Libyans storm American consulate and murder Ambassador

[holy king]

people are crazy.

 

[NedimNapoleon]

people are crazy.

it just depends on the degree and way.

 

[DinoDoc]

I’m pretty sure that the Libyan government didn’t want this to happen.

I didn't say that they were participants in the attack. I said that they are weak and useless allies who lack the ability to secure their own country.

Libyan officials confirmed his presence in the area to CNN in June.

Libyan security services have so far not moved against the militants, casting doubt over their ability to bring security to the country. Many areas are still dominated by brigades that fought to topple Libya strongman Moammar al-Gadhafi and bands of heavily armed young men who have turned to criminality.

 

[del62]

It seems that the timing of the faux outrage at the youtube video, (which has been around for some time), was designed to be co-ordinated with september 11th.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I didn't say that they were participants in the attack. I said that they are weak and useless allies who lack the ability to secure their own country.

Libyan officials confirmed his presence in the area to CNN in June.

Libyan security services have so far not moved against the militants, casting doubt over their ability to bring security to the country. Many areas are still dominated by brigades that fought to topple Libya strongman Moammar al-Gadhafi and bands of heavily armed young men who have turned to criminality.

Civil wars tend to make new governments ineffectual. Why is that so hard to accept?

 

[BSmith1068]

Your question presupposes a historical rewrite. I merely went to the source of the problem. However if we wish to limit our historical rewrite to more recent history, I might have taken a small break from constant fund raising to attend more than half of my daily intel briefings on the off chance someone might have mentioned chatter about an up coming attack. I'd be damn curious about this or I might have done something about this.

On the daily intel briefings:

About the same time, the Republican National Committee and prominent Republicans such as Dick Cheney and John McCain threw another faulty bit of plumbing at Obama: that the president “does not attend his daily intelligence meeting” more than half the time, in contrast to George W. Bush, who “almost never missed his daily intelligence meeting.” This claim was the work of former Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen, who writes a weekly online column for The Washington Post.

In reality, Obama didn’t “attend” these meetings, because there were no meetings to attend: The oral briefings had been mostly replaced by daily exchanges in which Obama reads the materials and poses written questions and comments to intelligence officials. This is how it was done in the Clinton administration, before Bush decided he would prefer to read less. Bush’s results — Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, and the failure to find Osama bin Laden — suggest this was not an obvious improvement.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...d2c-11e1-8adc-499661afe377_story.html?hpid=z2

Additional Security:

While the State Department has responded to some of the criticisms leveled by congressional oversight bodies and its own internal watchdog, its Diplomatic Security (DS) office recently acknowledged it lacked the funding for some recommended improvements, such as security training, and was instead looking for workarounds.

"We cannot sufficiently meet the additional training recommendations outlined in the Secretary's QDDR (quadrennial review). Therefore, DS is aggressively pursuing on-line alternatives, e.g., distance learning of FACT lessons minus the hard skills (i.e., weapons familiarization and driver's training) to increase training capabilities," the department candidly acknowledged in a February performance evaluation report.

http://www.wtop.com/220/3035261/Years-of-warning-about-embassy-security-preceded-Libya-attack

So you are all for increasing the budget of the Department of State? Got it.

Regarding the Marines: I hate to break it to you, but many of our consulates around the world are not protected by the Marines, but instead rely on local security and State Department security officers. In retrospect perhaps this one should have had more beefed up security, but unless the facility was essentially a fortress (like many of our embassies have become) even having a handful of Marines there may not have been enough to stop what happened.

 

[Crezth]

Does a civil society exist in the country you are attempting to staple your values onto? If the answer is no, then your enterprise will only end in tears.

That doesn't answer my question. Define "functioning civil society."

 

[BSmith1068]

Can we all stop using the “apology” line now?

An embassy statement, a tweet, and a major misunderstanding

Sometimes, timing is everything.
It is clear now that much of the misunderstanding surrounding the statement by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo stems from the fact that some commentators thought it had been issued after protesters stormed the embassy compound. Instead, the embassy had released it hours before the protests began, in an apparent effort to cool down emotions over a film that defamed the prophet Muhammad.

But elements of the statement also were placed in the embassy’s Twitter feed — and it gained new prominence in retweets after the storming of the embassy.

Take a look at the Fox News video clip, from Tuesday evening, and one can see how such impressions take hold.

First, host Brent Baier shows scenes of protesters storming the embassy and replacing the American flag with a black flag. Then, reading from a piece of paper, he adds, “A statement by the U.S. Embassy just moments ago: ‘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.’”

After quoting from the embassy statement, Baier turns to our colleague Charles Krauthammer and asks for his reaction. Krauthammer, apparently under the misimpression the statement had just been released, terms it an embarrassment.

“That's a hostage statement,” Krauthammer said. “That's a mob of al-qaeda sympathizers in Egypt, forcing the United States into making a statement essentially of apology, on 9/11 of all days, for something of which we are not responsible.”

Small wonder Mitt Romney campaign officials thought they should take advantage of that — and why the White House decided to distance itself from the statement.

On Wednesday morning, Romney incorrectly reiterated the idea that the statement had been issued after the attacks, apparently hoping to place the incident in the campaign’s narrative that President Obama had been on an “apology tour” — a claim that has earned Romney Four Pinocchios.

“The embassy in Cairo put out a statement after their grounds had been breached,” Romney told reporters on Wednesday. “Protesters were inside the grounds. They reiterated that statement after the breach. I think it’s a terrible course for America to stand in apology for our values.”

Romney’s reference to the idea that the statement was “reiterated” appears to be a reference to a tweet — since deleted — that said: “This morning’s condemnation (issued before the protest began) still stands. As does our condemnation of unjustified breach of the Embassy.”

Even in this day and age, a tweet seems a pretty thin reed on which to hang a major policy pronouncement. In fact, the so-called reiteration makes clear that the first part of Romney’s comment — that the statement was issued after the breach — is incorrect.

In context, the embassy statement appears similar to previous statements issued by embassies or spokesmen for the U.S. government in response to provocative actions that might inflame Muslims. The practice dates back at least to the appointment of Karen Hughes as undersecretary of state for public affairs in the second presidential term of George W. Bush.

The Bush administration had been stunned by the violent anti-American protests in 2005 that erupted after Newsweek erroneously reported that U.S. interrogators had tried to rattle an al-Qaeda suspect by flushing a Koran down a toilet. Hughes pushed for a much more proactive communications effort, in an effort to get ahead of such reports.

Following is the full Cairo embassy statement, followed by two other examples that we found of similar statements. These statements follow a similar pattern, which we will highlight in the text:

1. Condemn the potential offending action.

2. Emphasize that the United States believes in religious freedom and religious tolerance — as well as freedom of expression or freedom of speech.

3. Make a reference to American democracy, or at least the U.S. Constitution.

Of the examples we found, the 2012 Cairo embassy statement is perhaps the weakest, though perhaps that is because it is shortest. It refers to “abuse” of the “universal right of free speech” without emphasizing that Americans have an absolute right to freedom of speech — no matter how distasteful.

The longest and most thorough statement is by the State Department spokesman in 2006. But a statement made at the daily briefing carries the full weight of the U.S. government, whereas the embassy statement is just that — a statement by the embassy, drafted in house, with little or no coordination with Washington (let alone senior State Department officials who are political appointees of the current administration).

Indeed, an interesting inside account published by Foreign Policy magazine says the statement and tweets were the work of communications staffer Larry Schwartz. The article says he cleared the statement with only one person at the embassy — not the ambassador, who was in Washington — and he posted it even though Washington, once it got wind of it, told him not to post it without changes. When The Fact Checker was diplomatic correspondent for The Washington Post, he knew and respected Schwartz as a blunt professional who was not afraid of ruffling a few feathers every so often.

Without the tragic events of this week, the Cairo statement likely would have passed unnoticed — along with the other embassy statements on Facebook contests, the ambassador’s visits to polling stations and so forth.

U.S. Embassy, Cairo, 2012:

U.S. Embassy Condemns Religious Incitement

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. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.

— September 11, 2012

U.S. Embassy, Islamabad, 2010

U.S. Embassy Condemns Florida Church Plans to Burn Copies of the Koran

Islamabad — The U.S. Embassy condemns plans by a Florida church to burn hundreds of copies of the Koran on the anniversary of 9/11.

“We condemn acts that are disrespectful, intolerant and divisive," said Charge d'Affaires Stephen C. Engelken. "We are deeply concerned about all deliberate attempts to offend members of any religious or ethnic group.”

“We believe firmly in freedom of religion and freedom of expression; they are universal rights, enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We reaffirm our position that the deliberate destruction of any holy book is an abhorrent act,” said Engelken.

Officials in Gainesville, Florida, where the church is located, denied the church's permit for the burning under the local fire ordinance and have said they will take further steps if the Church goes forward with its plans.

Public condemnation of this event has come from a variety of organizations including the National Association of Evangelicals, the Southern Baptist Convention and the Anti-Defamation League.

As she hosted an Iftar meal at the State Department in Washington Tuesday evening, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton welcomed the condemnation of the planned act, saying “I am heartened by the clear, unequivocal condemnation of this disrespectful, disgraceful act that has come from American religious leaders of all faiths, from evangelical Christians to Jewish rabbis, as well as secular U.S. leaders and opinion-makers. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. Many of you know that in 1790, George Washington wrote to a synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island, that this country will give ‘to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance.’”

— September 8, 2010

State Department spokesman, 2006

Daily press briefing,

QUESTION: Yes? Can you say anything about a U.S. response or a U.S. reaction to this uproar in Europe over the Prophet Muhammad pictures? Do you have any reaction to it? Are you concerned that the violence is going to spread and make everything just —

MR. MCCORMACK: I haven't seen any — first of all, this is matter of fact. I haven't seen it. I have seen a lot of protests. I've seen a great deal of distress expressed by Muslims across the globe. The Muslims around the world have expressed the fact that they are outraged and that they take great offense at the images that were printed in the Danish newspaper, as well as in other newspapers around the world.

Our response is to say that while we certainly don't agree with, support, or in some cases, we condemn the views that are aired in public that are published in media organizations around the world, we, at the same time, defend the right of those individuals to express their views. For us, freedom of expression is at the core of our democracy and it is something that we have shed blood and treasure around the world to defend and we will continue to do so. That said, there are other aspects to democracy, our democracy — democracies around the world — and that is to promote understanding, to promote respect for minority rights, to try to appreciate the differences that may exist among us.

We believe, for example in our country, that people from different religious backgrounds, ethnic backgrounds, national backgrounds add to our strength as a country. And it is important to recognize and appreciate those differences. And it is also important to protect the rights of individuals and the media to express a point of view concerning various subjects. So while we share the offense that Muslims have taken at these images, we at the same time vigorously defend the right of individuals to express points of view. We may not agree with those points of view, we may condemn those points of view but we respect and emphasize the importance that those individuals have the right to express those points of view.

For example — and on the particular cartoon that was published — I know the Prime Minister of Denmark has talked about his, I know that the newspaper that originally printed it has apologized, so they have addressed this particular issue. So we would urge all parties to exercise the maximum degree of understanding, the maximum degree of tolerance when they talk about this issue. And we would urge dialogue, not violence. And that also those that might take offense at these images that have been published, when they see similar views or images that could be perceived as anti-Semitic or anti-Catholic, that they speak out with equal vigor against those images.

— Feb. 3. 2006

The Bottom Line

We have looked in vain for an “apology” in the Cairo statement, as well as significant differences between that statement and earlier ones. One could criticize the Cairo statement for lacking a meticulous defense of freedom of speech. But that is not the same thing as an apology — especially since the embassy clearly issued the statement long before the protests began.

This all started because some people got the timeline wrong. In the fog of war and protest, it often helps to get the facts straight before you act — or speak.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...fd24-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_blog.html?hpid=z2

 

[Patroklos]

You realize the embassy released the comments again once the protests started, and then Clinton said them again herself, right?

Not only that, the Cairo embassy attempted to delete their tweets.

 

[JtheJackal]

Can we all stop using the “apology” line now?

Good luck, people still act like Gore said he invented the internet. Facts mean nothing.

 

[emzie]

http://www.upworthy.com/we-saw-the-...ch-can-spark-now-lets-see-the-love?g=2&c=ufb1

Look at these awful Muslims *tut tut*

 

[hobbsyoyo]

You realize the embassy released the comments again once the protests started, and then Clinton said them again herself, right?

Not only that, the Cairo embassy attempted to delete their tweets.

That proves what? That the embassy staff hate America and Obama sympathizes with terrorists? Okie dokie

 

[BSmith1068]

You realize the embassy released the comments again once the protests started, and then Clinton said them again herself, right?

Not only that, the Cairo embassy attempted to delete their tweets.

You mean this one, where they also condemn the breach of the walls (but before the Libya attack)?

“This morning’s condemnation (issued before the protest began) still stands. As does our condemnation of unjustified breach of the Embassy.”

And please tell me. Where is the apology in this?

 

[Cutlass]

I'm not the one that believes foreign policy or military intervention should be guided in any fashion by morality. Only by what serves our interest. Can you explain why it served US interests to begin sponsorship of the Libyan rebels against the already neutered Moammar Qaddafi, when it was already known that elements of al-Qaeda were participating in the rebellion. And when Qaddafi fell, one of the first things the victorious rebels did was raise an al-Qaeda flag over a courthouse in Benghazi.

In the long run democratic, open, and free societies are always in the best interest of the US. And dictatorships are always harmful to the best interest of the US. Of course the transition always sucks. But should we then always choose something harmful to us in the long run simply because attaining what is best for us in the short run is difficult and dangerous?

Here is the simple truth of dictators: They get old and die, or they lose their grip on power. And when that happens, it's always a great risk that their chosen successor is not going to be able to maintain power, or will pursue the policies of their predecessor. So with any non-democratic regime, the risk is high that on every transition of power, the new power will see us as an enemy if the old regime saw us as a friend. Only with democracies can we have a real expectation that moves from one government to the next will not significantly change our relationships with those countries. They will be more stable, they will be more prosperous, and they will be more inclined to work with us instead of against us.

So yes, the point of transition is dangerous to us. But that will always be true when there is a transition. But we minimize that danger in the long run by helping the transition to democracies wherever it is practical to do so.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Can someone please tell me how a statement by the US Embassy in Egypt aimed at diffusing a tense situation in Cairo before the first protester there even got over the wall is in any way the Administration apologizing to the Libyans that raided the US Consulate in Benghazi hours after the protests in Cairo had already happened?

I’d also like to know exactly what American values the statement by the Embassy in Egypt violated.

You mean the tweet that was supposedly deleted, issued long before the demonstrations in both Cairo and Libya, specifically regarding the latest Islamophobic video which was a direct attack on their religion and culture?

Hillary Clinton tries to calm anti-U.S. sentiment as protesters storm embassy in Yemen

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton took strong steps Thursday to distance the U.S. government from a movie that has sparked protests throughout the Muslim world, calling the film “disgusting and reprehensible” but also condemning violence in response to it.

“The U.S. government has absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its content and messages,” Clinton said. “But there is no justification — none at all — for responding to this video with violence.”

Nope. No "apology" there.

Can we all stop using the “apology” line now?

Good luck with that.

So far, we have heard how the ambassador was dragged through the street, how he was killed in a car ambush when he seems to have died from smoke inhalation, and we have even been subjected to an article from an extremely dubious source that claims he died "at the hands of an angry mob".

One thing is for certain. Romney has clearly shown yet again he doesn't have the qualifications to be the president of this country:

Murders in Libya point to need for wise leaders in US

YESTERDAY’S TRAGIC murder of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other American diplomats in Libya illustrates the ever-present dangers for Americans in the volatile Middle East. Thousands of US diplomats like Stevens are on point for us all over the world, and they make an enormous contribution to our national security. But this tragedy also points to the need for capable, experienced, and wise people at the top of our government when crises test the mettle of our leaders. President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton both made strong and determined statements in response to the attack on our diplomats, focusing on our unequivocal opposition to terrorism and fanatacism in the Middle East.

In contrast, GOP candidate Mitt Romney accused the administration of showing sympathy to terrorists and apologizing for their actions. By making these completely inaccurate charges, Romney injected the politics of the presidential race into a complex drama half a world away on a day when all Americans should have been rallying around our government and its diplomats in the Middle East.

Crises often reveal the true nature and also the limitations of our leaders. Romney’s statements, made with incomplete understanding of the facts on the ground, represent the worst of our sound-bite-driven politics. He should have issued a strong statement of support for our diplomats in the fight against terrorism and refrained from commenting on what he could not understand sitting outside the government as our two diplomatic outposts were being attacked. Instead, he made an already bad situation even worse. In fact, his statements were so reckless and irresponsible that it prompts the inevitable question: What kind of commander-in-chief would he be?

Romney’s actions this week, coupled with his recent lackluster foreign trip, raise another important issue for the campaign. For the first time since LBJ trounced Barry Goldwater nearly half a century ago, it is the Democrats, not the Republicans, who are making the more persuasive case that they can best defend the country in a hostile world. In Charlotte, President Obama, Senator John Kerry, and nearly every other speaker reminded us that Obama had taken down Osama bin Laden, prosecuted a relentless war against terrorists, and brought our troops home from Iraq. In Tampa, Romney barely discussed foreign policy and, inexplicably, failed even to mention Afghanistan, where 74,400 American troops are still fighting in the longest war in our history.

Romney supporters argue there is only one real issue in the campaign — the economy. But a real foreign policy debate is emerging, to the surprise of many, and the Republicans are losing it. Romney’s real problem is his slim national security credentials compared with Obama’s much more substantial and impressive record. As Americans watch these events unfold, they clearly realize that foreign policy matters. In a globalized world, our fortunes are linked as never before with more than 7 billion people in 193 nation states. Our ability to export and protect jobs at home, or to take advantage of global opportunities in areas where we are strong — financial services, biotechnology, and agriculture, to name three — all depend on our ability to compete and lead with purpose, strength, and imagination. The United States is, still by a long mile, the strongest power, with enormous global influence. It is vital that we have leaders who can preserve our power and leadership in the world.

Romney should have refrained from commenting on what he does not understand. Instead, he made a bad situation worse.

I served as a career diplomat for presidents of both parties, from Jimmy Carter to George W. Bush. The qualities needed for effective international leadership in the Oval Office are a strong grasp of global issues, a seriousness of purpose, and, most of all, good judgment. We saw again this week the steeliness, calm strength, and determination of Obama. And, we also witnessed a barrage of unfounded and even wild charges from Romney, who clearly has yet to find his bearings in foreign policy. You can be sure that people around the world care what our presidential candidates think and say about foreign policy. After yesterday’s tragedy, we should too. Who says there shouldn’t be a foreign policy debate this autumn? The stakes are just too high for Americans to ignore.

The last thing we need is another completely incompetent leader when it comes to foreign policy. We are still suffering from the damage which GWB caused.

 

[warpus]

The last thing we need is another completely incompetent leader when it comes to foreign policy. We are still suffering from the damage which GWB caused.

It's one thing to be an incompetent candidate.

It's another to have incompetent followers.

The former is usually not that dangerous.. the latter can be.

 

[Lot In Space]

An American philosopher, Daniel Dennett, once said that there will be conflict in a world whenever a religious iconography occur in one country, another find it deserving rebuke or censure. In this case, the West are immune to any sort of iconography, especially Islamic iconography.

To put it plainly: backward people from country A decide to communicate to themselves about what are backward explanation about another religion that they themselves do not follow. Whenever this occur, it somehow got into the hands of other different backward people of country B that find that material as offensive and blasphemous; therefore, what you get is a "Clash of Civilizations" by only backward asses from each side.

 

[JtheJackal]

Nice article on Syrian's understandably upset reaction to the reaction to the video

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wor...ists-libya-egypt-protests-mohammed-video.html

ANTAKYA, Turkey -- Some Syrian anti-government activists expressed frustration Wednesday that a controversial video belittling the prophet Muhammad is generating more outrage among Arabs than the rising death toll within Syria.

Comments on social media sites by some opposition activists said the protests over the video in Cairo and Benghazi, Libya, where four Americans were killed, epitomize a focus on symbolic and religious issues versus a relative indifference over the desperate plight of Syrian civilians.

"The only thing that seems to mobilize the Arab street is a movie, a cartoon or an insult, but not the pool of blood in Syria," wrote one Syrian activist on Twitter.

Since anti-government protests broke out in March 2011, at least 17,000 people, mostly civilians, have been killed by the security forces of President Bashar Assad and rebel forces, according to United Nations figures.

"One thing is clear," tweeted Shakeeb Jabri, a Syrian activist. "Syrians are quite pissed off at those who protested the Mohammad movie and not Assad's shelling of mosques.”

Another activist, known as @SyrianSunnyBoy, offered a tongue-in-cheek suggestion: "Syrian filmmakers should also make [a] film 'insulting' Prophet Mohammed if that would mobilize ppl [sic] in Egypt against [the] embassy of Syria in Cairo."

A Syrian film director, who asked not to be identified by name, wrote on his Facebook page about what he viewed as a double standard.

"You killed an American Ambassador for a silly film but people are dying on the streets, women are being raped, Palestine is gone," he wrote. "All the ignorance and lack of knowledge in the Arab Muslim world is ok. But 'don’t touch the Prophet.'"

Domary, a popular Syrian satirical Facebook page, carried the following commentary:

"The Arab people are emotional.

Films make them laugh.

Films make them upset.

Films make them cry.

Films make them angry and let them go crazy and kill.

But when they see in Syria mosques and churches getting shelled.

Koran books getting burned.

Women being insulted.

It doesn't move them.

Because it is not a film.

It's reality.

We wish that what is happening in Syria was a film.

At least Arabs would do something for us."

 

[DinoDoc]

Civil wars tend to make new governments ineffectual.

Makes for an awesome place to put what was essentially an unsecured fascility, doesn't it? And a worthy ally.

 

[DinoDoc]

re the tweet: Do angry mobs usually go trolling websites on the off chance there might be something that dissuades them from burning the place down? And if Romney wasn't correct in his condemnation of it, why was the Admin so quick to disavow it?