US Embassador to Lybia Killed

[Uncensored2008]

So the answer is yes, you would have prefered innocent Americans die rather then distance ourselves from that film.

The administration released the first apology BEFORE the Muslims murdered our Ambassador.

So what does "distancing" ourselves serve, other than to reveal Obama as weak?

 

[koshergrl]

Hillary is still racing around blaming that film for the unrest in the Middle East.

It would be laughable if people weren't dying, and if more people weren't going to die.

It's over for Obama and HIllary, unless they want to head up a coup.

Which I'm sure they do. I'm sure their Muslim friends will back them against the American people.

 

[AmyNation]

So the answer is yes, you would have prefered innocent Americans die rather then distance ourselves from that film.

The administration released the first apology BEFORE the Muslims murdered our Ambassador.

So what does "distancing" ourselves serve, other than to reveal Obama as weak?

Why is this so hard to understand?

There was an angry mob outside of the embassy, we were attempting to keep our people alive.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Why is this so hard to understand?

It isn't. It's just hard for you to spin.

Muslims attacked the embassy in Cairo, in response the Administration crafted and released an apology to the attackers.

Directly after the attack, another Muslim mob attacked another U.S. Consulate, with RPG's and other heavy weapons (hardly an impromptu protest,) murdering U.S. Marines and the Ambassador - an act of war and a violation of the Vienna convention.

Obama responded by condemning the violence, and offering a second apology to the Muslims.

There was an angry mob outside of the embassy, we were attempting to keep our people alive.

This was an organized terror attack that used RPG's and heavy machine guns. Protestors don't carry those.

Further, looks like the film is a fraud and was produced by the Muslim Brotherhood.

New details emerge of anti-Islam film's mystery producer - CNN.com

Obama is a simpering fool and has no business in the Whitehouse. Only a complete moron would vote for him after this.

 

[Foxfyre]

Your insistence that I must think the president is some sort of great man or great president is amusing to me. Disagreeing with falsehoods does not mean I back the president.

There was no apology and there was absolutely NO sympathy, the embassy was being protested and in an attempt to stop violence a condemnation of the film was sent out, they stormed the embassy and in an attempt to keep things from escalating, another condemnation was given. Saying we don't support something is not the same as saying we're sorry, it's just not. And it's disengenious to suggest it is.

What would you have done? If a condemnation could have ended things peacefully( and I think those inside the embassy hoped it would) would you really rather people have died than distance ourselves from that film?

Condemning those who would criticize or make fun of Islam or Mohammed as justification for outrage and demonstrations among Muslims equates an apology to anybody but the most blindly partisan. From this President, there has never been any similar criticism or condemnation of Muslims or other non-Christians who attack or ridicule or denigrate religions other than their own. There has never been any commendation of Christianity from this President for that matter; certainly not to the extent that he has praised and commended Islam.

Obama was quite adament that we are not a "Christian nation" but he has never gone out of his way to express that we are not a "Muslim nation." After so much of that sort of thing, it isn't hard to form an impression of which side of the fence he comes down on, and who he will support.

So the answer is yes, you would have prefered innocent Americans die rather then distance ourselves from that film.

In case you didn't notice, we did NOT distance ourselves from that film--we apologized for it--and four people died and thirty others were injured at the Lybian embassy. Violence is escalating in Cairo and our people are increasingly threatened there. Did it ever occur to you that a different approach other than appeasement and apology might be warranted here?

 

[AmyNation]

Condemning those who would criticize or make fun of Islam or Mohammed as justification for outrage and demonstrations among Muslims equates an apology to anybody but the most blindly partisan. From this President, there has never been any similar criticism or condemnation of Muslims or other non-Christians who attack or ridicule or denigrate religions other than their own. There has never been any commendation of Christianity from this President for that matter; certainly not to the extent that he has praised and commended Islam.

Obama was quite adament that we are not a "Christian nation" but he has never gone out of his way to express that we are not a "Muslim nation." After so much of that sort of thing, it isn't hard to form an impression of which side of the fence he comes down on, and who he will support.

So the answer is yes, you would have prefered innocent Americans die rather then distance ourselves from that film.

In case you didn't notice, we did NOT distance ourselves from that film--we apologized for it--and four people died and thirty others were injured at the Lybian embassy. Violence is escalating in Cairo and our people are increasingly threatened there. Did it ever occur to you that a different approach other than appeasement and apology might be warranted here?

If we hadn't issued the condemnation, there would be 15 threads right now asking why the Adminastration didn't reach out and try to draw down the protests before they turned violent.

As to the "apology", I'm done arguing the point, it's clear you wingnuts have no interest in reality. However I would suggest you invest in a dictionary.

 

[Katzndogz]

As it turns out, the attack in Libya was planned long ago and had nothing to do with the film which was an excuse. A more convenient excuse could not have come at a better time which lends itself to speculation as to where the film really came from.

 

[Uncensored2008]

As it turns out, the attack in Libya was planned long ago and had nothing to do with the film which was an excuse. A more convenient excuse could not have come at a better time which lends itself to speculation as to where the film really came from.

The film was a tool to incite the crowds, more as cover for the Muslim Brotherhood troops than combatants.

Looks like they are behind either making the film or dubbing it in Arabic.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

As it turns out, the attack in Libya was planned long ago and had nothing to do with the film which was an excuse. A more convenient excuse could not have come at a better time which lends itself to speculation as to where the film really came from.

As evidence has shown with the weapon's used and the tactical style maneuvers, I would agree. If that is the case Homeland security should have had information this was going to happen. No wait they are using most of their resources on Americans.

 

[Foxfyre]

So the answer is yes, you would have prefered innocent Americans die rather then distance ourselves from that film.

In case you didn't notice, we did NOT distance ourselves from that film--we apologized for it--and four people died and thirty others were injured at the Lybian embassy. Violence is escalating in Cairo and our people are increasingly threatened there. Did it ever occur to you that a different approach other than appeasement and apology might be warranted here?

If we hadn't issued the condemnation, there would be 15 threads right now asking why the Adminastration didn't reach out and try to draw down the protests before they turned violent.

As to the "apology", I'm done arguing the point, it's clear you wingnuts have no interest in reality. However I would suggest you invest in a dictionary.

As opposed to 15 threads questioning why the President is apologizing for the murder of innocent Americans who are there for no other reason than for the benefit of those same people who murdered them?

Why is President Obama defending the Lybian government who made no effort to stop the murders?

Again, do you base your opinions on what people will say? Or what is the right thing to do? Many of us think protecting our people is more important than appeasing their would be murderers.

 

[AmyNation]

In case you didn't notice, we did NOT distance ourselves from that film--we apologized for it--and four people died and thirty others were injured at the Lybian embassy. Violence is escalating in Cairo and our people are increasingly threatened there. Did it ever occur to you that a different approach other than appeasement and apology might be warranted here?

If we hadn't issued the condemnation, there would be 15 threads right now asking why the Adminastration didn't reach out and try to draw down the protests before they turned violent.

As to the "apology", I'm done arguing the point, it's clear you wingnuts have no interest in reality. However I would suggest you invest in a dictionary.

As opposed to 15 threads questioning why the President is apologizing for the murder of innocent Americans who are there for no other reason than for the benefit of those same people who murdered them?

Why is President Obama defending the Lybian government who made no effort to stop the murders?

Again, do you base your opinions on what people will say? Or what is the right thing to do? Many of us think protecting our people is more important than appeasing their would be murderers.

I will attack the presidents actions after I see what he does. New intel is coming in constantly, I don't plan on condemning the man(if you're a wingnut read apology here) until all the facts are in.

No one wants to appease the terrorists who killed Americans, it shows your partisan blindness and is seriously disgusting that you would suggest otherwise.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I will attack the presidents actions after I see what he does. New intel is coming in constantly, I don't plan on condemning the man(if you're a wingnut read apology here) until all the facts are in.

No one wants to appease the terrorists who killed Americans, it shows your partisan blindness and is seriously disgusting that you would suggest otherwise.

Appeasement is exactly what Obama has done and what Hillary continues to do today.

Obama is an incompetent fool.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If we hadn't issued the condemnation, there would be 15 threads right now asking why the Adminastration didn't reach out and try to draw down the protests before they turned violent.

As to the "apology", I'm done arguing the point, it's clear you wingnuts have no interest in reality. However I would suggest you invest in a dictionary.

As opposed to 15 threads questioning why the President is apologizing for the murder of innocent Americans who are there for no other reason than for the benefit of those same people who murdered them?

Why is President Obama defending the Lybian government who made no effort to stop the murders?

Again, do you base your opinions on what people will say? Or what is the right thing to do? Many of us think protecting our people is more important than appeasing their would be murderers.

I will attack the presidents actions after I see what he does. New intel is coming in constantly, I don't plan on condemning the man(if you're a wingnut read apology here) until all the facts are in.

No one wants to appease the terrorists who killed Americans, it shows your partisan blindness and is seriously disgusting that you would suggest otherwise.

obama's appeasement policy caused this.

 

[Foxfyre]

If we hadn't issued the condemnation, there would be 15 threads right now asking why the Adminastration didn't reach out and try to draw down the protests before they turned violent.

As to the "apology", I'm done arguing the point, it's clear you wingnuts have no interest in reality. However I would suggest you invest in a dictionary.

As opposed to 15 threads questioning why the President is apologizing for the murder of innocent Americans who are there for no other reason than for the benefit of those same people who murdered them?

Why is President Obama defending the Lybian government who made no effort to stop the murders?

Again, do you base your opinions on what people will say? Or what is the right thing to do? Many of us think protecting our people is more important than appeasing their would be murderers.

I will attack the presidents actions after I see what he does. New intel is coming in constantly, I don't plan on condemning the man(if you're a wingnut read apology here) until all the facts are in.

No one wants to appease the terrorists who killed Americans, it shows your partisan blindness and is seriously disgusting that you would suggest otherwise.

You, Dear, are the one who suggested a more concilatory approach--read that apology/appeasement--to calm the anger was the appropriate approach.

 

[AmyNation]

As opposed to 15 threads questioning why the President is apologizing for the murder of innocent Americans who are there for no other reason than for the benefit of those same people who murdered them?

Why is President Obama defending the Lybian government who made no effort to stop the murders?

Again, do you base your opinions on what people will say? Or what is the right thing to do? Many of us think protecting our people is more important than appeasing their would be murderers.

I will attack the presidents actions after I see what he does. New intel is coming in constantly, I don't plan on condemning the man(if you're a wingnut read apology here) until all the facts are in.

No one wants to appease the terrorists who killed Americans, it shows your partisan blindness and is seriously disgusting that you would suggest otherwise.

You, Dear, are the one who suggested a more concilatory approach--read that apology/appeasement--to calm the anger was the appropriate approach.

Distancing ourselves from the film in an effort to stop violence was exactly the right thing to do. Hell ,if the embassy has issued an actual apology thinking that would have helped I wouldnt be online berating them for it. And if I thought an apology could have saved those Americans, I would be furious with the state department for not issuing one.

 

[Foxfyre]

I will attack the presidents actions after I see what he does. New intel is coming in constantly, I don't plan on condemning the man(if you're a wingnut read apology here) until all the facts are in.

No one wants to appease the terrorists who killed Americans, it shows your partisan blindness and is seriously disgusting that you would suggest otherwise.

You, Dear, are the one who suggested a more concilatory approach--read that apology/appeasement--to calm the anger was the appropriate approach.

Distancing ourselves from the film in an effort to stop violence was exactly the right thing to do. Hell ,if the embassy has issued an actual apology thinking that would have helped I wouldnt be online berating them for it. And if I thought an apology could have saved those Americans, I would be furious with the state department for not issuing one.

Our presumed admission that the film justifies retaliation/anger/demonstrations/violation of the rights of others is neither appreciated nor will be reciprocated by Islamic militants who want you, me, and all other non-Muslims dead. Unless you are Muslim of course in which case you are fine so long as you condemn all of us who object to 'them'.

Anybody with any understanding of the modern Islamofacist movement knows that any apology/appeasement/concilatory tactic is interpreted as an admission and confirmation of our collective guilt, is an expression of fear and weakness, and only fuels their courage to step up the violence.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am seeing more and more comments that even those we had at our embassies to protect our personnel were not allowed to do that. They weren't allowed live ammo? They were forbiddent to shoot an attacker? Is that true? Does anybody have any evidence on that from a reliable source?

And if it is true, who gave such an order and/or who set such a policy?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I am seeing more and more comments that even those we had at our embassies to protect our personnel were not allowed to do that. They weren't allowed live ammo? They were forbiddent to shoot an attacker? Is that true? Does anybody have any evidence on that from a reliable source?

And if it is true, who gave such an order and/or who set such a policy?

I doubt that is true, that's not standard military procedure. You have a real gun that can be taken away and then you have a real gun in the hands of the bad guy.
It's stupid and childish policy if true.

 

[koshergrl]

Hillary's state department, as was Bill's, has always believed in depleting our military, decreasing security (around American citizens abroad...not themselves, of course) and forcing the military to disarm and neutralize our (heretofore) armed personnel and military.

These are the ppl who had west point cadets act as bus boys at state dinners that included leadership from countries who have historically killed us when we visit, and historically have been abusers of human rights, which of course our military are generally sworn to uphold.

 

[High_Gravity]

A Libyan Politician warned the Ambassador we did not have enough security.


Did the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi Not Have Enough Security?

A tomato and onion omelet, washed down with hot coffee: That was the last breakfast of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens’ life. And although the scene in the American consulate’s canteen in Benghazi on Tuesday morning looked serene, under the surface there were signs of potential trouble, according to the Libyan politician who had breakfast with Stevens the morning before the ambassador and three other Americans died in a violent assault by armed Islamic militants. “I told him the security was not enough,” Fathi Baja, a political science professor and one of the leaders of Libya’s rebel government during last year’s revolution, told TIME on Thursday. “I said, ‘Chris, this is a U.S. consulate. You have to add to the number of people, bring Americans here to guard it, because the Libyans are not trained.”

Stevens, says Baja, listened attentively—but it was too late. Late Tuesday night, armed Islamic militants laid siege to the consulate, firing rockets and grenades into the main building and the annex, and pinning the staff and its security detail inside the blazing complex; U.S. officials told reporters on Wednesday they believed it took Libyan security guards about four hours to regain control of the main building. In the chaos, Stevens was separated in the dark from his colleagues, and hours later was transported by Libyans to a Benghazi hospital, where he died, alone, apparently of asphyxiation from the smoke.

U.S. officials told reporters on Wednesday that the Benghazi consulate had “a robust American security presence, including a strong component of regional security officers.” And indeed, one of the four Americans killed was a former Navy SEAL, Glen Doherty, who was “on security detail” and “protecting the ambassador,” his sister Katie Quigly told the Boston Globe. Also killed was an information management officer, Sean Smith. The fourth American who died has not yet been identified. Yet Baja described a very different picture from his visit on Tuesday morning, even remarking at how relaxed the scene was when he returned to the consulate building a short while after leaving Stevens, in order to collect the mobile phone he had accidentally left behind. “The consulate was very calm, with video [surveillance] cameras outside,” Baja said. “But inside there were only four security guards, all Libyans—four!—and with only Kalshnikovs on their backs. I said, ‘Chris, this is the most powerful country in the world. Other countries all have more guards than the U.S.,’” he said, naming as two examples Jordan and Morocco.

Read more: Did the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi Not Have Enough Security? | World | TIME.com