction to the tragedy his "Lehman moment."

-Buzzfeed quoted a former George W. Bush State Department official as saying: "It wasn't presidential of Romney to go political immediately — a tragedy of this magnitude should be something the nation collectively grieves before politics enters the conversation.".

All that this has done is make Mr. Obama seem more presidential and Mr. Romney more of a political opportunist. There will be negative blowback.

You will see it.

[geriatrickid]

@ulysses g. "ignored the fact that America is not responsible for what some nut posted on the internet". Sure, but the people of the street will not understand this as their is no freedom of speech in their country

Or perhaps they do not want to understand.

Is it any different than some people that were quick to post with an assumed "jew" link to the story?

Yes, these protestors are ignorant, but their leaders are not and the Imman that called for people to go and protest on September 11, had a bigger plan.

The video had been posted to youtube on July 1. Why wait until September 11, to have violent protests?

Why did the Egyptian polkice not intervene.

In fairness to the Libyans, the security forces did respond to the attack and went building to building, room to room with US security forces clearing out the attackers. Libyans also came out to protest against the violent attacks.

The message in there is that the US approach on Libya did pay a dividend as there was anger in Libya over the attacks and a proper response. Libyan officials that had worked with the Ambassador were visibly distraught over his death and the Libyan government has offered a sincere apology. In Egypt, receipient of large US aid, not a mumble of condemnation and no apology from the government.

[Ulysses G.]

All that this has done is make Mr. Obama seem more presidential and Mr. Romney more of a political opportunist. There will be negative blowback.

You will see it.

- Romney's "timing and tone" were questionable. Bill Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard

That was great propaganda and I do not have time right now to check every (taken out of context statement) but I checked the quote by Bill Kristal first and here is what he really said:

Romney Is Right

12:00 PM, Sep 12, 2012 • By WILLIAM KRISTOL

One can question the timing and tone of Mitt Romney’s statement last night. One can note he wasn't as fluent and clear as he might have been at his press conference this morning. Still, the fact remains that the events of September 11, 2012, represent a big moment for the country. Romney is right to sense this, and to seize on this moment as an occasion to explain the difference between his foreign policy and President Obama’s. He’s right to reject the counsel of the mainstream media, which is to keep quiet and give President Obama a pass. http://www.weeklysta...william-kristol

Romney is right to bring home the weakness of the Obama administration, exemplified in the disgraceful statement issued yesterday, September 11, by the American embassy in Cairo—a statement, I believe, that would have to have been cleared by the State Department.

Edited September 13, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[chuckd]

There was no dragging of a body. Both Republican and Democrats with experience in diplomacy are singing from the same songbook. Libyan friendlies intervened to try and assist and took the attack victims to the hospital.

There was no apology made by the U.S. government. At the height of the protests outside the embassy in Egypt a local embassy official made a statement intended to calm things down. The statement itself was not an apology and was neither issued by the US ambassador nor approved by the state department. Experienced diplomats, from both parties said it was an appropriate statement considering what was occurring.

Only an idiot would misconstrue as an apology, the following statement that was issued

"The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims -- as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions,"

This is not an apology and echoes the U.S. government statements made previously by officials in both Democrat and Republican administrations. It was a responsible statement intended to save lives and to prevent bloodshed. It is also in line with statements made by eladers of major religious groups in the USA whenever someone does something offensive.

What makes you people think that some street Arab looks to see if a statement issued from the US Embassy by a State Department official waits to see these memorable words..."I am Barack Obama and I approve this message". The White House claim about a State Department issued comment not being officially sanctioned holds absolutely no water whatsoever in the eyes of most of the known world. It's tough to walk back this sort of comment.

The tea boy could have made the comment and it would have been official as far as the Egyptian and Libyan people are concerned.

In the eyes of the average Muslim, an apology is a sign of weakness and these rioters are not average. To apologize for anything merely makes them feel stronger and invokes more violence.

What I wonder is what were the Rules of Engagement issued by the administration to the Marine guards at the Embassy in Cairo and Consulate in Benghazi? Were they told to slowly melt into the background and disappear or were they told to repel any attempts to invade and maintain control of US territory?

Regardless of what Romney said after the invasion, and I think he was right, what really matters is what had the State Department, led by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, told the USMC to do in the eventuality they were invaded.

It would appear they had been told to let the rioters do as they wished.

[Morch]

Some interesting background from The Associated Press on Sam Bacile, the films maker, a 56 year old California real estate developer who identifies himself as an Israeli Jew, said, 'This is not a religious film, it is a political film'. He also says he believes the movie will help his native land by exposing Islams flaws. He obviously knew what the likely result would be after putting this film out, as do his 100 like minded financial backers, they clearly have an agenda. Meanwhile the headlines in The FT right now,"US and Israel in open feud over Iran". But i'm sure that's just a coincidence.

100 financial backers? What did they give, 25 cents each? The clip I saw on YouTube was the lowest quality I've ever seen. Really, we made 8mm films when I was a kid back in the 70s that was of a higher quality than that piece of garbage. My acting was also better if I do say so myself.

Well on average it was $50 000 each, an unbelievable $5M for the movie.

The only information regarding the funding of the film originates from the so-called producer. As there's some doubt about his true identity and background, might be wise to treat those figures and identity of donors as less than solid facts.

[simple1]

@ulysses g. "ignored the fact that America is not responsible for what some nut posted on the internet". Sure, but the people of the street will not understand this as their is no freedom of speech in their country

Or perhaps they do not want to understand.

Is it any different than some people that were quick to post with an assumed "jew" link to the story?

Yes, these protestors are ignorant, but their leaders are not and the Imman that called for people to go and protest on September 11, had a bigger plan.

The video had been posted to youtube on July 1. Why wait until September 11, to have violent protests?

Why did the Egyptian polkice not intervene.

In fairness to the Libyans, the security forces did respond to the attack and went building to building, room to room with US security forces clearing out the attackers. Libyans also came out to protest against the violent attacks.

The message in there is that the US approach on Libya did pay a dividend as there was anger in Libya over the attacks and a proper response. Libyan officials that had worked with the Ambassador were visibly distraught over his death and the Libyan government has offered a sincere apology. In Egypt, receipient of large US aid, not a mumble of condemnation and no apology from the government.

From news reports the Egyptian government has condemned the killings in Libya and violent protests in Cairo, but has defended the rights of peaceful demonstrations about the films anti Islamic content

[Morch]

Sadly, decent people like Ambassador Chris Stevens, will always be the ones paying the ultimate price.

From what is known about the late ambassador's career and views, it seems that he was, as you so eloquently put it, a "cheerleader" himself.

[KKvampire]

Apology or not, the statement did not calm anything down and ignored the fact that America is not responsible for what some nut posted on the internet.

The substance of what Romney said at the time was absolutely right," syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer said about the situation in Libya and Egypt on "Special Report" tonight. "The problem is he needs to make a larger argument. There is a collapse of Obama's policy. It began with the Cairo speech, it began with the apologies to Iran. It began with regret for the Iraq war, it began with the so-called outreach and it completely collapsed. It has gotten nowhere on Iran. These are the fruits of appeasement and apology." http://www.realclear...nd_apology.html

Really ? Says all about you and other Republicans You hate it if an American apoligizes if the country made a mistake for Going to war on a false premise just as Iraq was a lie as many involved admit . You think America shouldnt admit its mistakes. The arrogance comes through loud and clear , We dont need bigots like Krauthammer to tell us how to conduct foreign policy. Romney with his crazed gang would take the country into another ill conceived war just as Bush did.

Edited September 13, 2012 by KKvampire

[simple1]

@geriatrickid: Billions were given in aid to the Mubarak dictatorship to enlist support for US policies and suppression of extremists such as the Muslim Brotherhood. Mubarak, his family and close supporters then corruptly laundered billions of dollars in overseas investments (recently estimated at over US$10 billion). The US government must of known of this activity. Rendition of US captured terrorists suspects to Egypt for torture was also the game played. I understand the aid package for the new government has yet to be finalised. Why would you assume that the current government in Egypt would be thanking the US for their aid monies paid during the Mubarak dictatorship?

Edited September 13, 2012 by simple1

[geriatrickid]

There was no dragging of a body. Both Republican and Democrats with experience in diplomacy are singing from the same songbook. Libyan friendlies intervened to try and assist and took the attack victims to the hospital.

There was no apology made by the U.S. government. At the height of the protests outside the embassy in Egypt a local embassy official made a statement intended to calm things down. The statement itself was not an apology and was neither issued by the US ambassador nor approved by the state department. Experienced diplomats, from both parties said it was an appropriate statement considering what was occurring.

Only an idiot would misconstrue as an apology, the following statement that was issued

"The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims -- as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions,"

This is not an apology and echoes the U.S. government statements made previously by officials in both Democrat and Republican administrations. It was a responsible statement intended to save lives and to prevent bloodshed. It is also in line with statements made by eladers of major religious groups in the USA whenever someone does something offensive.

What makes you people think that some street Arab looks to see if a statement issued from the US Embassy by a State Department official waits to see these memorable words..."I am Barack Obama and I approve this message". The White House claim about a State Department issued comment not being officially sanctioned holds absolutely no water whatsoever in the eyes of most of the known world. It's tough to walk back this sort of comment.

The tea boy could have made the comment and it would have been official as far as the Egyptian and Libyan people are concerned.

In the eyes of the average Muslim, an apology is a sign of weakness and these rioters are not average. To apologize for anything merely makes them feel stronger and invokes more violence.

What I wonder is what were the Rules of Engagement issued by the administration to the Marine guards at the Embassy in Cairo and Consulate in Benghazi? Were they told to slowly melt into the background and disappear or were they told to repel any attempts to invade and maintain control of US territory?

Regardless of what Romney said after the invasion, and I think he was right, what really matters is what had the State Department, led by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, told the USMC to do in the eventuality they were invaded.

It would appear they had been told to let the rioters do as they wished.

There was no apology. Where is this apology that you refer to?

"The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims -- as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions," What is your problem with a statement? The statement reflects the purported values of the USA, which is one of respect and tolerance for religion. It is a statement about basic politeness.

[animatic]

They are parading the Ambassador's dead body through the streets.

Doubt very much you can substantiate this.

If you can, please do.

No one wraps their arms around someone while holding their phone in their teeth if they are not trying to help them.

'Dragged through the streets' is just that; on the street and banging about and dragged by limbs or ropes with no concern to raise them from the ground. That is CLEARLY not what is pictured.

[geriatrickid]

From news reports the Egyptian government has condemned the killings in Libya and violent protests in Cairo, but has defended the rights of peaceful demonstrations about the films anti Islamic content

With all due respect, the Egyptian position is diplomatic milquetoast speak. The Egyptian police stood by while the US compound was attacked, while the Libyan security forces fought the attackers.

At least some Libyan people are making a statement, and it is something you will never see in Egypt. The Egyptians were not engaged in peaceful demonstration. They were engaged in an outright attack on a country that has subsidized its corrupt kelptocracy in return for Egypt refraining from waging war on its neighbors. Egypt is about to get a nasty surprise after the November election when the US congress slashes the aid package.

[simple1]

There was no dragging of a body. Both Republican and Democrats with experience in diplomacy are singing from the same songbook. Libyan friendlies intervened to try and assist and took the attack victims to the hospital.

There was no apology made by the U.S. government. At the height of the protests outside the embassy in Egypt a local embassy official made a statement intended to calm things down. The statement itself was not an apology and was neither issued by the US ambassador nor approved by the state department. Experienced diplomats, from both parties said it was an appropriate statement considering what was occurring.

Only an idiot would misconstrue as an apology, the following statement that was issued

"The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims -- as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions,"

This is not an apology and echoes the U.S. government statements made previously by officials in both Democrat and Republican administrations. It was a responsible statement intended to save lives and to prevent bloodshed. It is also in line with statements made by eladers of major religious groups in the USA whenever someone does something offensive.

What makes you people think that some street Arab looks to see if a statement issued from the US Embassy by a State Department official waits to see these memorable words..."I am Barack Obama and I approve this message". The White House claim about a State Department issued comment not being officially sanctioned holds absolutely no water whatsoever in the eyes of most of the known world. It's tough to walk back this sort of comment.

The tea boy could have made the comment and it would have been official as far as the Egyptian and Libyan people are concerned.

In the eyes of the average Muslim, an apology is a sign of weakness and these rioters are not average. To apologize for anything merely makes them feel stronger and invokes more violence.

What I wonder is what were the Rules of Engagement issued by the administration to the Marine guards at the Embassy in Cairo and Consulate in Benghazi? Were they told to slowly melt into the background and disappear or were they told to repel any attempts to invade and maintain control of US territory?

Regardless of what Romney said after the invasion, and I think he was right, what really matters is what had the State Department, led by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, told the USMC to do in the eventuality they were invaded.

It would appear they had been told to let the rioters do as they wished.

There was no apology. Where is this apology that you refer to?

"The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims -- as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions," What is your problem with a statement? The statement reflects the purported values of the USA, which is one of respect and tolerance for religion. It is a statement about basic politeness.

Sorry, I do not understand why the US government has to apologise for an action by one of it's ciitzens on domestic soil given freedom of speech, no matter how ill-conceived. It would be political suicide. The statement from the embassy in Cairo seems perfectly worded.

Edited September 13, 2012 by simple1

[sunshine51]

Most posts on the previous 4 pages of this thread, to include this page,

remind me of a game we played as kids back in the early 1950's...Hot

Potato...played by tossing a ball around a group of kids as fast as one

can...there was really no point in this game at all. Except to get the ball

moving as fast as we kids could it moving between us.

The death of Chris Stevens has now become a political ball tween Obama

and that 19th century thinking Romney...let those two sort the hot potato

out...it'll keep em busy until 6 November (Election day in the USA). As far as

taking any kind of military action I think not...not at this moment anyway

because the US and it's Libyan allies can't put faces and locations to the

groups moniker.

Lastly...where was the Marine Guard during the event which led to

Ambassador Stevens death? Every US Embassy and most consulates

have a contingent of US Marines stationed at the Embassy and their main

duty is to protect the Ambassador and other US citizens employed by the

Embassy and also the Embassy itself...inside the Embassy compound.

*Profanity edited out*

And that's the question I'd be asking the Commandant of the Marine Corps

if I was President Obama...and not asking in a very friendly and polite manner

either.

Believe me...some heads will roll because of this...just whose head(s) is yet

to be determined.

RIP J. Christopher Stevens and the other Embassy staff who died.

Semper Fi.

Edited September 13, 2012 by Scott
Profanity edited out

[animatic]

Apology or not, the statement did not calm anything down and ignored the fact that America is not responsible for what some nut posted on the internet.

The substance of what Romney said at the time was absolutely right," syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer said about the situation in Libya and Egypt on "Special Report" tonight. "The problem is he needs to make a larger argument. There is a collapse of Obama's policy. It began with the Cairo speech, it began with the apologies to Iran. It began with regret for the Iraq war, it began with the so-called outreach and it completely collapsed. It has gotten nowhere on Iran. These are the fruits of appeasement and apology." http://www.realclear...nd_apology.html

Totally wrong logic.

This was a setup and on the anniversary of 9/11.

You can engage people who can think with engagement, some will never do so, but you can't speak to them as a group, because 'They Will Never Listen', you can only speak to the general public about not getting drawn in by the zealots. That is what Obama's statement said, and at the time was perfectly logical.

By holding an olive branch, but being prepared for trouble Obama takes the only logical approach to Iran long term. Let the general public know that the USA is willing to have dialog, but it is only possible when the zealots no longer control the whole show there. Iran is a very young society based on age, so these young people are yearning for a different life and have better world communications than their parents had, their attitudes are more modern in general, this is well known. Obama is rightly making the long term reasonable approach to THEM, since talking to current leadership is barely fruitful, but the appearances of reasonableness versus intransigence can not be lost on the young Iranians.

This dichotomy will be clear to the next generation.

As Ted Rooosevelt said "Speak Softly And Carry A Big Stick. "

Edited September 13, 2012 by animatic

[Ulysses G.]

Apology or not, the statement did not calm anything down and ignored the fact that America is not responsible for what some nut posted on the internet.

The substance of what Romney said at the time was absolutely right," syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer said about the situation in Libya and Egypt on "Special Report" tonight. "The problem is he needs to make a larger argument. There is a collapse of Obama's policy. It began with the Cairo speech, it began with the apologies to Iran. It began with regret for the Iraq war, it began with the so-called outreach and it completely collapsed. It has gotten nowhere on Iran. These are the fruits of appeasement and apology." http://www.realclear...nd_apology.html

Really ? Says all about you and other Republicans You hate it if an American apoligizes if the country made a mistake

Wake up! I am not a Republican and the country did NOT make a mistake. Some fool posted some stupid video on the internet who said he was American. It has nothing at all to do with the American government.

[simple1]

Most posts on the previous 4 pages of this thread, to include this page,

remind me of a game we played as kids back in the early 1950's...Hot

Potato...played by tossing a ball around a group of kids as fast as one

can...there was really no point in this game at all. Except to get the ball

moving as fast as we kids could it moving between us.

The death of Chris Stevens has now become a political ball tween Obama

and that 19th century thinking Romney...let those two sort the hot potato

out...it'll keep em busy until 6 November (Election day in the USA). As far as

taking any kind of military action I think not...not at this moment anyway

because the US and it's Libyan allies can't put faces and locations to the

groups moniker.

Lastly...where was the Marine Guard during the event which led to

Ambassador Stevens death? Every US Embassy and most consulates

have a contingent of US Marines stationed at the Embassy and their main

duty is to protect the Ambassador and other US citizens employed by the

Embassy and also the Embassy itself...inside the Embassy compound.

Where was the goddamned Marine Guard?

And that's the question I'd be asking the Commandant of the Marine Corps

if I was President Obama...and not asking in a very friendly and polite manner

either.

Believe me...some heads will roll because of this...just whose head(s) is yet

to be determined.

RIP J. Christopher Stevens and the other Embassy staff who died.

Semper Fi.

Well said & no one seems to have picked up that the Black Flag allegedly at the scene of the attack is a symbol used by Al Qaeda and it's affiliates.

[Ulysses G.]

As Ted Rooosevelt said "Speak Softly And Carry A Big Stick. "

I would guess that Krauthammer would agree with you, but the big stick also has to be used when necessary and Obama has done an awful lot of speaking softly to places like Iran without saying when he is finally going to use the big stick, so they actually pay attention

Edited September 13, 2012 by Ulysses G.