Yahoo.com : US Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens killed in consulate attack in Benghazi

[THEREALTOR1]

1. Oil

So we get FREE oil in return for the aide we provide? I was under the assumption that we paid for our oil just like everybody else in the world.

2. Suez Canal

This one confused me a bit so I wiki'd it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Canal

The canal is owned and maintained by the Suez Canal Authority[6] (SCA) of Egypt. Under international treaty, it may be used "in time of war as in time of peace, by every vessel of commerce or of war, without distinction of flag."[7]...

By 1955 approximately two-thirds of Europe's oil passed through the canal. About 7.5% of world sea trade is carried via the canal today. In 2008, a total of 21,415 vessels passed through the canal and the receipts from the canal totaled $5.381 billion,[55] with the average cost per-ship at roughly $251,000.

So just the same with the oil scenario above, we still pay for the usage of the canal (just like everybody else does), not something we receive for FREE in exchange for the aide provided.

3. Basic human compassion

Except when it comes to the killing of innocent americans. Compassion. Got it.

Not trying to bust your balls Dj, (i've made an almost verbatim reply earlier in this thread as to what Skin'em posted above, so its really no mystery which side of the argument I fall on) ,I just get tired of the same excuses being made over and over, and the only constants I continue to see are wasted taxpayer dollars and more dead americans.

[visionary]

People are still protesting against the attacks for the third day now in Libya.

(also there's been some candle light vigils across the US)

The protests were smaller yesterday, but they increased again today, probably since it's Friday.

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.279016282203019.51898.111954325575883&type=3#!/media/set/?set=a.279016282203019.51898.111954325575883&type=3

Anti Extremism Protest مظاهرة ضد التطرف

Updated on Thursday · Taken in Tripoli, Libya

[Corcaigh]

and the only constants I continue to see are wasted taxpayer dollars and more dead americans.

Maybe you aren't looking hard enough. The people who themselves are in harm's way would disagree with your assessment.

[THEREALTOR1]

Maybe you aren't looking hard enough. The people who themselves are in harm's way would disagree with your assessment.

I must've missed that part of the story where 100 innocent Libyians were killed during the attack, can you please link it? Can you be more specific in defining Who, and In harms way of What?

[abdcskins]

Such a small inconsequential film. No one is going to see it. What's the big deal? The American embassies have nothing to do with this movie. These morons don't know what they are doing. I can understand the rage but they are lashing out wildly. Senseless violence that will amount to nothing.

[DjTj]

So we get FREE oil in return for the aide we provide? I was under the assumption that we paid for our oil just like everybody else in the world.

So just the same with the oil scenario above, we still pay for the usage of the canal (just like everybody else does), not something we receive for FREE in exchange for the aide provided.

Having stable governments in control of these areas allows private interests to buy and trade oil freely. If these regions fall into chaos, or under the control of extremists, the amount we will have to pay for oil, or for using the canal, could increase dramatically (or in a worst case scenario, oil wells could burn and the canal could close). Supporting a basic level of stability is the economic interest of any country involved in international trade.

Except when it comes to the killing of innocent americans. Compassion. Got it.

I don't really understand this comment. I think we all have compassion for those who have lost their lives in support of our diplomatic goals. The Libyan government, in particular, has expressed a very candid sympathy and pledged their cooperation in investigating the attack.

Not trying to bust your balls Dj, (i've made an almost verbatim reply earlier in this thread as to what Skin'em posted above, so its really no mystery which side of the argument I fall on) ,I just get tired of the same excuses being made over and over, and the only constants I continue to see are wasted taxpayer dollars and more dead americans.

America is still the most powerful nation in the world. And people like Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty were working to keep it that way. Freedom isn't free, whether it is taxpayer dollars or American lives.

I must've missed that part of the story where 100 innocent Libyians were killed during the attack, can you please link it? Can you be more specific in defining Who, and In harms way of What?

Estimates are as high as 15,000 Libyans that were killed during the civil war.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/09/us-libya-un-deaths-idUSTRE7584UY20110609

I think that basic human compassion mandates that we be there, and that we do what we can to help. As a rich and powerful nation, I believe that we have a duty to help others in need. And while the road isn't always going to be smooth, I think it will bring us more friends and allies in the long run.

[twa]

Estimates are as high as 15,000 Libyans that were killed during the civil war.

.

How many did we get?.....many obviously needed killing..... and we missed some

[Corcaigh]

Can you be more specific in defining Who, and In harms way of What?

American diplomats, aid workers and their security who place themselves in harm's way (or thugs, terrorists and the like) in order to advance the lives of the people in the nations they are helping.

[Dan T.]

Such a small inconsequential film. No one is going to see it. What's the big deal? The American embassies have nothing to do with this movie. These morons don't know what they are doing. I can understand the rage but they are lashing out wildly. Senseless violence that will amount to nothing.

Some truth in that post. I wouldn't use the term morons, but people ther seem willfully ignorant about how American society works. Am I mistaken, or did Egyptian president Morsi himself suggest that the U.S. prosecute the makers of the film? If the president of the nation is that ignorant of the notion of freedom of speech in a democracy, it's no wonder mobs are blaming the U.S. government.

In the meantime the filmmaker must be delighted at the uproar he's caused. Create a film saying, in part, that the Muslim religion is steeped in violence, then watch as Muslim fundamentalists violently attack Embassies to protest the film.

[visionary]

Some truth in that post. I wouldn't use the term morons, but people ther seem willfully ignorant about how American society works. Am I mistaken, or did Egyptian president Morsi himself suggest that the U.S. prosecute the makers of the film? If the president of the nation is that ignorant of the notion of freedom of speech in a democracy, it's no wonder mobs are blaming the U.S. government.

In the meantime the filmmaker must be delighted at the uproar he's caused. Create a film saying, in part, that the Muslim religion is steeped in violence, then watch as Muslim fundamentalists violently attack Embassies to protest the film.

Actually I've heard the filmmaker may be in a bit of trouble.

http://af.reuters.com/article/libyaNews/idAFL5E8KEIZ720120914

Los Angeles probation office investigates Cerritos-based filmmaker linked to anti-Islamic movie

LOS ANGELES - Federal probation officials in Los Angeles are investigating whether the Cerritos-based filmmaker behind an anti-Muslim film that sparked deadly riots in Libya may have violated his probation stemming from a bank fraud conviction, authorities said today.

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, 55, who has been identified as one of the makers of the film "Innocence of Muslims" -- which has set off a wave of violent anti-American protests across the Middle East -- pleaded no contest in 2010 to charges in Los Angeles federal court, papers show.

He was sentenced by U.S. District Court Judge Christine A. Snyder to 21 months in federal prison and ordered not to use computers or the Internet for five years without prior authorization. He was also ordered to pay about $790,000 in restitution.

Karen Redmond, a spokeswoman for the administrative office of the U.S. Courts in Washington, D.C., said the federal probation department in Los Angeles is "reviewing" Nakoula's activities to determine if he violated the terms of his probation. If so, he could be sent back to prison.

Nice guy by the way....

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/09/pcp/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=socialmedia&utm_campaign=twitterclickthru

Incendiary ‘Muslims’ Moviemaker Was Arrested for Making PCP

[Destino]

Some truth in that post. I wouldn't use the term morons, but people ther seem willfully ignorant about how American society works. Am I mistaken, or did Egyptian president Morsi himself suggest that the U.S. prosecute the makers of the film? If the president of the nation is that ignorant of the notion of freedom of speech in a democracy, it's no wonder mobs are blaming the U.S. government.

I am not willing to write this off as ignorance, willful or otherwise, in regards to how American society works. This is good ol fashion supremacy in which which people X are superior to people Y and as such are entitled to react to the slightest perceived slight with unrepentant violence. This is not a Libyan issue, as we have seen this behavior in other nations, or a muslim issue. I am not implying that all people of any nationality or religion harbor these supremacist beliefs or penchant for violence. There is however clearly a segment of the population that feels justified in seeking a pound of flesh for any perceived slight and I doubt very much that they hold their neighbors and own societies to the same bloody standard.

[Corcaigh]

Some truth in that post. I wouldn't use the term morons, but people ther seem willfully ignorant about how American society works. Am I mistaken, or did Egyptian president Morsi himself suggest that the U.S. prosecute the makers of the film? If the president of the nation is that ignorant of the notion of freedom of speech in a democracy, it's no wonder mobs are blaming the U.S. government.

Whether he is ignorant or just acting it, the Egyptian President has a careful balancing act. He was elected by people for, let's be delicate, taking a position of independence from the West. He can't be seen to act like Mubarak but he also doesn't want the US to be an enemy. Rock and a hard place.

[LadySkinsFan]

This should be a teachable moment as to how our Constitution works to protect basic rights, rights that the people in these countries have no notion of since they don't have such freedoms.

It's the main difference between theocracies and the rule of law.

[AsiaticSkinsFan]

I want all of the US politicians to stop saying "God Bless the United States of America." We are a nation under the rule of law, not a theocracy.

God does not give two cents about countries.

I agree

[Duckus]

Interesting read from the New Yorker about the protests in Cairo. It is easy to lump the protests in Cairo with the attack in Benghazi, but they are very very different. Interesting perspective.

Cairo: Between the Protesters and the Embassy

Where to begin? Pick a side: the Egyptian police stand in front of the U.S. Embassy; the protestors have Tahrir Square at their back. The space between them is fluid—sometimes the protesters surge forward, hurling rocks; and then a command comes from the cops and they fire tear-gas launchers, driving back the mob. But the push is never absolute. Neither side seems determined to win, and if there is any larger purpose to this conflict, it’s not obvious.

Both parties are open to outsiders. This afternoon, anyone can enter from the back, because everybody is focussed on the no man’s land that divides the fighters. Vendors circle back and forth, selling the same things on either side: peanuts and bread, coffee and tea. There are bystanders everywhere. They tend to be better dressed on the police side, because many come from businesses that have shut down early on account of their proximity to the U.S. Embassy. While I’m standing with the police, I chat with an Egyptian who tells me that his bank let everybody off at 1:30 today. He is about thirty years old and he wears a pinstriped suit. He arrived with two colleagues, both of whom have retreated fifty yards in order to avoid the tear gas. They hold white handkerchiefs against their noses. “I don’t support these protests,” the bank employee tells me. “Of course I think it’s terrible for somebody to make a film that insults Islam. It’s right to protest. But there should not be any violence.”

He is watching the officers around us, who are with the central security forces. They wear all-black uniforms, and supposedly they have more training and responsibility than Cairo street cops, but this is not always apparent. They do not appear to move in units or regimens. Some wear helmets and carry shields; some wear baseball caps; some are bareheaded. A half-dozen sit on the curb, drinking coffee from the vendors. A lucky handful are armed with tear-gas rifles. But most of them simply fight with rocks that they find on the ground. This is the defining weapon of the battle that goes nowhere: the protesters throw rocks, and then the cops gather up the same rocks and throw them back—and so it goes, around and around, for hours at a stretch. Almost nobody is ever hit.

It takes less than ten minutes for me to circle around to the protesters’ side. There are more people here—more rock-throwers, more vendors, more bystanders. Periodically, a tear-gas canister hisses into the crowd, and people scatter as the heavy white smoke billows outward. Nobody seems to mind that I’m American. This is something else that connects both sides: even though one group is defending the U.S. Embassy, and the other is ostensibly attacking it, they seem inclined to ignore any actual American who wanders in their midst. Every conversation that I have today is initiated by me. Perhaps they prefer to keep their target abstract and distant; after all, these demonstrations started because of a trailer for a film, entitled “Innocence of Muslims,” which was made halfway around the world and features the Prophet Mohammed. Whenever I initiate a conversation, I eventually ask the same question: Have you seen the film? Again and again, the answer is no. “I cannot watch a porn movie like this,” one young man tells me. Others explain that they haven’t had time, or they aren’t online, or they’ve heard enough about the movie from others. Maybe this is for the best—the film is truly atrocious and offensive—but it also makes me wonder about the complete disconnect that I feel as I travel around the city. Away from Tahrir, few people seem to care much about the insult. In fact, it’s more common to hear people complain about the violent protests than the film.

So how are we to make sense out of what is happening? The first step, I believe, is to separate the events in Egypt and Libya. It seems natural to connect them, and this instinct is also in the spirit of the chain effect that we saw last year with the Arab Spring. But in fact the two recent events have very different textures. In Cairo, the outer wall of the U.S. Embassy was breached, and protesters captured the American flag—an obvious symbolic target, and a natural outcome of mob action. In Libya, Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other staff members were ambushed and killed at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. Why did the attackers choose Benghazi? Why not Tripoli, the capital and the home to the U.S. Embassy? Why was the violence so much worse in Libya, where people tend to be less religious than Egyptians? And if a crowd was responding spontaneously to the insult, why were they armed with missile launchers instead of rocks and Molotov ****tails?

“We believe that it was a planned attack,” one foreign diplomat in Cairo told me, pointing out that the Ambassador was making a routine visit to Benghazi. “We think that it had been planned for a while, and the goal was to kill the Ambassador. We don’t think it was the Libyan militias—they have no agenda against Americans. It might not even be Libyans. Libya is so porous now; it’s very easy for any external group to get in there. They may have been foreigners.”

I asked what role the film about Mohammed played.

“It’s an excuse,” she said. “I don’t think the movie really had anything to do with it.”

Like others I talked to, she expressed surprise that security had apparently been low for the Ambassador’s visit to Benghazi. “It seems very strange that a U.S. ambassador would go there without appropriate security precautions. They failed to get intelligence, and they didn’t have the appropriate security. This is what we’ve heard from intelligence officers.”

In Egypt, there is as yet no evidence of such a plot. Instead, the events at the U.S. Embassy seem to reflect the general deterioration of security around the country, especially with regard to diplomatic missions. Since the revolution, four embassies have been breached by protestors: Israel, Myanmar, Saudi Arabia, and the United States. These protests often begin because of some distant event—Myanmar, for example, was targeted because of the government’s treatment of the Rohingya, a Muslim minority—and demonstrators have learned that the Egyptian authorities are reluctant to use force. This is especially true now that the Muslim Brotherhood is in power, trying to establish themselves as the first democratically elected government in decades. “The problem with the current government is that there is a huge fear of hurting the protestors, especially if [the government] is defending foreigners,” the foreign diplomat told me. “It’s a very populist regime.” She continued, “That’s one of the aftereffects of the revolution. They have the right to make these protests, and they know that the security forces won’t do anything.”

For Americans, these events will undoubtedly result in a foreign service that is even more cloistered than before. Isolation has always been a problem: officers tend to cycle through quickly, changing countries every two or three years, and it’s unusual to have fluent speakers in a country like Egypt. Ambassador Stevens was a rarity—a former Peace Corps volunteer who served in Morocco and spoke Arabic well. He had a reputation for being extremely active, taking a hands-on approach to the challenges of a country in transition, and probably this contributed to his exposure to risk in Benghazi. The lesson won’t be lost on an institution whose first instinct is often to retreat. Over the years, American embassies around the world have become increasingly fortified, to the point where they resemble prisons. This afternoon, when I walked by the compound in Cairo, workers were installing a new touch—razor wire atop the graffiti-marked wall.

After a couple of hours on Tahrir, I finally meet somebody who has seen at least some footage from “Innocence of Muslims.” His name is Ahmed Ragab, and he’s resting at the center of the square, his face mask pulled onto his forehead. He says that what he has seen of the movie portrays the Prophet as sex-crazed, which has nothing to do with the truth. “He didn’t even marry until he was forty years old,” Ragab says. “And his wife was even older.” But he tells me that he doesn’t really approve of what’s happening here in downtown Cairo. “I’m against it,” he says. “I don’t want people attacking the Embassy. But I believe that people need to make some statement about this. Americans need to know that the vast majority of Muslims are not extremists, but an incident like this can stimulate them and make them angry. We have to ask them to do something to prevent things like this. Make some kind of law. Like here in Egypt—we can’t make a film that criticizes Jesus.”

This is one of the most confusing aspects for young Egyptians. Earlier today, an eighteen-year-old said to me, “The United States says that they are the strongest country in the world, but they can’t stop this movie. How can that be true? They should either stop the movie, or they should stop saying they are the strongest country in the world.”

Ragab seems thoughtful, and I tell him that even President Obama has no power over what films Americans make. “Of course there is freedom in the U.S., and that’s a good thing,” Ragab says. “But freedom has to have some limits. You can’t make a movie just to hurt somebody else’s feelings.”

He is sitting in front of his parked motorcycle. He works as a night-shift deliveryman—this evening, he will start at 7 P.M. and work until 6 A.M. He is twenty-four years old, and he has a law degree from Ein Shams University. In Cairo this isn’t uncommon: you often meet highly educated people doing basic jobs. “I couldn’t find a job as a lawyer,” Ragab says. He makes about two hundred dollars a month as a deliveryman.

When I ask if he’s religious, he says that he prays five times a day but doesn’t consider himself particularly devout. Still, he says that religion becomes more important in hard times. “We don’t have anything in our life,” he says. “We don’t have luxuries. We are not spoiled by good things. We just have our religion. That’s why we are here, to support our faith. This is the one thing we have and we can’t lose it. Look at our life here! The food is bad, the water is polluted, the air is dirty, the education system is corrupt.”

With the clouds of tear gas hanging in the sky, and the ragged protesters milling around, I ask if he is optimistic or pessimistic. “Of course I am optimistic, insha’allah,” he says. “It says in the Koran: ‘Hard times and good times come together.’ I’m optimistic that we’ll have some good times after this.”

Next to him, a young man named Mustafa Ibrahim speaks up. “Islam is like a tennis ball,” he says. “When you hit it hard, it bounces back higher. An incident like this will just strengthen the religion.”

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/09/cairo-between-the-protesters-and-the-embassy.html#slide_ss_0=1

[The 12th Commandment]

Another interesting take on it.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/09/201291464128859414.html

...

This was all after the late Ayatollah Montazeri (1922-2009) had repented from his role in making the Islamic republic a viable proposition, objected to the mass execution of political prisoners, and one of his family members, Seyyed Mehdi Hashemi, exposed the arms-for-hostage deal that would later be known as “the Iran Contra Affair.” Ayatollah Montazeri went to his grave having repented that gross miscalculation called “the Islamic republic,” and called the concoction “neither Islamic nor a republic”—about thirty years too late for a population of 75 million human beings now trapped inside a horrid theocracy presided by the Shi’i clerical class.

The differences between 2012 and 1979

The same danger is now looming from Cairo to Benghazi to the rest of the Arab and Muslim world—for militant Salafis or Wahhabis to abuse this ignoramus film to derail a world historic succession of revolutions. But this time around Arab revolutionaries are far quicker in responding both to ghastly Islamophobia and the violent disrespect for the sacrosanct principle of diplomatic immunity. Demonstrations in both Benghazi and Cairo have categorically denounced the violence that has resulted in the death of Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

It is imperative that these denunciations be amply noted—as indeed President Morsi put it succinctly: "We Egyptians reject any kind of assault or insult against our prophet. I condemn and oppose all who... insult our prophet. [but] it is our duty to protect our guests and visitors from abroad... I call on everyone to take that into consideration, to not violate Egyptian law... to not assault embassies.”

This is the difference between Khomeini n 1979 and Morsi in 2012. Beware the false fury. The US has done enough atrocities around the globe to be blamed for just about everything—but this is a different season—this is the season of the Green Movement and the Arab Spring—do not be fooled by these zealotries of the fanatics who are trying to steal the revolution. Diplomatic immunity of even a global hubris like the United States must remain sacrosanct for civilised life to be possible. Many of those who took over the US embassy in Tehran have now repented and joined the opposition—never admitting to the full scale of the calamity they caused in their homeland by having been the instruments of a vicious theocracy.

- continued at link

[AsiaticSkinsFan]

Interesting read from the New Yorker about the protests in Cairo. It is easy to lump the protests in Cairo with the attack in Benghazi, but they are very very different. Interesting perspective.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/09/cairo-between-the-protesters-and-the-embassy.html#slide_ss_0=1

thats a really good article

[Stadium-Armory]

Thinking ahead a few years; Reading the tea leaves; Access to oil is a major concern.

I think you'll see us support the current Saudi regime at all costs (as if that is anything new). But it is now more critical than ever.

[AsiaticSkinsFan]

Rachel Maddow does a good job reporting this, and does some links to show a possible connection on the group who did this

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#49027233

---------- Post added September-14th-2012 at 09:55 PM ----------

this was an attack, straight up.

[Bang]

Of course it was an attack. It's pretty obvious.

The methodology of many of these radical groups over the years has been to whip up protests that get people angry and gets a few of them injured or killed.. all on chaotic anger filled video tape.. then the funerals are disrupted and videotaped and more outrage is created... there's tons of videos of them orchestrating phony injuries for filmed ambulances being under false attack...

it's been shown a hundred different ways that it's relatively few who do this, the rest fall into the mob mentality.

The US having better relations with these new regimes in the region will finally finish the extremists. So they will do anything they can to try and disrupt it.

There's some evil people to whom power is worth any sacrifice,, even if it's their own people. And they use a lot of propaganda to accomplish their ends.. like creating false anger, or movies to create the anger in the first place.

~Bang

[Destino]

This should be a teachable moment as to how our Constitution works to protect basic rights, rights that the people in these countries have no notion of since they don't have such freedoms.

It's the main difference between theocracies and the rule of law.

So you've decided to blame Libya for the acts of this angry mob (that may have been coordinated)?

[AsiaticSkinsFan]

idk if the US having better relationships with these governments will kill off these extremist groups, imo unless they support hardmen like Qadaffi or Saddam.

and the point in saying it was an attack was to say its organized and not a protest gone bad like it was originally reported.

[Bang]

So you've decided to blame Libya for the acts of this angry mob (that may have been coordinated)?

Tonight I had a discussion about this with my wife, who was not born in the US (Hong Kong).

She wants to know why we can't arrest the filmmaker for instigating this.. and you know why, no need for me to write it out.

These folks in these countries.. freedom of speech, even speech we deplore,, it's something they don't understand. They'd cut out his tongue.. (at minimum) whereas we'd like to ... but realize that if we do, we're no longer free.

~Bang

[zoony]

They interviewed a real genius on NBC nightly news tonight. One of the demonstrators explained that the US condemnation of the film wasn't enough and was too little too late. Hence, justification for the violence. And that now, because of the US, Egyptian security forces have been turned on their own people.

That is the kind of mental capacity we are dealing with over there. ****ing morons, the lot of them demonstrating. The world would be a better place without them.

And I'm seriously tired of efforts to understand them. **** them. Every single one of those ignorant ****s. We don't put up with similar small minded fools in this country, the rules don't change when you go overseas.

[visionary]

They interviewed a real genius on NBC nightly news tonight. One of the demonstrators explained that the US condemnation of the film wasn't enough and was too little too late. Hence, justification for the violence. And that now, because of the US, Egyptian security forces have been turned on their own people.

That is the kind of mental capacity we are dealing with over there. ****ing morons, the lot of them demonstrating. The world would be a better place without them.

And I'm seriously tired of efforts to understand them. **** them. Every single one of those ignorant ****s. We don't put up with similar small minded fools in this country, the rules don't change when you go overseas.

Unfortunately the world is full of people like this.

There are stupid and crazy and even dangerous people everywhere.

Also there is a lot of animosity between much of the youth in Cairo and the security there.

A good amount of the protests are fuled by this.