|
Please don't use this thread as a platform to argue about religion. -semioldguy |
On September 13 2012 05:55 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2012 05:50 CrimsonLotus wrote:On September 13 2012 05:38 Vindicare605 wrote:On September 13 2012 05:34 CrimsonLotus wrote: Man, if I was Obama I would sure feel a strong need to bomb the shit out of Libya (again). First time in a long time the US would actually be justified in doing something like that. How does the death of one ambassador and a few security personnel justify bombing the crap out of Libya and potentially killing scores of innocents? The United States got involved in Libya when NATO backed the Rebels there. We aren't a neutral party. I'm pretty sure is the obligation of the host nation to defend the embassies. Their failiure to do this implies some level of complicity or at least criminal incompetence, so in my view this would give the US some moral ground for military intervention. But I do agree that there wasn't such justification for the original campaing, so it's all really, really ironic. So...the already weak democratic government of Libya should be undermined further to the benefit of the terrorists that seek to overthrow it because the weak Libyan government's security forces are yet not competent enough to secure consulates? Makes sense.
I'm talking about a moral justification, not a rational one ; ).
Of course the US won't attack an allied goverment. But from a moral standpoint I certainly believe it to be more justified than bombing Irak, Iran or the original campaing against Libya. This was a direct attack on US citizens, it's goverment and worst of all a diplomatic body.
|
On September 13 2012 06:10 CrimsonLotus wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2012 05:55 Sub40APM wrote:On September 13 2012 05:50 CrimsonLotus wrote:On September 13 2012 05:38 Vindicare605 wrote:On September 13 2012 05:34 CrimsonLotus wrote: Man, if I was Obama I would sure feel a strong need to bomb the shit out of Libya (again). First time in a long time the US would actually be justified in doing something like that. How does the death of one ambassador and a few security personnel justify bombing the crap out of Libya and potentially killing scores of innocents? The United States got involved in Libya when NATO backed the Rebels there. We aren't a neutral party. I'm pretty sure is the obligation of the host nation to defend the embassies. Their failiure to do this implies some level of complicity or at least criminal incompetence, so in my view this would give the US some moral ground for military intervention. But I do agree that there wasn't such justification for the original campaing, so it's all really, really ironic. So...the already weak democratic government of Libya should be undermined further to the benefit of the terrorists that seek to overthrow it because the weak Libyan government's security forces are yet not competent enough to secure consulates? Makes sense. I'm talking about a moral justification, not a rational one ; ). Of course the US won't attack an allied goverment. But from a moral standpoint I certainly believe it to be more justified than bombing Irak, Iran or the original campaing against Libya. This was a direct attack on US citizens, it's goverment and worst of all a diplomatic body. "more justified" is not the same as "justified"
|
On September 13 2012 05:51 starfries wrote:it's a real shame. my condolences to the innocents who get caught in the crossfire between our idiots and their idiots. Show nested quote +On September 13 2012 05:34 CrimsonLotus wrote: Man, if I was Obama I would sure feel a strong need to bomb the shit out of Libya (again). First time in a long time the US would actually be justified in doing something like that. don't be stupid, this is not Libya attacking America. this is a bunch of nutjobs who killed both Libyans and Americans.
Our idiots = ???
|
It was an angry mob of civilians that attacked the embassy. Not an organized group.
|
On September 13 2012 06:27 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2012 05:51 starfries wrote:it's a real shame. my condolences to the innocents who get caught in the crossfire between our idiots and their idiots. On September 13 2012 05:34 CrimsonLotus wrote: Man, if I was Obama I would sure feel a strong need to bomb the shit out of Libya (again). First time in a long time the US would actually be justified in doing something like that. don't be stupid, this is not Libya attacking America. this is a bunch of nutjobs who killed both Libyans and Americans. Our idiots = ??? the guys that make videos trying to provoke an extremist response?
|
On September 13 2012 06:28 Voltaire wrote: It was an angry mob of civilians that attacked the embassy. Not an organized group.
Because angry mobs totally come fully armed with mortars and rocket propelled grenades? You're ignoring clear facts if you think that this wasn't perpetrated by an organization. Ambassador Stevens was also widely admired by local Libyans for his support of the Libyan rebels and their cause.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/world/middleeast/us-envoy-to-libya-is-reported-killed.html?_r=1&smid=tw-bna
Even more evidence to confirm that the locals clearly had no role to play in this: http://imgur.com/a/tlCyI [series of images from pro-US rallies in Libya]
|
Yes, angry mobs DO have mortars and RPGs. This country just had a civil war. One side was exclusively angry mobs, the other was the military. The angry mobs won. There are tons of weapons floating around these countries. You don't have to be a military organization to get these kinds of weapons. You can buy them from street vendors.
Obviously the Obama administration wants to say it was plotted in advance because it makes him look better. He looks a lot worse if an ambassador was killed by an angry mob as opposed to an organized terrorist group. But I don't believe it, not until some evidence comes out.
|
On September 13 2012 06:37 Voltaire wrote:Yes, angry mobs DO have mortars and RPGs. This country just had a civil war. One side was exclusively angry mobs, the other was the military. The angry mobs won. There are tons of weapons floating around these countries. You don't have to be a military organization to get these kinds of weapons. You can buy them from street vendors. Obviously the Obama administration wants to say it was plotted in advance because it makes him look better. He looks a lot worse if an ambassador was killed by an angry mob as opposed to an organized terrorist group. But I don't believe it, not until some evidence comes out. And how do you know it was an angry mob? Why cant you just say "Its unclear who actually killed the ambassador, an angry mob representing average Libyans or an angry mob that was infiltrated by an al-quida team that knew the standard Libyan response to threats to the staff and consequently responded that way themselves and so instead of blaming Obama I will withhold judgment until a later date"
|
On September 13 2012 06:37 Voltaire wrote:Yes, angry mobs DO have mortars and RPGs. This country just had a civil war. One side was exclusively angry mobs, the other was the military. The angry mobs won. There are tons of weapons floating around these countries. You don't have to be a military organization to get these kinds of weapons. You can buy them from street vendors. Obviously the Obama administration wants to say it was plotted in advance because it makes him look better. He looks a lot worse if an ambassador was killed by an angry mob as opposed to an organized terrorist group. But I don't believe it, not until some evidence comes out.
I dont understand however, why does he look bad if it was terrorists? I mean the president isn't responsible for everything...
|
|
On September 13 2012 06:53 unkkz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2012 06:37 Voltaire wrote:On September 13 2012 06:34 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:On September 13 2012 06:28 Voltaire wrote: It was an angry mob of civilians that attacked the embassy. Not an organized group. Because angry mobs totally come fully armed with mortars and rocket propelled grenades? You're ignoring clear facts if you think that this wasn't perpetrated by an organization. Ambassador Stevens was also widely admired by local Libyans for his support of the Libyan rebels and their cause. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/world/middleeast/us-envoy-to-libya-is-reported-killed.html?_r=1&smid=tw-bnaEven more evidence to confirm that the locals clearly had no role to play in this: http://imgur.com/a/tlCyI [series of images from pro-US rallies in Libya] Yes, angry mobs DO have mortars and RPGs. This country just had a civil war. One side was exclusively angry mobs, the other was the military. The angry mobs won. There are tons of weapons floating around these countries. You don't have to be a military organization to get these kinds of weapons. You can buy them from street vendors. Obviously the Obama administration wants to say it was plotted in advance because it makes him look better. He looks a lot worse if an ambassador was killed by an angry mob as opposed to an organized terrorist group. But I don't believe it, not until some evidence comes out. I dont understand however, why does he look bad if it was terrorists? I mean the president isn't responsible for everything...
Because at this time of the year everything gets reduced down to how it will reflect in the election. Sad but true.
|
On September 13 2012 05:50 CrimsonLotus wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2012 05:38 Vindicare605 wrote:On September 13 2012 05:34 CrimsonLotus wrote: Man, if I was Obama I would sure feel a strong need to bomb the shit out of Libya (again). First time in a long time the US would actually be justified in doing something like that. How does the death of one ambassador and a few security personnel justify bombing the crap out of Libya and potentially killing scores of innocents? The United States got involved in Libya when NATO backed the Rebels there. We aren't a neutral party. I'm pretty sure is the obligation of the host nation to defend the embassies. Their failiure to do this implies some level of complicity or at least criminal incompetence, so in my view this would give the US some moral ground for military intervention. But I do agree that there wasn't such justification for the original campaing, so it's all really, really ironic.
Defending the embassies is one thing.
Bombing the country that happens to house the rioters, extremists, militants etc. that attacked your embassy is something totally different.
I'm not saying the United States should do NOTHING about the attack, but potentially killing a bunch of innocent people with bombs is not going to solve anything and only accomplishes making the United States look a bunch of trigger happy tyrants.
The mature diplomatic approach is to work WITH the new Libyan government to find the people responsible for the attack and punish them.
|
Kind of wonder about that video, was it a innocent comedy or something created to be incendiary on purpose to destroy our relations in the Middle East? I even doubt they were true Jews maybe they were a bunch of spies sent to impersonate Jews.
Just amazed anyone would be that brazen about their mocking of Islam, you have to know anything you say its like kicking a beehive.
|
On September 13 2012 06:37 Voltaire wrote:Yes, angry mobs DO have mortars and RPGs. This country just had a civil war. One side was exclusively angry mobs, the other was the military. The angry mobs won. There are tons of weapons floating around these countries. You don't have to be a military organization to get these kinds of weapons. You can buy them from street vendors. Obviously the Obama administration wants to say it was plotted in advance because it makes him look better. He looks a lot worse if an ambassador was killed by an angry mob as opposed to an organized terrorist group. But I don't believe it, not until some evidence comes out.
Look at what you're saying. First, you (conveniently) ignored the fact that local Libyans widely admired the ambassador. Second, you seem to be operating from a heavily skewed image of "these countries." You ignore the fact that separate protests in "these countries" happening in Egypt were markedly different. You're presuming that these heavy explosives can be bought from street vendors (citation missing). Third, you also don't seem to be correctly gauging some of these weapons. If it were RPGs alone, maybe. But there were mortars. Mortars are longer-range weapons that have to be directed, and hence, coordinated. You don't just spontaneously decide to stop where you're standing on the street corner and shoot - you have to set up, adjust angles, and fire. That heavily implies organization.
|
On September 13 2012 00:55 ticklishmusic wrote: You kick a dog and it bites. Whose fault is it?
What an idiot.
You mean because someone totally unrelated made a retarded movie, and it offended someone, who then decided to kill some people totally unrelated to the movie makers, it is the fault of the movie makers?
People carry their own fault, these killers should be punished, and what the did is out of proportion to any insult that happened.
Also people died for no good reason, and here we are on the internet having our usual discussions about right or wrong.
The world saddens me at times god damnit.
|
On September 13 2012 07:22 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2012 05:50 CrimsonLotus wrote:On September 13 2012 05:38 Vindicare605 wrote:On September 13 2012 05:34 CrimsonLotus wrote: Man, if I was Obama I would sure feel a strong need to bomb the shit out of Libya (again). First time in a long time the US would actually be justified in doing something like that. How does the death of one ambassador and a few security personnel justify bombing the crap out of Libya and potentially killing scores of innocents? The United States got involved in Libya when NATO backed the Rebels there. We aren't a neutral party. I'm pretty sure is the obligation of the host nation to defend the embassies. Their failiure to do this implies some level of complicity or at least criminal incompetence, so in my view this would give the US some moral ground for military intervention. But I do agree that there wasn't such justification for the original campaing, so it's all really, really ironic. Defending the embassies is one thing. Bombing the country that happens to house the rioters, extremists, militants etc. that attacked your embassy is something totally different. I'm not saying the United States should do NOTHING about the attack, but potentially killing a bunch of innocent people with bombs is not going to solve anything and only accomplishes making the United States look a bunch of trigger happy tyrants. The mature diplomatic approach is to work WITH the new Libyan government to find the people responsible for the attack and punish them. exactly.
have people seen this album, at the top of Reddit?
http://imgur.com/a/tlCyI
this is a pro-US demonstration in Benghazi. it's Libyans, condemning the terrorists and reminding people that these people do not represent Islam. don't be so eager to judge an entire country based on the actions of the few.
|
On September 13 2012 06:28 Voltaire wrote: It was an angry mob of civilians that attacked the embassy. Not an organized group.
This was a coordinated and well-planned attack, not a bunch of random nutjob angry mobs.
|
On September 13 2012 12:32 jellyjello wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2012 06:28 Voltaire wrote: It was an angry mob of civilians that attacked the embassy. Not an organized group. This was a coordinated and well-planned attack, not a bunch of random nutjob angry mobs.
It's been confirmed that armed gunmen had planned to attack US targets. They did not plan the demonstration nor the appearance of the ambassador, but used both events to their advantage.
|
Wow....this is so saddening, not to mention how, suddenly, our sort of sphere has suddenly been hit by what appears to be an event very very unlikely to affect us... RIP all of those involved 
And over such a movie? Wow.
|
Here are the facts about the incident that I have found, which basically tell the story: (sources at bottom with a TL;DR)
Summary from articles: + Show Spoiler +"a crowd gathered at dusk, about 7 p.m. (1700 GMT), chanting slogans against the film and angry at Washington's failure to act against its promoters. At some point, shooting began, with some in the crowd thinking they were under fire from the consulate. Around 10 p.m., rioters surged into the compound, bullets and grenades flew, and fires started.
Among the assailants, Libyans identified units of a heavily armed local Islamist group, Ansar al-Sharia, which sympathizes with al Qaeda and derides Libya's U.S.-backed bid for democracy.
Eventually, some three dozen Americans drove off to a safe house, knowing one diplomat was dead and Ambassador Christopher Stevens missing. When an eight-man rescue team flew in from Tripoli, they and their Libyan escorts were pinned down with the survivors by another attack in which two more Americans died...
...Tellingly, he [Abdel-Salam al-Bargathi, who runs the security operations] and another senior officer, Wissam Buhmeid, the commander of the pro-government local defense force, the Libya's Shield Brigade, stressed that the Libyan guards on the consulate - estimated by Bargathi at up to 40 or more - may have felt little will to defend the compound from what they, and many other Libyans, judged to be justified religious indignation....
...I first of all place the blame on the United States itself for allowing such a movie to be produced. This was the product of the anger of Muslims," Buhmeid said, noting also that the guards had only light weapons in the face of rockets.
...I saw utter chaos. The power went out and it was completely dark," he said. "There were definitely people from the security forces who let the attack happen because they were themselves offended by the film; they would absolutely put their loyalty to the Prophet over the consulate. The deaths and injuries and attacks are all nothing compared to insulting the Prophet."
Bargathi, of the police command, said the killings had taken the protest too far, but said: "What we saw was a very natural reaction to the insult to the Prophet. We condemn the deaths but the insult to the Prophet made people very angry."
Ali Fetori, 59, an accountant who lives near the embassy, said: "The security people ... just all ran away and the people in charge were the young men with guns and bombs.""
...Libyan officials said the surviving Americans withdrew to a safe house. It would be normal security procedure in countries like Libya for international personnel to have a secure, secret location prepared for just such an eventuality.
Captain Fathi al-Obeidi, commander of a special operations force for the February 17 Brigade, told Reuters that he took a call about 1:30 a.m. from Tripoli telling him that a helicopter was on its way from the capital's Mitiga airport with a rescue squad of eight U.S. troops - he described them as marines...
...Here, two more things went wrong. First, Obeidi found four times as many Americans at the single-storey, fortified house as he had been told expect - 37, not just 10. So he did not have enough transport. Then, the villa came under massive attack.
This time, there was little doubt in the minds of Libyans who experienced it that this was a well-organized assault by men who had mastered the complexities of military mortar fire.
"This attack was planned," Obeid said. "The accuracy with which the mortars hit us was too good for any ordinary revolutionaries."
...Though Libya's deputy interior minister described the locating of the safe house as a "critical security breach"...
"It began to rain down on us," Obeidi said just as the rescue force was preparing to leave. "About six mortars fell directly on the path to the villa," he said. One American fell wounded by him. A mortar struck the building itself, throwing from the roof another American posted there onto the men below."
TL;DR The attack is said to have been deliberate and planned; four Americans, including the Libyan Ambassador were killed. Three dozen Americans escaped to a safe house where they, again, were attacked with heavy fire, including mortars. Head Libyan security officials place "blame on the United States itself for allowing such a movie to be produced. This was the product of the anger of Muslims.." Noting that the 40+ Libyan guards did not help protect the compound because they too were angered. Obama has tightened security at all embassies and two Naval destroyers have been sent to the Libyan coast in case the US wishes to pursue further action against Libyan targets.
Source 1 Source 2 (from Reuters)
|
|
|
|