Us Ambassador Chris Stevens Killed In Libya

[GentlemanJim]

My view over the Ambassadors death is that it was caused by zealots who got upset about a crappy, intentionally provocative movie. The Ambassador did need a contingent of Marines. They were in the Embassy, he was in a distant consulate. Why he chose to travel, as the boss without his cadre of US security is mystifying, but that is with hindsight, I guess he had his reasons.

I agree with you 100% on the rest of your post. You are preaching to the converted (perhaps not a choice phrase considering the subject matter). There is absolutely no way that the British Government should be allowing Sharia courts/law to exist in the UK. Why they do it I do not know. Denying the Muslims that right is not provocative it is simply applying the law of a land that they chose to live in. Does the same message apply to deliberate provocation? That's your choice. There is nothing legally wrong with publishing the movie, the point is that knowing the consequences we have to make a risk management decision as to whether it is wise or not. The resulting furore over the cartoons and the like suggests it is an unwise move. If your choice is then to publish and be damned then you bear a responsibility for your actions and in this case people have been murdered. I hope the Ambassadors death does not spark off a wave of massive violence and although I am an atheist, I pray - to the spirit of humanity that we get through Friday without anybody being hurt today as a result of religious extremism.

Zealots! You mean Islamic terrorists that we have been at war with for over 10 years and effectively before that? Where have you been the last 20 years? It appears as though not only did Ambassador Stevens forget about this war, but so did the U.S. State department from recent reports that I've read - and on 9/11, no less.

I hate to say this, but It seems to me that Ambassador Stevens was ultimately responsible for his personal protection and safety and he should have taken appropriate measures. From what I read, Libya is still a well-armed relative anarchy and he certainly should have known that. Remember that female TV news reporter that was assaulted in Cairo during the protests? She was lucky she survived. It seems as though people who should know don't have a clue about these people.

I'm glad we agree on the FoS issue, at least.

Where do I disagree with you? A zealot is an extremist, what is your problem with that word? Everyone is discussing how religious/islamic extremists are getting upset. extremist/zealot, same thing.Today there will be a million extremists/zealots on the rampage. I have no idea how many of them are terrorists, I only know they are religious nutjobs - zealots.

Read my post again, it is quite clear that I think the Ambassador was responsible for his safety. He was the Boss of US Government resources within the country, I have questioned his decision not to have his security team with him as mystifying.

Edited September 14, 2012 by GentlemanJim

[Ulysses G.]

you have merely retorted with personal attack and an attempt at humiliation towards myself and others, the sycophants!

Sateev ripped apart a silly argument rather effectively. That is not a personal attack..

Edited September 14, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[geriatrickid]

If today's media reports are to be believed the movie was financed and produced by a Christian group in America in a deliberate attempt to cause unrest in the Islamic world. One of the group, Steve Klein, is an ex US military guy whose son was severely wounded in Iraq and appears to be very pleased with the outcome.

EDIT: With absolutely no regard to the consequences for westerners in the region. I agree with GentlemenJim that with this deliberate provocation, the authors should be held accountable, but looks to be impossible due to the US Constitution.

And what of the garbage that is aired daily in the Middle East showing Europeans as bloated perverts, Christians as savages, Jews as enemies of the nation, etc., etc. When is the last time anyone in the Middle East protested such depictions? What this event tells me is that someone went to alot of effort to dupe actors into making a Warriors of the Desert film, dubbed over the film, sought to blame it on an Israeli, took advantage of the hospitality and freedoms granted in the USA, all for a film that no one in the USA went to see, or cared about and that most people in the USA find offensive. The USA has gone to great lengths to express its disregard for the film, all the while making clear that the USA allows for freedom of expression. No one in the Egyptian government has ever denounced the screed adaptation of the Protocols of Zion.

Sorry, but I give thanks for the US Constitution even if it means that scum like the Westboro Church can offend people at funerals and disseminate its hate, or others to spew hate about former President Bush or current President Obama. That is the cost of freedom. Too many people died to make sure that right was preserved.

[Ulysses G.]

Californians were driving them in 1996. 0-60 in 3.6 secs. 100 mile on a single charge, enough for 90% of the population. Oil companies persuaded Bush to overturn the legislation in California as unconstitutional. The cars were either scrapped or made undriveable

Any link to proof for this claim? That would be interesting to read.

Edited September 14, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[morrobay]

If Gahdaffi in Libya and Mubarak in Egypt were still in power these attacks would not have happened.Sometimes a strongman is required to keep the lid on. It was a mistake to remove Gahdaffi and allow Mubarak to be removed .( Saddam also buts thats another topic ) In a perfect world this Arab spring would have produced democracy.But it was co-opted by radicals.

With all the so called resources the U.S. has , they did not have the forsight to see this ?

Edited September 14, 2012 by morrobay

[MaxYakov]

If today's media reports are to be believed the movie was financed and produced by a Christian group in America in a deliberate attempt to cause unrest in the Islamic world. One of the group, Steve Klein, is an ex US military guy whose son was severely wounded in Iraq and appears to be very pleased with the outcome.

EDIT: With absolutely no regard to the consequences for westerners in the region. I agree with GentlemenJim that with this deliberate provocation, the authors should be held accountable, but looks to be impossible due to the US Constitution.

And what of the garbage that is aired daily in the Middle East showing Europeans as bloated perverts, Christians as savages, Jews as enemies of the nation, etc., etc. When is the last time anyone in the Middle East protested such depictions? What this event tells me is that someone went to alot of effort to dupe actors into making a Warriors of the Desert film, dubbed over the film, sought to blame it on an Israeli, took advantage of the hospitality and freedoms granted in the USA, all for a film that no one in the USA went to see, or cared about and that most people in the USA find offensive. The USA has gone to great lengths to express its disregard for the film, all the while making clear that the USA allows for freedom of expression. No one in the Egyptian government has ever denounced the screed adaptation of the Protocols of Zion.

Sorry, but I give thanks for the US Constitution even if it means that scum like the Westboro Church can offend people at funerals and disseminate its hate, or others to spew hate about former President Bush or current President Obama. That is the cost of freedom. Too many people died to make sure that right was preserved.

Yes. What was the name of that movie again? Oh yes, Innocence of Muslims

[Sateev]

Try standing peacefully in New York and express your constitutional right to freedom of speech and say something like "the holocaust did not happen, jews are liars" and you will also find yourself doing the perp walk.

...

But Jingthing, whilst I understand you, everything you are saying smacks of a double standard. It would not be legal to stand and make such hate speech against jews, and in the UK you WILL be arrested. Some people have considered it would be interesting to make a documentary that the holocaust never happened. Now whilst they may find that artistically interesting, you and millions of others would correctly find it grossly offensive and demand that the perpertrators were punished.

I don't presume to speak for JT; rather for myself, as one of the 'millions of others'.

First, what might happen in the UK is irrelevant; the UK is a burgeoning police state, and bears little, if any resemblance to a free society. And we are not discussing the UK Ambassador's murder (if there is one). A US Government official was murdered by a mob.

And second, regardless of what you project onto 'millions of others', the United States has a constitution, which, although under vigorous attack, has managed to provide guidance for lo these 235 or so years. Free speech was not an afterthought; the notion of disagreeing with someone, but defending unto death the right for them to say it (often incorrectly attributed to Voltaire) was integral to the framing of the First Amendment. I don't dispute that there are millions of the uneducated, or poorly educated, that don't understand this, or the concept of due process, but, at least as the laws of the US are concerned, they are misinformed - just plain wrong.

As for what might be 'grossly offensive', I have a very low threshold for finding things offensive.

Just because the prevailing winds are of political correctness doesn't allow one to forget that winds change. 'Lynch Mobs for Jesus' is no more far fetched than 'radical Muslims for Beheading Ambassadors (of the US)...

As for your assertion that people might be doing 'the perp walk' if speaking openly, you forget one important thing: if arrested, they must be CONVICTED, and, I would add have the theoretical right to have that conviction either upheld or overturned by the highest court in the land, which is supposed to implement the Constitution. (The effectiveness/fidelity to that ideal may be questioned.) Equating a mob shouting down an unpopular speaker, or even police arresting that speaker, to complying with the law of the land is fallacious. IF the offender is convicted, and that conviction is sustained by the high court, THEN we might impute that the act was not protected free speech. The fact that there is a tendency toward lynching someone who voices an unpopular opinion argues that the very society in which this might occur is not a free, democratic, or even civilized one...

In short (too late?), you're full of the well-known article.

Edited September 14, 2012 by sbk
flame removed

[Fozfromoz]

My main point was that Freedom of Speech had nothing to do Ambassador's Stevens assassination, which is what this thread is about. By the latest news reports, however, his Libyan security men may have actually abandoned him to the attackers due their 'feelings' about that movie, but who knows for sure? He certainly needed a contingent of Marines willing to give their all to protect him.

Freedom of Speech is a complex issue, but the examples you give seem to me to be insipid. There are laws against slander and hate-speech, but I'm not an expert in this area.

The real issue to me is do you let some people who believe in a supernatural being and an associated mortal and who can get very violent dictate to us their beliefs even when an author has not violated any laws in the originating country. Once they are successful at that, what other dictates do they have in mind? Where do we draw the line? Isn't the UK bowing to Muslim desires by the use of Sharia 'councils' (I think they avoided the use of 'court')?: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16522447

Added: Let's reverse the situation. Suppose I detest the worship of a supernatural being and declare that any mention of the name of that being or belief in its very existence would result in violent attacks from me - because espousal of espousal of belief in supernatural beings hurt my 'feelings'?

My view over the Ambassadors death is that it was caused by zealots who got upset about a crappy, intentionally provocative movie. The Ambassador did need a contingent of Marines. They were in the Embassy, he was in a distant consulate. Why he chose to travel, as the boss without his cadre of US security is mystifying, but that is with hindsight, I guess he had his reasons.

I agree with you 100% on the rest of your post. You are preaching to the converted (perhaps not a choice phrase considering the subject matter). There is absolutely no way that the British Government should be allowing Sharia courts/law to exist in the UK. Why they do it I do not know. Denying the Muslims that right is not provocative it is simply applying the law of a land that they chose to live in. Does the same message apply to deliberate provocation? That's your choice. There is nothing legally wrong with publishing the movie, the point is that knowing the consequences we have to make a risk management decision as to whether it is wise or not. The resulting furore over the cartoons and the like suggests it is an unwise move. If your choice is then to publish and be damned then you bear a responsibility for your actions and in this case people have been murdered. I hope the Ambassadors death does not spark off a wave of massive violence and although I am an atheist, I pray - to the spirit of humanity that we get through Friday without anybody being hurt today as a result of religious extremism.

Zealots! You mean Islamic terrorists that we have been at war with for over 10 years and effectively before that? Where have you been the last 20 years? It appears as though not only did Ambassador Stevens forget about this war, but so did the U.S. State department from recent reports that I've read - and on 9/11, no less.

I hate to say this, but It seems to me that Ambassador Stevens was ultimately responsible for his personal protection and safety and he should have taken appropriate measures. From what I read, Libya is still a well-armed relative anarchy and he certainly should have known that. Remember that female TV news reporter that was assaulted in Cairo during the protests? She was lucky she survived. It seems as though people who should know don't have a clue about these people.

I'm glad we agree on the FoS issue, at least.

I was just wondering, don't Diplomatic teams, particularly US, have contracted security? Is that only in Iraq and Afghanistan?

I would have thought pretty much anywhere in the Middle East would warrant it.

[MaxYakov]

If Gahdaffi in Libya and Mubarak in Egypt were still in power these attacks would not have happened.Sometimes a strongman is required to keep the lid on. It was a mistake to remove Gahdaffi and allow Mubarak to be removed .( Saddam also buts thats another topic ) In a perfect world this Arab spring would have produced democracy.But it was co-opted by radicals.

With all the so called resources the U.S. has , they did not have the forsight to see this ?

Many people saw this coming. They just weren't part of the delusional ruling class.

[geriatrickid]

No one compelled the attackers to go out and murder the Ambassador to Libya. The film can hardly be considered the "cause". There are two very distinct issues. One is the savage terror attacks and the now apparent tolerance of ongoing intimidation tactics outside the US embassy in Egypt. The other is whether or not the film meets the legal test for incitement for violence against a religious group. As reprehensible as the film is, from the clips I saw, the film does not encourage or incite violence against muslims and is far tamer than what has apeared on Egyptian television.

Back to issue one. The protests in Egypt are wild,but appear to be controlled by several group leaders. Other embassies are at risk. The Canadian embassy had to close down as a mob gathered outside its perimiter. This then gives rise to the sanctity of foreign missions. The inability of Egypt to control its mob speaks volumes about the new Egyptian governments respect for the basic rules of diplomacy. At least the Libyans acted appropriately.

President Obama summed it up: Egypt is not an ally, nor is it an enemy. Hopefully, the U.S. Congress considers that when the billion dollar aid package is reviewed.

[theslime]

My main point was that Freedom of Speech had nothing to do Ambassador's Stevens assassination, which is what this thread is about. By the latest news reports, however, his Libyan security men may have actually abandoned him to the attackers due their 'feelings' about that movie, but who knows for sure? He certainly needed a contingent of Marines willing to give their all to protect him.

Freedom of Speech is a complex issue, but the examples you give seem to me to be insipid. There are laws against slander and hate-speech, but I'm not an expert in this area.

The real issue to me is do you let some people who believe in a supernatural being and an associated mortal and who can get very violent dictate to us their beliefs even when an author has not violated any laws in the originating country. Once they are successful at that, what other dictates do they have in mind? Where do we draw the line? Isn't the UK bowing to Muslim desires by the use of Sharia 'councils' (I think they avoided the use of 'court')?: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16522447

Added: Let's reverse the situation. Suppose I detest the worship of a supernatural being and declare that any mention of the name of that being or belief in its very existence would result in violent attacks from me - because espousal of espousal of belief in supernatural beings hurt my 'feelings'?

My view over the Ambassadors death is that it was caused by zealots who got upset about a crappy, intentionally provocative movie. The Ambassador did need a contingent of Marines. They were in the Embassy, he was in a distant consulate. Why he chose to travel, as the boss without his cadre of US security is mystifying, but that is with hindsight, I guess he had his reasons.

I agree with you 100% on the rest of your post. You are preaching to the converted (perhaps not a choice phrase considering the subject matter). There is absolutely no way that the British Government should be allowing Sharia courts/law to exist in the UK. Why they do it I do not know. Denying the Muslims that right is not provocative it is simply applying the law of a land that they chose to live in. Does the same message apply to deliberate provocation? That's your choice. There is nothing legally wrong with publishing the movie, the point is that knowing the consequences we have to make a risk management decision as to whether it is wise or not. The resulting furore over the cartoons and the like suggests it is an unwise move. If your choice is then to publish and be damned then you bear a responsibility for your actions and in this case people have been murdered. I hope the Ambassadors death does not spark off a wave of massive violence and although I am an atheist, I pray - to the spirit of humanity that we get through Friday without anybody being hurt today as a result of religious extremism.

I thought the Ambassador died because he represents the USA not because of a Film. RIP

[geriatrickid]

If Gahdaffi in Libya and Mubarak in Egypt were still in power these attacks would not have happened.Sometimes a strongman is required to keep the lid on. It was a mistake to remove Gahdaffi and allow Mubarak to be removed .( Saddam also buts thats another topic ) In a perfect world this Arab spring would have produced democracy.But it was co-opted by radicals.

With all the so called resources the U.S. has , they did not have the forsight to see this ?

What did you expect the USA to do? Invade Egypt to defend Munbarak? The Egyptians had an election and they elected a Muslim Brotherhood leader.

In Libya, the French and UK wanted Ghadaffi out and the USA was reluctantly dragged into the fight to protect the civilian population. The USA did not over throw Ghadaffi. His people did. The Libyan regime was in a downwards spiral as Mr. Ghadaffi was in his own world oblivious to his country's poverty. Keep in mind that the government largesse was lavished only on those tribes aligned with the Ghadaffi clan. Other tribes received nothing.

[chuckd]

I understand some of the injured Embassy personnel are contract security officers. Unfortunately they were outgunned in a soft target, which the staff should not have occupied in the first place.

This is an administration failure.

[geriatrickid]

Californians were driving them in 1996. 0-60 in 3.6 secs. 100 mile on a single charge, enough for 90% of the population. Oil companies persuaded Bush to overturn the legislation in California as unconstitutional. The cars were either scrapped or made undriveable

Any link to proof for this claim? That would be interesting to read.

Must be suppressed by that international media conspiracy I read about on TVF, Bit of a strange allegation, considering the fact that the obstacle has always been the construction of batteries that could carry enough of a charge without taking up too much space and not turning the vehicle into a rolling toxic waste can or fire trap. The battery technology didn't make headways until the last decade.

[Khun Jean]

'False flag' or 'Blowback' both are not good, and both are caused by ......... (fill in the blanks).

[MaxYakov]

I understand some of the injured Embassy personnel are contract security officers. Unfortunately they were outgunned in a soft target, which the staff should not have occupied in the first place.

This is an administration failure.

Administration failure. I like that! You mean like the one General G. A. Custer had?

[geriatrickid]

I understand some of the injured Embassy personnel are contract security officers. Unfortunately they were outgunned in a soft target, which the staff should not have occupied in the first place.

This is an administration failure.

Don't make a Romney of yourself please. There were two attacks at two locations.

The Ambassador and his State Department security officer made the decision not to evacuate when the Libyan security forces warned them to do so. Please check your facts.

In the second attack on the American safe house located on the grounds of the equestrian club, the Americans were being evacuated by Libyan and US security forces. There isn't much one can do when confornted wih a planned commando attack.This is where 2 of the Americans were killed and where the Libyan security forces took casualties.

[Sateev]

Are you being deliberately dull? NOBODY is saying ban free speech. EVERYBODY is saying free speech comes with responsibility. You may think it fun to make fun of other religions but when that fun results in the deaths of people, it doesn't matter if it is your right to have fun, the strong suggestion is, stop it. They may be religious retards, but if you KNOWINGLY incite them (just like the MillWall supporters) then there will be consequences, and if you are aware that those consequences will result in the harmful violence to others, then until you get all the religious retards locked up, you would also be retarded to provoke them. God this is hard work!!

It's hard work because your position is indefensible. Your fundamental flaw in reasoning, and that of the sycophants that keep 'liking' your posts, is the notion that the producers of the film are somehow responsible for the behavior of others. This is clearly nonsense. The very notion is a classical slippery slope, because it can be extended to blaming the victim in nearly every situation, i.e, "I HAD to rape her; she was wearing revealing clothes!"

The notable exceptions have to do with intent: shouting "Fire!" in a theater, threatening assassination, are both examples where the person acting, i.e., speaking, is demonstrating intent to harm. Ideas, while possibly unpalatable, do not cause direct harm, per se.

In simpler terms, which will probably be easier for you: appeasing a bully, or a threatening mob has guaranteed results: more bullying, and more threats. Abridging free speech is exactly what Bin Laden and his friends wanted: to take the (to them) abhorrent free society of the West, and turn it against itself, corrode it from within, and watch it fall. People who don't accept this outcome, and who have any strength of character, should not let this happen. We don't need another Neville Chamberlin, or his "Peace in our time".

On a personal note, I find your position beyond weak; it is cowardly.

How can the position be indefensible? How can stating that Freedom of Speech carries with it responsibility be indefensible?

Where does anyone say that the producers are responsible for the behaviour of others?

you say

The notable exceptions have to do with intent: shouting "Fire!" in a theater, threatening assassination, are both examples where the person acting, i.e., speaking, is demonstrating intent to harm. Ideas, while possibly unpalatable, do not cause direct harm, per se.

The producer of the film has already admitted that he had told Becile that there was going to be trouble if they made the movie. Demonstrating a knowledge of intent to harm?

Can you explain how my position can be cowardly. I believe that Free Speech comes with responsibility, it is as simple as that, is that cowardly?. Ironically looking at your lecture, I was exercising my right to Free Speech, which you believe should not be abridged, but you have not respected my right to that speech, you have merely retorted with personal attack and an attempt at humiliation towards myself and others, the sycophants! you actually called people that for ticking like on a post. Are they allowed a differing view to you without you labeling them sycophants?

The difference is that in the US neither your speech, nor mine, would result in a law being broken. I couldn't care less if you insult me; I would, as stated already, respect you more if you did it openly, rather than all this 'Jewish-owned media, wink-wink' crap.

Just once more, I'll explain it to you: the producers of the film did not do physical harm to anyone. That the threat of physical harm attaches to their behavior is the responsibility of those who make the threat, i.e., the radical Islamic mob. IF we allow our non-injurious behavior be controlled through the threat of violence by another party to ourselves or other third parties, that is known as extortion.

The kind of thinking that sees world domination by sneaky [insert religious group] is necessarily too fogged to complete this simple logic example.

In a hole? Stop digging...

[geriatrickid]

'False flag' or 'Blowback' both are not good, and both are caused by ......... (fill in the blanks).

Rather, are espoused by the usual lunatic fringe attempting to blame victims and non implicated parties.

The people you are slyly attempting to blame have no interest in seeing problems in Egypt or Libya.

[Sateev]

Read my post again, it is quite clear that I think the Ambassador was responsible for his safety. He was the Boss of US Government resources within the country, I have questioned his decision not to have his security team with him as mystifying.

The Ambassador was, as all of us are for our own, responsible for his safety.

The radical Islamist mob is responsible for his death.

[geriatrickid]

As an aside, 3 US diplomatic locations have been attacjked (Libya, Egypt and Yemen.)

It is reported that the The Swiss embassy in Iran, deemed a proxy for U.S. interests, is under siege by protesters.

The Canadian embassy in Cairo was closed Thursday as a precautionary measure and Canada has withdrawn its diplomatic presence in Iran. The UK had previously left Iran after is embassy was over run by a mob.

I don't think anyone has to be a soothsayer to see what the trend is.

[GentlemanJim]

Read my post again, it is quite clear that I think the Ambassador was responsible for his safety. He was the Boss of US Government resources within the country, I have questioned his decision not to have his security team with him as mystifying.

The Ambassador was, as all of us are for our own, responsible for his safety.

The radical Islamist mob is responsible for his death.

You have taken my quote completely out of context, and are pasting what you wish to suit your agenda. You are implying that I do not believe the islamist mob is responsible for the Ambassadors death.

[MaxYakov]

Read my post again, it is quite clear that I think the Ambassador was responsible for his safety. He was the Boss of US Government resources within the country, I have questioned his decision not to have his security team with him as mystifying.

The Ambassador was, as all of us are for our own, responsible for his safety.

The radical Islamist mob is responsible for his death.

Was it a mob or a planned command attack (geriatrickid - previous post)? If it was a mob, then they had small arms and RPGs from the reports. Not that it would be too surprising to me if a mob in Benghazi had such weapons.

[Sateev]

Read my post again, it is quite clear that I think the Ambassador was responsible for his safety. He was the Boss of US Government resources within the country, I have questioned his decision not to have his security team with him as mystifying.

The Ambassador was, as all of us are for our own, responsible for his safety.

The radical Islamist mob is responsible for his death.

Was it a mob or a planned command attack (geriatrickid - previous post)? If it was a mob, then they had small arms and RPGs from the reports. Not that it would be too surprising to me if a mob in Benghazi had such weapons.

Good point. Further, then, could it even be assumed that their actions were as a result of their outrage at the release of the film? Or were they merely a pretext for the pre-planned attack you suggest? I think the latter...

[simple1]

If Gahdaffi in Libya and Mubarak in Egypt were still in power these attacks would not have happened.Sometimes a strongman is required to keep the lid on. It was a mistake to remove Gahdaffi and allow Mubarak to be removed .( Saddam also buts thats another topic ) In a perfect world this Arab spring would have produced democracy.But it was co-opted by radicals.

With all the so called resources the U.S. has , they did not have the forsight to see this ?

How can you say that under Mubarak attacks would not have occurred? In recent years there have been a number of terrorist attacks on foreigners in Egypt as well as killings of Coptic Christians. In Egypt democracy has not been co-opted by radicals, the Muslim Brotherhood was elected by the Egyptian people. The PM messages in the international arena have been less radical, let's see if his actions in the coming year or so show consistency; bearing in mind he has to keep his constituents onside.

[chuckd]

I understand some of the injured Embassy personnel are contract security officers. Unfortunately they were outgunned in a soft target, which the staff should not have occupied in the first place.

This is an administration failure.

Don't make a Romney of yourself please. There were two attacks at two locations.

The Ambassador and his State Department security officer made the decision not to evacuate when the Libyan security forces warned them to do so. Please check your facts.

In the second attack on the American safe house located on the grounds of the equestrian club, the Americans were being evacuated by Libyan and US security forces. There isn't much one can do when confornted wih a planned commando attack.This is where 2 of the Americans were killed and where the Libyan security forces took casualties.

And I might suggest you not take the Obama approach by trying to find cover for administration inadequacies.

Why do you call the Consulate a "safe house"? Because some have stated it was an interim facility? It certainly wasn't "safe" by any stretch of the imagination. Substitute the word "soft" for "safe" and start all over.

The consulate in Benghazi was nothing more than a villa in an Equestrian center. It should never have been considered for use by Embassy personnel, PARTICULARLY IN A WAR ZONE.

It is the fault of the Obama administration, to include the Department of State, that this attack was even contemplated by insurgents. Had the Consulate been a hard target rather than a soft one the attack might not have even been considered by those same insurgents.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The consulate came under fire from heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades at about 10 p.m. local time on Tuesday. By the time the attack ended several hours later, four Americans were dead and three others had been injured.

The Benghazi consulate had “lock-and-key” security, not the same level of defenses as a formal embassy, an intelligence source told POLITICO. That means it had no bulletproof glass, reinforced doors or other features common to embassies. The intelligence source contrasted it with the American embassy in Cairo, Egypt – “a permanent facility, which is a lot easier to defend.” The Cairo embassy also was attacked Tuesday.

Read more: http://www.politico....l#ixzz3qBmmh7Cw

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What obviously occurred in Cairo is the Marine detail and the Regional Security Officer decided to give the rioters access to the grounds in order to prevent Egyptian bloodshed. The point to consider here is the Embassy itself was a hard target, having the required security and defensive measures to insure the building interior remained secure.

I see nothing wrong with this approach as long as the interior is secure enough to repel invaders. Apparently it was as there were no deaths or injuries to Embassy personnel.

If you wish to believe the administration had no hand in the lax security in both compound and housing security and the missing Marine security detail in Benghazi, then have at it. Jump on the MSM train and ride along.

Please don't expect others to follow that line of reasoning.

[sunshine51]

@Exsexyman...

Why should I be ashamed of myself? Post #152 asked a question and I

responded. ..albeit a bit late...so what. I'm just exercising my right to free

speach...or in this case...free hacking away at my PC. You have a nice

weekend.

For those who are interested, here are a few more links to events in

Libya, gleaned from a Google search as of 1230 hours Thai time.

The last link has a graphic picture of the late Ambassador Stevens;

you have been warned so don't diss me if you don't like what you see.

http://www.cfnews13.com/content/news/cfnews13/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2012/9/13/us_sends_marines_to_.html?cmpid=twitter

http://www.asiantribune.com/news/2012/09/14/libya-didnt-implode-us-expected-it-exploded-anti-american-protests-spread

http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/libyan-authorities-make-arrests-in-us-embassy-attack-267160

http://www.breakingnews.com/topic/libya

http://www.afp.com/en/news/topstories/us-boosts-embassy-security-fears-more-anti-us-violence

http://blogs.afp.com/correspondent/?pages/The-death-of-an-US-ambassador

[chiangmaikelly]

The movie is just an excuse . We helped their country become a democracy and these crazy gaddafi loyalists are killing our people. Ungrateful <snip>

So you think we 'helped them get democracy' !! That statement displays just how little you understand about certain regions of the world. What for one minute makes you think the Libyans wanted democracy? Under Ghaddafi they had their own form of democracy, with peoples conferences where decisions were made.

There were no homeless

Free Health care (some of the best in the world)

Woman had equal rights

Free Education and Universities for all

50 000 USD as a gift to each couple that got married

$7000 USD as a gift when each child was born

Free electricity

Free water

50% off the price of your car paid by the Government if you were military 65%

loans for cars and property 0% interest

Every family was given $500 USD per month in their banks from the 'profit from oil share scheme'

0% tax for those involved in agriculture

if you were willing to work the land, as much land as you could work and all seed was given free

$ 20 000 USD gift if you wanted to start a new business

and more, much much more.

These folks had a better life than most Americans and Europeans. dam_n right they are ungrateful and pi**ed off that 'we' went in and gave them democracy. What do they have now........ nothing, but we got our oil and we put in a Central bank and now Libya has been saddled with hundreds of billions in debt to pay for our help in making them a democracy! Democracy is not the only way to govern and Libya had a successful alternative model. If you would have lived there YOU would have been a Ghaddafi loyalist!

There will be a whole lot of flag burning tomorrow (at best), all over the muslim world, and the known Al Quaida terrorists that we shipped in to libya and armed and got them to do the dirty work are unsurprisingly now settled in 'their' new country and they wont give up their weapons or their fight to take the whole country. We have, once again created yet another cluster &lt;deleted&gt; of a situation. You don't think for a minute that all those resistance fighters were normal Libyan people do you?

Already, more attacks on an Embassy today, and when those videos get out via all the social network sites...boom! The videos are in no way any justification for any person on this planet to take another's life, but only the retarded and malicious would have made them and uploaded them. A crime against humanity I guess, or it will be by the end of the next few weeks.

Jim where do you find links for the information you listed about Libya? Free this and that and $500 per month from oil?

[sunshine51]

One link here about the film maker... Nakoula Basseley Nakoula...scroll

down the page to get to it...decent read IMO.

I can only wonder if SEAL Team 6 has been sent after his ass yet.

http://www.cfnews13.com/content/news/cfnews13/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2012/9/13/us_sends_marines_to_.html?cmpid=twitter#filmmaker

[simple1]

One link here about the film maker... Nakoula Basseley Nakoula...scroll

down the page to get to it...decent read IMO.

I can only wonder if SEAL Team 6 has been sent after his ass yet.

http://www.cfnews13....itter#filmmaker

According to some posts on this thread it is perfectly acceptable to post content on the web that will deemed as offensive in the full knowledge of the consequences to regional security - Freedom of Speech is immutable and no responsibility for your actions is required. This attitude was confirmed by Steve Klein, one of the sponsors of the film who is ex US military - perhaps he would like to discuss this with US personnel who are now obliged to put their lives on the line protecting US assets in the region.