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?

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 210 by cnorman18]

cnorman18 wrote:

Is this all you have to say? No comment on the embassy attacks on Bush's watch?

You seem to think I liked Bush. Where did you get that idea? I am equally unhappy with the pathetic lack of effective response to previous attacks, especiallyl with the wierd and irrelevant response to 9-11. I still don't understand what we were doing in Iraq. Saddam Hussein may have been a nasty little dictator, but he was not a religious nut, had nothing to do with 9-11, had no weapons of mass destruction, and stood against our real enemies in Iran. Now we have given Iraq to Iran, and our recent appeasement and give-away to Iran on the nuclear issue was a despicable betrayal of Israel, our only friend in the region. It will cause us much grief in the future.

I agree that bombing the Benghazi "embassy" with Americans still likely in it would have been counter-productive, but I do believe that decimating a few hundred of the rabble mob with firebombs, rockets and machine gun fire from jet fighters would have at least distracted their attention and given a message to others like them. Then we should have locked down the entire Benghazi area with a strict curfew, treated it as a combat zone, moved in troops for an aggressive house-to-house search, and executed anyone found with weapons on the spot. Then we should have moved warships into Tripoli harbor, as our country once responded dto the Barbary Pirates, and demanded reparations, costs and penalties.

[cnorman18]

[Replying to post 210 by cnorman18]

cnorman18 wrote:

Is this all you have to say? No comment on the embassy attacks on Bush's watch?

You seem to think I liked Bush. Where did you get that idea? I am equally unhappy with the pathetic lack of effective response to previous attacks...

Did you allege "murder, treason and coverup"? Why not?

...especiallyl with the wierd and irrelevant response to 9-11. I still don't understand what we were doing in Iraq. Saddam Hussein may have been a nasty little dictator, but he was not a religious nut, had nothing to do with 9-11, had no weapons of mass destruction, and stood against our real enemies in Iran. Now we have given Iraq to Iran, and our recent appeasement and give-away to Iran on the nuclear issue was a despicable betrayal of Israel, our only friend in the region. It will cause us much grief in the future.

As it happens, I agree with most of that; but once again, I decline to participate in another attempted change of subject.

I agree that bombing the Benghazi "embassy" with Americans still likely in it would have been counter-productive, but I do believe that decimating a few hundred of the rabble mob with firebombs, rockets and machine gun fire from jet fighters would have at least distracted their attention and given a message to others like them.

And given that the majority of the people in the area were likely to be SUPPORTERS of the U.S. mission, as was mentioned in a previous post, that would have caused "a few hundred" innocents to be burned, blown up, and gunned down by the Americans whom they thought were their friends. And that would bring us more support from whom, exactly?

Not such a good idea, from where I sit...

Then we should have locked down the entire Benghazi area with a strict curfew, treated it as a combat zone, moved in troops for an aggressive house-to-house search....

All of which would have taken months, cost billions of dollars and thousands of lives -- since we would be instituting yet another ground war in the Middle East, not unlike the Iraq war to which you object so strenuously.

That's not such a great plan either, in my opinion. The Joint Chiefs and the commanders in the field apparently didn't think so either.

...and executed anyone found with weapons on the spot.

Including our friends? How would you tell the difference "on the spot"? Without investigations or trials? Just summary executions -- like the South Vietnamese officer who was on front pages all over the world, blowing a suspect VC's brains out in the street, on camera?

That wouldn't make the the US smell so great, either, even to our staunchest friends and allies.

Then we should have moved warships into Tripoli harbor, as our country once responded dto the Barbary Pirates, and demanded reparations, costs and penalties.

From whom?

The Libyan government had nothing to do with this. The Libyan military had nothing to do with this -- in fact, those were the forces that helped our people evacuate the victims from the area. Al Qaeda had nothing to do with this, either, as is now known -- and even if they HAD, how would you collect?

Okay. Now that we've seen your plan that you think would have made everything all better --

Do you RETRACT your allegations of "murder, treason, and coverup"?

Do you RETRACT your claim that President Obama was "either responsible or irresponsible"?

Will you ACKNOWLEDGE that there were, indeed, multiple rescue missions sent in, that two of them actually DID reach the compound and evacuate the victims (at the cost of two American lives), and that there was NO WAY that any larger rescue effort could possibly have reached the compound in the 12 hours that elapsed before the incident was OVER?

Will you acknowledge that the promotion of all these rumors, innuendos, unfounded accusations and distortions of fact, and all these outright LIES, on the part of the rightwing press and rightwing politicians, was more about polemic propaganda and political exploitation than the "search for the truth" that was claimed?

I've posted a very great deal of material here; you have countered, rebutted or refuted NONE of it -- but you still seem strangely resistant to taking back anything that you've said. How about it?

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 212 by cnorman18]

cnorman18 wrote:

I've posted a very great deal of material here; you have countered, rebutted or refuted NONE of it -- but you still seem strangely resistant to taking back anything that you've said. How about it?

No. I have already conceded the debate to you, but that is as far as I will go. My story is true, and some of it may even have happened. Ask me again in 70 years, after historians have a chance at it.

[cnorman18]

[Replying to post 212 by cnorman18]

cnorman18 wrote:

I've posted a very great deal of material here; you have countered, rebutted or refuted NONE of it -- but you still seem strangely resistant to taking back anything that you've said. How about it?

No. I have already conceded the debate to you, but that is as far as I will go. My story is true, and some of it may even have happened. Ask me again in 70 years, after historians have a chance at it.

LOL! Fair enough. I've been saying "Let the historians sort it out" since Nixon.

Thanks for the conversation. I apologize if I got a little, um, exercised. I just don't like political hacks using the deaths of Americans as excuses for character assassination and false propaganda -- and I REALLY dislike seeing otherwise intelligent people get fooled by them and their accomplices in the rightwing media.

Be well, and see you around the forum. Maybe next time we can talk about something we agree on.

[micatala]

As this thread seems to be concluding, I will give my last two cents worth.

[Replying to post 204 by micatala]

micatala wrote:

Again, this argument is fallacious as I noted before. Obama killed no one. There was no 'cover up' of the murders or killings that were committed by, one presumes, a few of the residents of Libya on that day. These accusations are neither logical nor supported by the facts, as cnorman has shown in detail.

I did not say that Obama ever killed anyone.

Fair enough, but you did say he was responsible, which to me infers that the deaths may not have occurred if he had acted 'responsibly.' I don't agree with this assessment, but I would agree actions could have been taken prior to the attack that may have prevented the deaths. In particular, having personnel in a more secure location on the anniversary of 9-11 would have been prudent. On the other hand, the world is a dangerous place and one cannot prevent all tragedies from happening. I do not see any egregious negligence on the part of Obama or anyone else, not to the level of making him 'responsible' for the tragedy. I would say, on a spectrum, more caution could have and perhaps should have been taken.

Secondly, who is really playing politics with this event? It seems to me your accusation would be much more appropriately directed at Mitt Romney. I certainly have seen no credible evidence that politics played any role in the response on that day to the attack. You could perhaps make the case their were political considerations in play during the aftermath.

What I did say was that no attempt was made to respond to a call for help from a serving American ambassador, whose embassy, a sovereign extension of the United States, was under attack in a foreign country.

Again, I think the facts do not support this statement. Action was taken, and quite quickly. Also, as points of fact, this was not an embassy as cnorman noted. I am also not sure the ambassador himself was ever actually in a position to himself call for help, but be that as it may. In either case, action WAS taken.

When such a call was received, Obama instantly became Commander in Chief with a constitutional duty to put all political games on hold and to make every effort to defend the United States. As anyone with any military service should know, "Dereliction of Duty" and "Misbehavior Before the Enemy," even by negligence, are offenses under Article 99 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, punishable by death.

Again, the prudence of various additional actions, beyond the actions that were taken, is debatable. Secondly, while I am no expert on military law and regulations, I doubt you could find any precedent for applying these portions of the code to the President in anything like a similar situation.

To make an admittedly bad analogy, imagine if G.W. Bush had 'made every effort' to defend the United States on 9-11 and had in his eagerness shot down several passenger planes because they were getting to close to potential targets. IT seems to me what you are proposing is not entirely dissimilar. Your suggested actions would have likely killed a lot of innocent Libyans, not to mention the ambassador himself should he have actually still been in the area and not have already been vacated.

You are, in my view, portraying legitimate and reasonable judgment calls about military tactics with negligence and misbehavior. It would be more likely that the actions you propose could legitimately characterized as 'misbehavior.'

I am reminded of a famous quote from the Viet Nam era. Something like "we had to destroy the village to save it."

Speaking hypothetically, of course. The NSA is watching us.

Fortunately, my existence is probably too boring to be of interest to them.

[JohnPaul]

As this thread seems to be concluding, I will give my last two cents worth.

[Replying to post 204 by micatala]

micatala wrote:

Again, this argument is fallacious as I noted before. Obama killed no one. There was no 'cover up' of the murders or killings that were committed by, one presumes, a few of the residents of Libya on that day. These accusations are neither logical nor supported by the facts, as cnorman has shown in detail.

I did not say that Obama ever killed anyone.

Fair enough, but you did say he was responsible, which to me infers that the deaths may not have occurred if he had acted 'responsibly.' I don't agree with this assessment, but I would agree actions could have been taken prior to the attack that may have prevented the deaths. In particular, having personnel in a more secure location on the anniversary of 9-11 would have been prudent. On the other hand, the world is a dangerous place and one cannot prevent all tragedies from happening. I do not see any egregious negligence on the part of Obama or anyone else, not to the level of making him 'responsible' for the tragedy. I would say, on a spectrum, more caution could have and perhaps should have been taken.

Secondly, who is really playing politics with this event? It seems to me your accusation would be much more appropriately directed at Mitt Romney. I certainly have seen no credible evidence that politics played any role in the response on that day to the attack. You could perhaps make the case their were political considerations in play during the aftermath.

What I did say was that no attempt was made to respond to a call for help from a serving American ambassador, whose embassy, a sovereign extension of the United States, was under attack in a foreign country.

Again, I think the facts do not support this statement. Action was taken, and quite quickly. Also, as points of fact, this was not an embassy as cnorman noted. I am also not sure the ambassador himself was ever actually in a position to himself call for help, but be that as it may. In either case, action WAS taken.

When such a call was received, Obama instantly became Commander in Chief with a constitutional duty to put all political games on hold and to make every effort to defend the United States. As anyone with any military service should know, "Dereliction of Duty" and "Misbehavior Before the Enemy," even by negligence, are offenses under Article 99 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, punishable by death.

Again, the prudence of various additional actions, beyond the actions that were taken, is debatable. Secondly, while I am no expert on military law and regulations, I doubt you could find any precedent for applying these portions of the code to the President in anything like a similar situation.

To make an admittedly bad analogy, imagine if G.W. Bush had 'made every effort' to defend the United States on 9-11 and had in his eagerness shot down several passenger planes because they were getting to close to potential targets. IT seems to me what you are proposing is not entirely dissimilar. Your suggested actions would have likely killed a lot of innocent Libyans, not to mention the ambassador himself should he have actually still been in the area and not have already been vacated.

You are, in my view, portraying legitimate and reasonable judgment calls about military tactics with negligence and misbehavior. It would be more likely that the actions you propose could legitimately characterized as 'misbehavior.'

I am reminded of a famous quote from the Viet Nam era. Something like "we had to destroy the village to save it."

Speaking hypothetically, of course. The NSA is watching us.

Fortunately, my existence is probably too boring to be of interest to them.

Your objections are reasonable. As I said to cnorman, I will leave it to historians for a verdict.