US Ambassador to Libya reported killed

[Furrowed Brow]

New in the last few minutes is that the US ambassador to Libya has been killed after the embassy was attacked by crowds in response to a US made film depicting the prophet Muhammad.

If this is true then is very sad and condolences too anyone connected to the embassy and the ambassador.

One BBC reporter described the film by Sam Bacile as highly offensive. There are clips available on youtube

Well in the 13 min clip I fail to see anything that is offensive, and certainly not justification to start burning down embassies. However the film is so bad it feels like watching Monty Python or Mel Brooks. American actors with American accents faces smeared with boot polish and false beards and truly dreadful acting and dialogue. It is up there with Plan 9 from Outer Space.

However, to be true there is a tangible despising of Islam from the makers of the film. Though it is bad, so bad it is funny even, I wonder whether there are too many folk on both sides without a sense of humour.

There will now be more riots across the Middle East I fear.

Is feeling offended the right response to having your religious leader or prophet depicted in a way youdo not approve? Is the right response to shrug the shoulders and say “that was pathetic�. Even those of the Islamic faith who would not resort to violence do you feel angered by such a film or can you shrug it off as just stupid. If Islamic film makes made a film of Jesus in a similar fashion would Christians be offended? Would you shrug it off as pathetic?

[cnorman18]

One can list dozens of films which would be just as offensive to fundamentalist Christians, and with much higher production values and much more talent evident: Start with "The Life of Brian," "The Last Temptation of Christ," "Dogma," "Religulous," even "History of the World Part I." Haven't seen any embassies stormed or Muslim diplomats murdered. One may as well be "offended" to the point of murder by MAD magazine -- or, more aptly, by some obscure Xeroxed fanzine that no one reads. All these rioters have done is guarantee that a LOT of money will be made by these amateurish, semi-competent "filmmakers."

[dianaiad]

New in the last few minutes is that the US ambassador to Libya has been killed after the embassy was attacked by crowds in response to a US made film depicting the prophet Muhammad.

If this is true then is very sad and condolences too anyone connected to the embassy and the ambassador.

One BBC reporter described the film by Sam Bacile as highly offensive. There are clips available on youtube

Well in the 13 min clip I fail to see anything that is offensive, and certainly not justification to start burning down embassies. However the film is so bad it feels like watching Monty Python or Mel Brooks. American actors with American accents faces smeared with boot polish and false beards and truly dreadful acting and dialogue. It is up there with Plan 9 from Outer Space.

However, to be true there is a tangible despising of Islam from the makers of the film. Though it is bad, so bad it is funny even, I wonder whether there are too many folk on both sides without a sense of humour.

There will now be more riots across the Middle East I fear.

Is feeling offended the right response to having your religious leader or prophet depicted in a way youdo not approve?

"feeling offended" isn't the response. What you do about feeling offended is. I've seen the man I consider to be a prophet vilified, mocked, derided and treated with contempt by all sorts of people...and that's right here on this forum.

but y'know what?

I don't feel the need to go burn down embassies.

What other people think about my beliefs, or the men I may admire, only gets important when their opinion is forced upon me either at gunpoint or by force of some stupid law.

In this case, especially, the Muslims are missing an opportunity. By treating this guy as anything but the pathetic bigot he is (isn't this the same guy who threatened to burn Korans a bit ago?) they are giving him what he wants; attention.

But...the death of the ambassador wasn't in reaction to that movie. Turns out that while the demonstrations in Egypt may have been prompted by this stupidity, the attack in Lybia? Pre-planned by armed insurgents who may well have known exactly what they were going to do, and who to target. IT was signaled to start, not by this stupid movie from an idiot Florida preacher with a congregation of 40 bigots, but by a video from Al Quida admitting that the US had taken out their second in command in June.

At least, that's the current thinking. Things may change in a few minutes.

s the right response to shrug the shoulders and say “that was pathetic�. Even those of the Islamic faith who would not resort to violence do you feel angered by such a film or can you shrug it off as just stupid. If Islamic film makes made a film of Jesus in a similar fashion would Christians be offended? Would you shrug it off as pathetic?

"Shrug it off?" Depends on what you mean by that. It IS an offensive film. It's also stupid...and utterly irrelevant. One can be offended by stupidity, but one does not swat a fly with a nuclear weapon, and one does not acknowledge a dumb film made by a group of forty idiots half the world away as something one should go to war over.

Whereas, assassinating an ambassador on his own soil..and American embassies are American soil, no matter where they are...yeah, that's an act of war. Not the brightest idea in the universe.

[Furrowed Brow]

"feeling offended" isn't the response. What you do about feeling offended is. I've seen the man I consider to be a prophet vilified, mocked, derided and treated with contempt by all sorts of people...and that's right here on this forum.

but y'know what?

I don't feel the need to go burn down embassies.

That's a relief.

.But...the death of the ambassador wasn't in reaction to that movie. Turns out that while the demonstrations in Egypt may have been prompted by this stupidity, the attack in Lybia? Pre-planned by armed insurgents who may well have known exactly what they were going to do, and who to target.

Don't know if the ambassador was targeted. But I do think the film is an excuse to go hit something American. Maybe there were some hotheads easily roused but I think there is more complex politics here.

IT was signaled to start, not by this stupid movie from an idiot Florida preacher with a congregation of 40 bigots, but by a video from Al Quida admitting that the US had taken out their second in command in June.

Well again I am not sure that there is a clear direct line of command between the mob and al qaeda. However if these folk see al qaeda as important or of a like mind or as folk heros then that would be connection enough.

"Shrug it off?" Depends on what you mean by that. It IS an offensive film. It's also stupid...and utterly irrelevant. One can be offended by stupidity, but one does not swat a fly with a nuclear weapon, and one does not acknowledge a dumb film made by a group of forty idiots half the world away as something one should go to war over.

True.

Whereas, assassinating an ambassador on his own soil..and American embassies are American soil, no matter where they are...yeah, that's an act of war. Not the brightest idea in the universe.

War? Against who? 40 or so muslims maybe more maybe less who mobbed the consulate.

If Gaddafi was still in power this would not have happened, and Gadafi's mistake was 1) to start selling oil in a non US Dollars 2) And hand billions of dollars to Goldman Sachs in a deal brokered by Tony Blair.

Gaddafi was a monster true. Maybe the world is a better place without him. But yesterday at the US consulate in Benghazi it was not.

[Nilloc James]

I am not sure if dianaiad is correct and this attack was a pre-planned insurgency; however I do not believe that hits the heart of the discussion. Instead, I believe the core points here are, is offense an appropriate response to a text disagreeing with you and if violence ever an acceptable response to being offended.

The first point I think is understandable, when something attacks something important to an individual it is both a logical and understandable happening. However, I do not believe the latter is ever acceptable when it comes to being offended by an idea (even if the idea is uneducated and pathetic).

What I find offensive is that some extremists believe violence and bullying is an appropriate way to stifle free thought, free expression and freedom of media - even if they are thoughts I disagree with. This view does not entitle me to start attacking embassies from Muslim nations.

[bluethread]

This is more the result of Jimmy Carter style foreign policy than it is about religion. It is no wonder that we are getting similar results, ie Iran treatening Israel and our embassies under attack. "Welcome to the Hotel California . . ."

[East of Eden]

It is a disgrace that the initial State Department statement blamed this film maker simply exercising his free speech rights, while ignoring the actual problem, the crazed, murderous Muslim thugs, who were possibly celebrating 9/11 (they were chanting, "Obama, there are a million Osamas"). Such weakness breeds further aggression. The correct response would have been to blame the perpetrators 100%, and possibly intervene militarily. A 7.62 mm minigun does wonders for crowd control.

Makes me want to go burn a Koran.

As Sen. Kyl said, it's like blaming a rape on the victim.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/1 ... f=politics

Why doesn't the State Dept. blame gays and the pornography industry while they're at, Muslim extremists don't like that either.

[dianaiad]

"feeling offended" isn't the response. What you do about feeling offended is. I've seen the man I consider to be a prophet vilified, mocked, derided and treated with contempt by all sorts of people...and that's right here on this forum.

but y'know what?

I don't feel the need to go burn down embassies.

That's a relief.

.But...the death of the ambassador wasn't in reaction to that movie. Turns out that while the demonstrations in Egypt may have been prompted by this stupidity, the attack in Lybia? Pre-planned by armed insurgents who may well have known exactly what they were going to do, and who to target.

Don't know if the ambassador was targeted. But I do think the film is an excuse to go hit something American. Maybe there were some hotheads easily roused but I think there is more complex politics here.

IT was signaled to start, not by this stupid movie from an idiot Florida preacher with a congregation of 40 bigots, but by a video from Al Quida admitting that the US had taken out their second in command in June.

Well again I am not sure that there is a clear direct line of command between the mob and al qaeda. However if these folk see al qaeda as important or of a like mind or as folk heros then that would be connection enough.

"Shrug it off?" Depends on what you mean by that. It IS an offensive film. It's also stupid...and utterly irrelevant. One can be offended by stupidity, but one does not swat a fly with a nuclear weapon, and one does not acknowledge a dumb film made by a group of forty idiots half the world away as something one should go to war over.

True.

Whereas, assassinating an ambassador on his own soil..and American embassies are American soil, no matter where they are...yeah, that's an act of war. Not the brightest idea in the universe.

War? Against who? 40 or so muslims maybe more maybe less who mobbed the consulate.

An embassy (not a consulate) which was NOT being protected by the Libyans very well, and that held, among those who were supposed to be protecting the ambassador, men who told the assassins where to find him. There is also some discussion as to whether the ambassador was being taken to the hospital....or being dragged through the streets on display...perhaps by those very men who were supposed to be protecting him.

You can bet your mortgage and a sure chance of winning the lottery that had something like this happened HERE (a small group attacking any foreign embassy, especially a middle eastern one) it would be considered an act of war and all hell would break loose.

If Gaddafi was still in power this would not have happened, and Gadafi's mistake was 1) to start selling oil in a non US Dollars 2) And hand billions of dollars to Goldman Sachs in a deal brokered by Tony Blair.

Gaddafi was a monster true. Maybe the world is a better place without him. But yesterday at the US consulate in Benghazi it was not.

You could be correct; but we are not now dealing with Gaddafi. We are dealing with the folks that we helped REPLACE him, and to whom we are handing money hand over fist.

Money that we should cut off. Libya is apologetic...fine. Let them find the guys who pulled this off, (and make sure they get the ones who actually DID it) and turn them over..............................then we can turn the spigot back on.

[micatala]

It is a disgrace that the initial State Department statement blamed this film maker simply exercising his free speech rights, while ignoring the actual problem, the crazed, murderous Muslim thugs, who were possibly celebrating 9/11 (they were chanting, "Obama, there are a million Osamas"). Such weakness breeds further aggression. The correct response would have been to blame the perpetrators 100%, and possibly intervene militarily. A 7.62 mm minigun does wonders for crowd control.

Makes me want to go burn a Koran.

As Sen. Kyl said, it's like blaming a rape on the victim.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/1 ... f=politics

Why doesn't the State Dept. blame gays and the pornography industry while they're at, Muslim extremists don't like that either.

I fail to see what is disgraceful in labeling the film for what it was, and stating that the people at the embassy did not agree with it. Nothing in the statement denies anyone's free speech rights, nor is it any sort of apology to or sympathizing of either protesters or terrorists as some have suggested. Nor is the statement blaming the film-maker for other people's actions. Kyl is completely off base.


Here is what I found as the text of the statement.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/us- ... 52183.html

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

I would agree that such statements are not likely to affect radicals with a tendency to violence. On the other hand, they can serve to illustrate that the radicals are acting irrationally. I will point out that such statements have been made before. The Bush Administration put out a similar statement when the Danish cartoonist lampooned Muhammed, resulting in protests. Was the Bush Administration statement also disgraceful?


The people at the embassy had info a protest was coming. They took an action they thought might help defuse the situation. They were wrong in that, but I fail to see what harm was done by issuing the statement even if it did not have that effect.

I would agree, and it has occurred, that strong condemnation from all quarters including the Administration of those engaging in violence is appropriate. I agree we should attempt to capture the perpetrators, and we have already begun such efforts including sending warships to the area.

I would point out it is primarily the responsibility of the national government to protect embassies within their territorial borders. The Libyans apparently made a good effort at doing so, as I understand several of their personnel were injured or killed. I am not so sure about Egypt.

Suggesting that we shoot into a crowd of protestors does not seem to me to be a rational response, nor one likely to produce good results in the long run. Once violence does break out, and if it does threaten the safety of the embassy personnel, then a more forceful response might be warranted. However, let's not pretend that, however justified, that does not also have risks.


As far as burning a Koran, that makes about as much sense as burning a Bible because some radical anti-abortion Christian shoots someone.





Hopefully we will be successful in tracking down those in Libya responsible. We have been successful in tracking many al-Qaeda leaders and operatives, even if it has taken time.

Dealing with the irrationality of some in the Muslim world will be harder. As a long term strategy, I think we do need to continue to deal justly and moderately with the nations which inlcude populations prone to such action. We need to deal as forcefully as we can with the actual perpetrators, while avoiding or at least minimizing collateral damage.

[East of Eden]

It is a disgrace that the initial State Department statement blamed this film maker simply exercising his free speech rights, while ignoring the actual problem, the crazed, murderous Muslim thugs, who were possibly celebrating 9/11 (they were chanting, "Obama, there are a million Osamas"). Such weakness breeds further aggression. The correct response would have been to blame the perpetrators 100%, and possibly intervene militarily. A 7.62 mm minigun does wonders for crowd control.

Makes me want to go burn a Koran.

As Sen. Kyl said, it's like blaming a rape on the victim.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/1 ... f=politics

Why doesn't the State Dept. blame gays and the pornography industry while they're at, Muslim extremists don't like that either.

I fail to see what is disgraceful in labeling the film for what it was,

Since when is someone exercising their free speech rights the cause of a government statement against them, calling them misguided? Are you actually saying that from now on any statement or action that offends these crazy Islamofascists is a bad thing worthy of government comment? Incredible. By that reasoning someone printing or reading the Bible is an offense, you know, "No man cometh unto the Father but by Me", etc. Would quoting that verse be a 'misguided attempt to hurt the feelings of Muslims', as the cowardly statement said? They actually called it an 'abuse of free speech'. What dhimmis.

and stating that the people at the embassy did not agree with it. Nothing in the statement denies anyone's free speech rights, nor is it any sort of apology to or sympathizing of either protesters or terrorists as some have suggested.

Absolutely it is, on both counts.

Nor is the statement blaming the film-maker for other people's actions. Kyl is completely off base.

Nonsense, he was dead on.

Here is what I found as the text of the statement.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/us- ... 52183.html

"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"

I would agree that such statements are not likely to affect radicals with a tendency to violence. On the other hand, they can serve to illustrate that the radicals are acting irrationally. I will point out that such statements have been made before. The Bush Administration put out a similar statement when the Danish cartoonist lampooned Muhammed, resulting in protests. Was the Bush Administration statement also disgraceful?

Yes. Romney's response was the correct one.

The people at the embassy had info a protest was coming. They took an action they thought might help defuse the situation. They were wrong in that, but I fail to see what harm was done by issuing the statement even if it did not have that effect.

There is a rumor out there that the Libyan government led the ambassador to a certain place, then told the radicals where he was.

I would agree, and it has occurred, that strong condemnation from all quarters including the Administration of those engaging in violence is appropriate.

You have a misunderstanding of radical Islam if you think these statements will change the perpetrators. It would be like lecturing the Mexican drug cartels and telling them to be nice. Words not backed up by strong action are seen as weakness. They are constantly probing to discover our limits.

I would point out it is primarily the responsibility of the national government to protect embassies within their territorial borders. The Libyans apparently made a good effort at doing so, as I understand several of their personnel were injured or killed. I am not so sure about Egypt.

Both governments should have been able to stop these protests. I suggest that short of a clear condemnation of these crimes with the perpetrators brought to justice, our reaction should include closing our embassies there, expelling theirs from the US, and cutting off all foreign aid.

Suggesting that we shoot into a crowd of protestors does not seem to me to be a rational response, nor one likely to produce good results in the long run. Once violence does break out, and if it does threaten the safety of the embassy personnel, then a more forceful response might be warranted. However, let's not pretend that, however justified, that does not also have risks.

I will remind you that US Embassies are US territory, yet we have seen three cases this week where they have been invaded and our flag taken down and burned and replaced with an Al Queda flag, in one instance at least. We have every right to take any action needed against unauthorized people on our territory, just as I have a right to shoot a home invader. What exactly are our Marines there for? Ignoring this will only encourage more such crimes.

As far as burning a Koran, that makes about as much sense as burning a Bible because some radical anti-abortion Christian shoots someone.

It if helps to preserve our free speech rights, the world won't miss one less Koran. I'm not planning to, but if someone else does, that's their business, and it shouldn't be apologized for. If it their opinion, any religious or non-religious person should be free to say Islam is a false religion.

Hopefully we will be successful in tracking down those in Libya responsible. We have been successful in tracking many al-Qaeda leaders and operatives, even if it has taken time.

Dealing with the irrationality of some in the Muslim world will be harder. As a long term strategy, I think we do need to continue to deal justly and moderately with the nations which inlcude populations prone to such action. We need to deal as forcefully as we can with the actual perpetrators, while avoiding or at least minimizing collateral damage.

It isn't just a few crazies, polls say 85% of Egyptian Muslims think 'apostates' should be killed. Apparently, most Muslims over there don't want a Western style democracy, they want repressive Muslim governments. We can't change that, but we can forcefully protect our interests. We need to send them a message that if this happens again, X, W, and Z will happen.

I hate to say it, but I see a future with all Muslim countries in that area being like Iran, with Islam at open war with the West, as was the case since 611 AD save for the few hundred year interlude we are emerging from. Remember that as late as the 1600s Vienna was threatened by the Muslims.