U.S. ambassador, 3 American diplomats killed by protesters in Libya

The slain ambassador died trying to make a better Libya...

This statement is so profound. Someone was fighting on their behalf that wasnt Muslim to ensure the development of a peaceful society with laws and government according to their liking.

Instead what happened was that because some one else made fun of an Islamic religion, riots ensued and killed an ambassador and 3 US government officials. This is the clear example of the "religion of peace and non violence..."

Islam has plenty of voices that preach to the destruction of America and Israel, but how many voices stand up for senseless killing and unceasing violence against the innocent. And those that stand up...get assassinated...There is something inherently wrong with this...and its only getting worse...

STOP blaming the rest of the world for the failures in what Islam is not able to provide...change your current revolutionist leaders and perhaps the world will change its opinion!

 

<br>
Could you clarify the significance of the part in bold. I genuinely would like to know the end point of that statement.

 

Very well said.

 

Too be expected, in a country with no effective government, where military quality weapons are had by all.

I know this was provoked by the film trailer, but I wonder if NATO's intervention had something to do with this? There were Libyans who supported Gaddafi until the end.

 

Hahahahahahahahaha good one ATW

And I'm not even Muslim FYI I just see the anti Islam rhetoric here for what it is: HATE

 

Report: Riots Actually About Release of Blind Sheik
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/09/12/report-riots-actually-about-release-of-blind-sheik/

USA Today reports that the riot at the U.S. embassy in Cairo appears to have been planned well before the Egyptian media reported on the anti-Islam YouTube film that was blamed for sparking the protest. The protest was reportedly announced on August 30 by Gamaa Islamiyya, an Egyptian terrorist group, to call for the release of its leader, Sheikh Omar abdel Rahman — aka the blind sheik, who is serving a life sentence for the first World Trade Center bombing:

Days of planning and online promotion by hard-line Islamist leaders helped whip up the mobs that stormed the U.S. Embassy in Egypt and launched a deadly attack on the U.S. Embassy in Libya that killed an ambassador and three others. …

The protest was planned by Salafists well before news circulated of an objectionable video ridiculing Islam’s prophet, Mohammed, said Eric Trager, an expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

The protest outside the U.S. Embassy in Cairo was announced Aug. 30 by [Gamaa Islamiyya], a State Department-designated terrorist group, to protest the ongoing imprisonment of its spiritual leader, Sheikh Omar abdel Rahman, who is serving a life sentence in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.

Based on the report, it sounds like the anti-Islam YouTube video was a secondary issue — a way for Islamist leaders to stoke anger and draw more bodies out to the embassy protest. If the storming of the embassy was organized by Gamaa Islamiyya — as opposed to a spontaneous uprising — why hasn’t the State Department’s response reflected that? It’s hard to imagine they’re not aware of the group’s activities. In June, the State Department actually issued a visa to a member of Gamaa Islamiyya — again, this is a designated terrorist organization — and met with him in Washington, as part of a delegation of Egyptian leaders. During the meeting, he reportedly asked White House officials to release the blind sheik. Here was the State Department’s defense at the time, which is even more astonishing in light of the latest news:

“We neither had then, nor do we have now, any reason to believe that this particular individual — who at the time of his application was a member of parliament — would pose a threat to the United States,” [State Department spokesperson Victoria] Nuland told reporters.

Nuland pointed to rapid changes in the Middle East, where an Islamist was declared the winner Sunday of Egypt’s first democratic presidential elections a year and a half after street protests toppled strongman Hosni Mubarak.

“It’s a new day in Egypt; it’s a new day in a lot of countries across the Middle East and North Africa. So new political personalities are coming to light,” Nuland said.

“We have more folks who want to come here, want to know us, want to learn about the US, want to develop relationships with us. We have the same interest with regard to them,” she said.

Apparently State miscalculated on that “develop relationships” part.

 

four Americans were killed today in a terrorist attack on American soil

Obama is in Vegas today doing a fundraiser...

 

It's never about a movie.

 

“When times are tough, you tighten your belts.
“You don’t go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage. You don’t blow a bunch of cash on Vegas when you’re trying to save for college. You prioritise. You make tough choices.”
--Barack Obama, February 2010

 

No, sometimes it's about a political cartoon.

 

I'm not a known conspiricy nut, I'm 99% always the skeptic, but this reeks of an attempt to create Obama's 9/11 to me. It would be pretty easy on the arms dealer level to inspire a couple of riots. It actually could be anybody. When I first heard about Egypt I just thought Morsi was getting a little street cred. But this is bad.

Whatever Obama plans to do, he's not going to telegraph it. What would ever make you think he won't kill people? In October before an election?

Kill an Ambassador? That's a dronin'.

 

I am not sure what is unclear about what I said? What endpoint do you mean?

 

If it's a conspiracy, it's the worst conspiracy I've ever heard of.

 

Why?

Could be about the US election, could be about leadership of the Arab Spring, could be about selling arms, could be a distraction to keep us out of Syria? It could just have been mobthink escalation, you gotta expect chaos amid chaos.

The rights of Free Speech end at the border. People are stupid and people are going to die.

 

<br>
Never mind, it's irrelevant to this thread.

Basically I understand there is a difference between the two, but what I don't understand is the significance of that difference (in your opinion obviously).

Just something I wanted to know for knowledge's sake.

 

<iframe class="imgur-album" width="100%" height="550" frameborder="0" src="http://imgur.com/a/tlCyI/embed"></iframe>

 

This makes no sense at all. Obama is leading and appears to be trending upwards in the polls and an October Surprise now would lose most of it's relevance by November. Something like this might very well back fire and strengthen Islamist and / or anti-US leaders. Sell arms to whom? The people rioting? There are alot of things, like the economy, distracting us from Syria.

Honestly this post just seems like a jumbled paranoid ranting.

 

What I'm saying is that while the end result for the victims is the same, in Mexico the crime is not ideologically motivated but drugs/greed/gang related, whereas in Pakistan it is ideologically charged. It seems to me that - relatively speaking - the path to eradicating the crime is clearer in Mexico. If there were no market for drugs, the druglords would not brutally fight for the money to be made there. Moreover, most of the violence is limited to one country.

While fighting drug trade related violence is by no means easy, it seems even more difficult to deal with violence rooted in mythical beliefs in an ideology where some people don't even mind dying, because they think something better awaits them. The level of fanatism is really high.

My statement was in response to someone's post who pointed at Mexico for a country where they have similar violence, without Islam being involved. While that is true, and a good point, it appears to me that it seems more feasible to deal with greed than with ideological fanatism.

 

Thanks for posting this. At least somewhat encouraging.

 

Presidents have done some messed up stuff, so I'm sure anything's possible. But, it strikes me as an odd notion on 2 counts: (1) killing just 4 people isn't a very grand operation, so compared to the "9/11 was a Zionist plot" people, this conspiracy isn't very ambitious; (2) it's really hard to say which way the world will go from here, so I'm not sure what this operation would allegeldy be trying to accomplish.