US ambassador 'killed in Libya'. US consulate Benghazi stormed. 4 US officials "dead"

[Peter Dow]

sounds expensive,

It is an expensive option but at least you get the security you pay for that way.

how about paying for it with the money we will no longer be giving these countries ?

If you mean the billions of US tax-payer dollars given to the states of Egypt and Pakistan and others supposedly to "fight" terrorism (but the states of those countries secretly support the very terrorism they claim to be "fighting") then yes, no longer giving that money would be a good saving.

Trusting other states with our money to fight terrorism doesn't work to beat terrorism and provide security because it amounts to paying off a gangster state operating a protection racket. Gangsters always keep the insecurity threat alive so as to squeeze the maximum protection payments out of their victims.

The cheap option would be to withdraw our ambassadors from insecure countries like Libya. That would likely have costs of its own in terms of missed opportunities for trade, business and friendly relations with that country.

If the West withdraws altogether from Libya and other countries in flux in the Arab Spring then we can be sure that other global rivals - the Russians, the Chinese, will not be slow in taking advantage of our absence.

 

[Peter Dow]

I join with Peter Drew

The name's "Dow" as in Dow-Jones Index, Dow Chemicals etc. (no relation).

in giving my condolence for the lost f your Ambassador in Libya. He was a good man and help Australia in a recent case.
The reason for the death is still unknown. It may have been a crowd that got out of control by the film

It was the fuss and incitement to violence broadcast on Egyptian satellite TV which is watched in Libya (and across North Africa and the Middle East) which stirred up the Benghazi crowd.

The film had sat on YouTube for a while and could have sat there for years and never come to public attention. It was the Egyptian satellite TV coverage that suddenly blew the whole issue up.

Egypt's NileSat was used to incite the mob which besieged the US Consulate in Benghazi and gave cover for the jihadi terrorist group which killed US Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

It seems on this occasion the mob was incited to violence by an Saudi-funded Egyptian satellite TV channel called "Al Nas" -

Radical religious Al-Nas TV gains influence in Egypt
Analysis by Muhammad Shukri of BBC Monitoring on 26 June

Al-Nas (The People) TV, an Arabic-language religious satellite TV channel which broadcasts 24 hours a day from the Media Production City in 6 October City in Egypt, has mesmerized Egyptian and Arab viewers generally.

A few months after its launch in January 2006 as a station focusing on social and entertainment content, the channel's administration decided to turn it into a Sunni religious TV, a move that has attracted millions of viewers to the channel in Egypt and across the Arab world.

The channel is owned by Saudi businessman Mansur Bin Kadasah and is managed by Atif Abd-al-Rashid.

- by someone called "Sheikh Khalad Abdalla".

Atlantic Wire: The Egyptian Outrage Peddler Who Sent an Anti-Islam YouTube Clip Viral

But it did gain the attention of a Glenn Beck-style TV pundit in Egypt: Sheikh Khalad Abdalla, a host on the Islamist satellite-TV station al-Nas. On Sept. 8, Abdullah lit the match that set this entire international incident in motion and broadcast an offensive clip of the trailer

Sheikh Khalad Abdalla (b. 1964) in an Egyptian television news host on the Islamist satellite channel al-Nas. On his September 8, 2012, show he played a clip from Innocence of Muslims, a few days prior to the 2012 U.S. diplomatic missions attacks He has been reported to be "anti-Christian" and "anti-Semitic" in his views. Al Jazeera English called him controversial and hardline.

The crowd own its own though was not what got out of control. It was the out-of-control terrorists who came along as fellow travellers with the crowd.

or it may be a planned terrorist execution.

The terrorists saw the opportunity to mount an attack using the angry crowd to provide a distraction and to cheer them on.

I also agree with Peter Drew

"Dow"

that the USA was caught unawares.

I think the US State department sent a security warning to the Egyptian embassy because of the TV coverage but maybe no warning was sent to the Libyan ambassador because the State Department forgot that Egyptian satellite TV is watched in Libya?

Anyway my point is that your embassies and consulates should be secure enough to protect your diplomats even if you are taken unaware on the night.

Why did they have an ambassador in this city not even the capital. Libya is in a volatile state with no strong government yet. Our Ambassador to Libya is in Rome.

The US Bureau of Diplomatic Security (part of the US State Department) should have known the risks if others knew the risks. That the security chiefs didn't know was ignorant and incompetent or if they chanced to luck that was reckless and incompetent.

The USA must realize it is not liked in the Arab Middle East.

The USA realizes that but it doesn't know why. I'll tell them now. It's because of the hostile Arab satellite TV operated by regimes which fear the freedom and democracy agenda which is shared by the USA and the Arab people.

Also September 11 is important to others besides Americans.There should have been more security.

That's obvious now.

Rather than worry whether the USA should lead from behind or not perhaps it is better it does not tried to lead at all.

Oh no, Condi was right when she said the US cannot lead from behind but the world is way better with American leadership than without.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

Any word on when the next Apology Tour will begin?
Maybe "he" will rub his face on the pavement and wander with the stampeding crowd around the black box at the next Hajj--in supplicatory fealty to "the prophet".

 

[Peter Dow]

duh....Hillary is shocked....

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asked: “How could this happen in a country we helped liberate, in a city we helped save from destruction?”

"Clinton, as Secretary of State, should know the answer to that question. That she didn’t anticipate even the remote possibility of the murder of our ambassador to Libya by her erstwhile friends led to his death. The Secretary of State is responsible for ensuring the security of our embassies and consulates and staff, as the State Department website plainly acknowledges."

Especially after the Libyans warned that this was going to happen

STATE DEPARTMENT: SECRETARY RESPONSIBLE FOR SECURITY FAILURES
Hillary Clinton is the Secretary of State. She is responsible for the security of State Department officials abroad, and she is responsible too for their public actions. When it comes to the security threats and the Cairo apologies, the question isn't "How could this happen?" It's the same question she asked of President George W. Bush in 2002, politicizing the September 11 attacks: What did Hillary Clinton know, and when did she know it?

Condi VS Hillary - who drew first blood?

 

[Johnny Tremain]

NOW--we know why Obama "bows" to the Saudi Omnipotent Caliphs--interesting--and who paid his way into the White House

http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/saudi-billionaire-did-help-obama-into-harvard/

 

[Peter Dow]

those crazy muslims... you never know what thise guys will do.

oh wait, yes you do they will fight the Crusaders forever.

and P, why are we apologizing for free speech ? explain it sure but never fault the concept.

We should not be supporting the "free speech" of Arab satellite TV to incite terrorism against us. That's suicide. Better to insist on responsible regulation of satellite TV, as our domestic TV is regulated.

What We Do. The Federal Communications Commission regulates interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories. It was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and operates as an independent U.S. government agency overseen by Congress.

So the FCC outlaws American TV channels which promote the murder of all Muslims and a crusade to convert the Middle East to Christianity by military conquest and subjugation. That's a responsible limit to free speech.

There is no such regulatory limit to free speech which is stopping Arab, Iranian or Pakistani TV calling for jihad against us "infidels".

No, some idiot politicians before 9/11 decided to deregulate satellite TV internationally and let the market make money broadcasting incitement to war and to hell with the consequences to peace.

We need to reimpose responsible international law in the regulation of satellite TV.

 

[Peter Dow]

There is no apology for the US Constitution! This is the exact problem with this anti-American administration! It matters not the context the apologies came in. Whether it was before or after the attacks this past 9/11.

The problem is Obama's anti-American hating agenda. This maniac has to be voted out at all cost. The future of America depends on this!

The US constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court who have imposed responsible limits to free speech yet respecting the intent of the 1st Amendment. Where is the international court imposing a responsible limit on free speech against Arab satellite TV?

 

[Peter Dow]

The recent attacks on our embassies in Libya, Yemen, and Egypt are a sobering example of how 9/11 will continue to affect our country decades after the original 9/11 in 2001. That tragedy tore our Nation apart while simultaneously it also brought us together in one united resolve to combat terrorism at its source; no matter where it hides or in what country. - See the rest of this article@ http://*********************.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-killing-of-ambassador-chris-stevens.html

I am still looking for that united resolve to combat terrorism when the source is the irresponsible spending of US money.

• To buy Saudi oil from a regime that uses petrodollars to fund terrorism
• To pay-off states like Pakistan and Egypt in protection rackets on their worthless promise to stop the very terrorism they secretly encourage
• To pay-off the Taliban to get supplies through to Afghanistan
• To fund Afghan army green-on-blue insider attacks on our own troops because we pay Karzai more for each rotten recruit he signs up
• etc.

That's the beauty of being the one true super-power. The only country that can beat you is yourself. Stop fighting yourselves and you'll win easily.

 

[dogtowner]

We should not be supporting the "free speech" of Arab satellite TV to incite terrorism against us. That's suicide. Better to insist on responsible regulation of satellite TV, as our domestic TV is regulated.

I'm sorry, did there middle eastern countries codify free speech as a right ?

So the FCC outlaws American TV channels which promote the murder of all Muslims and a crusade to convert the Middle East to Christianity by military conquest and subjugation. That's a responsible limit to free speech.

got me again, when did the FCC do this ?

There is no such regulatory limit to free speech which is stopping Arab, Iranian or Pakistani TV calling for jihad against us "infidels".

No, some idiot politicians before 9/11 decided to deregulate satellite TV internationally and let the market make money broadcasting incitement to war and to hell with the consequences to peace.

We need to reimpose responsible international law in the regulation of satellite TV.

now I'd really like a link for that. considering there is no body to enforce international law.

 

[Peter Dow]

strongservice, et al,

Well, I think this sounds patriotic and true, but I don't thinks it is accurate.


(COMMENT)

We know, from previous experiences, that when we (America) depict a Prophet like Mohammad in an unfavorable light, that it will trigger an resentful reaction from the communities which are Muslim Heavy.

• The attack in Sanaa (Yemen), on the Embassy, is nothing more than a response because we are there - at hand and available. It has nothing to do with general terrorism or specifically 911.
• The attack in Benghazi (Libya) was a 911 Remembrance attack, but by a extremist group that was already anti-American. They are protesting and opposing US foreign Policy in the Region and US interference.
• The Cairo (Egypt) attack is again, a reaction by a reactionary muslim element over the portrayal of Mohammad.

The US needs to adjust its foreign policy in the region and back away all aid and assistance to the ungrateful and barbaric muslim nations that see the American presence as detrimental. Such a policy adjustment and its implementation will improve US security, and actually reduce our ineffective practice of trying to buy allies and friends. It will save us money.


But don't think, for a moment, that these are associated al-Qaeda style terrorism. What they have in common is that they have a similar perception of the US. And that perception fuels the anti-American activity that haunts the US in the region.

Most Respectfully
R

The regional perceptions are shifted primarily by satellite TV. The propaganda war ought to be mentioned every time when discussing the war on terror. Certainly it was instrumental in the case of the killing of the US ambassador to Libya.

When Mubarak was in power, the elites in Egypt, and the Army were very friendly...I would argue because they got what they wanted, power and aid, and we got what we wanted, a moderate voice in the region, intelligence sharing, overflight rights, Suez Canal access etc etc.

So Mubarak took you in, huh? Did you know about Al Zawraa TV a pro-terrorist TV channel broadcast on Egypt's NileSat into Iraq and the whole Middle East to drum up support and recruits for terrorism against our forces there?

Mubarak was the "moderate" face of a double-dealing, double-crossing Egyptian regime. There are channels enough on NileSat for all the many faces of Egypt.

NileSat Know your enemy

"Footprint" maps showing where on the ground NileSat satellite TV can be viewed.

What to do about the anti-American, pro-terrorist propaganda being broadcast on NileSat?

Americans do first need to summon the political will to shut this enemy propaganda up.

Then it should be possible for the European companies who set up the NileSat satellites (there are about 4 satellites, 2 companies) to change the ground control station from which the NileSat satellites take their uplink TV signal feeds. Of course they will need pressure from the European governments before they will do that.

So there is a diplomacy job for the US State Department to speak to European governments to get them to apply governing, legal, financial (and if all else fails military) pressure to require the satellite companies such as Astrium and Eutelsat to take control of those satellites out of the hands of the Egyptians and into maybe NATO hands.

So I would recommend that the Americans appoint a good US diplomat to take on that task to get Europe fighting terror instead of broadcasting it. However, if Europe fails to take action to confiscate control of the NileSat satellites then by all means the US President should hand the matter over to the US military Space Command to take those satellites out by all means necessary.

I have taken some time to draw up this map showing the main players in the NileSat terror broadcasting situation.



The map of Egypt's NileSat satellite TV terror TV - LARGE 1222 x 812 pixels

 

[Peter Dow]

Link as requested.

Wikipedia: Intelsat

Originally formed as International Telecommunications Satellite Organization (INTELSAT), it was—from 1964 to 2001—an intergovernmental consortium owning and managing a constellation of communications satellites providing international broadcast services.

Privatization
On July 18, 2001, Intelsat became a private company, 37 years after formation. Prior to Intelsat's privatization in 2001,

 

[dogtowner]

Link as requested.

Wikipedia: Intelsat

OK. still not seeing how that addresses this (if that was your intent)

now I'd really like a link for that. considering there is no body to enforce international law.

no international deregulation cited.

 

[Gipper]

Being a superpower benefits all of us. We derive far more benefit by being a superpower than not.



No one wants to send Americans to needlessly die in god awful places around the world -- but there are times when American interests are more important than a some American lives.



The Founders certainly did not have the idea that we would simply sit in our bubble and never engage with the world. History clearly bears this out.



You seem to be implying that we should have stayed out of World War II. That seems like quite an argument considering we were attacked.

Being a superpower is fine. However, being a superpower who is constantly interventionist, is not.

American interests are more important than American lives....you say. Can you tell me specifically what these interests are?

I never stated the Founders said to sit in a bubble...you did....this is the typical refrain of the interventionist who claims anyone who disagrees with them is a crazy isolationist. I am not saying we need to isolate ourselves and ignore what is happening around the world. However to think our policy of constant interventions since WWII, often leading to war and dead Americans is preferable, is wrongheaded and in direct contradiction with the Founders.

Regarding WWII, FDR could have pursued policies and negotiations that kept America out of the war. Instead he chose the opposite. When the fool ran for an unprecedented third term, ignoring Washington's advice due to his over sized ego and with declining health, he lied to the American people about keeping the peace. He was actively supporting the Brits and seeking a confrontation with the Germans in the N. Atlantic so that he could force the US into the war. He also refused to negotiate with the Japanese to avoid war...leading to Pearl Harbor, which was exactly what he wanted. He also had intel on German attack on Poland days before their Sept 1, 1939 invasion and in typical deceitful fashion, refused to warn the Poles knowing full well that the invasion would plunge the world into ANOTHER world war (failing to learn from the failures of WWI). Instead of actively pursuing peace, he was covertly pursuing war, while lying to the American people....much like BO caught saying to the Russian Pres how he will have flexibility AFTER the election.

And what did the US gain from WWII? FDR the fool (aka Stalin's Stooge) gave half of Europe to Stalin including Poland, which was the reason for the war!!!!! The world's greatest tyrant and murderer!!!!! This lead to histories worst and most intolerant ideology becoming a superpower!!!!!!!....and decades of cold war....resulting in American kids ducking under the desks in case of nuclear attack and nearly a nuclear exchange over Cuba. It also lead to Truman's war crime of incinerating innocent Japanese civilians only to show the power of the US state, to say nothing of the total war tactics used throughout the war against innocent civilians.

Do you understand the horrendous consequences of war....yet?

FDR's actions (much like BO's and W's and other presidents) are the poster child for limiting the power of government and specifically the power of the executive branch.

 

[Centrehalf]

The Founders certainly did not have the idea that we would simply sit in our bubble and never engage with the world. History clearly bears this out.

I'm glad you said this. Many people don't realize this.

 

[Centrehalf]

Regarding WWII, FDR could have pursued policies and negotiations that kept America out of the war. Instead he chose the opposite. When the fool ran for an unprecedented third term, ignoring Washington's advice due to his over sized ego and with declining health, he lied to the American people about keeping the peace. He was actively supporting the Brits and seeking a confrontation with the Germans in the N. Atlantic so that he could force the US into the war.

　
What policies and negotiations would have kept America out of the war? Congress had a serious case of the ass with Japan at that point, I don't know what FDR could have done. FDR may have talked up peace but America had the opportunity to elect two full-blown Isolationist candidates for President, and declined. Of course he supported the Brits, German submarines in the N. Atlantic probably gave him flashbacks to WWI, when the Germans used submarines to sink shipping, sometimes even American shipping even though we weren't at war with them yet. You can say he forced America into the war by lying but many people think that FDR read the tea leaves rather well and made some tough decisions and ended up doing good for the country.

He also refused to negotiate with the Japanese to avoid war...leading to Pearl Harbor, which was exactly what he wanted.

　
Congress refused to negotiate with the Japanese, and for good reason. I doubt FDR wanted nor anticipated the attack on Pearl Harbor. A Japanese attack on American forces in the Phillipines, and only the forces in the Phillipines, would have given him just as much reason to ask for a war declaration.

He also had intel on German attack on Poland days before their Sept 1, 1939 invasion and in typical deceitful fashion, refused to warn the Poles knowing full well that the invasion would plunge the world into ANOTHER world war (failing to learn from the failures of WWI). Instead of actively pursuing peace, he was covertly pursuing war, while lying to the American people...

　
I'm not sure why you think a phone call from FDR to the Poles in late August of '39 would have changed anything. The Poles knew an invasion was coming and had been preparing for a couple of months prior. They had some mobilization issues and their defense plan made the mistake of depending upon the Allies for assistance, but they knew. Even if they didn't know the exact date and time, the German false flag operation against their own radio station tipped the Poles off that the invasion was imminent. FDR would have had zero impact on this event no matter what he did, short of mobilizing the US Army in 1938.

And what did the US gain from WWII? FDR the fool (aka Stalin's Stooge) gave half of Europe to Stalin including Poland, which was the reason for the war!!!!! The world's greatest tyrant and murderer!!!!! This lead to histories worst and most intolerant ideology becoming a superpower!!!!!!!

　
Stalinism or National Socialism, pick your poison.

It also led to Truman incinerating innocent Japanese civilians only to show the power of the US state, to say nothing of the total war tactics used throughout the war against innocent civilians.

　
There's a lot I could say about forecasted losses and geo-political gamesmanship, but I'm only going to say something that I know you will consider to be simplistic; War is a bitch and ain't always fair.
　
Gipper, I've got nothing but love for ya but I really believe the lesson from the 1930's should be this: when America sits back for 15 years and doesn't "interfere", bad sh*t happens. I'm all for interference because it denies our enemies the ability to dictate terms and shape the battlefield.