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

[Peter Dow]

dogtowner, et al,

Al-Qaeda is almost a generic name. There is no real al-Qaeda alla the 911 attacks.

There is little question that the orchestrated attack in Libya was planned-out well. But that doesn't mean that it was al-Qaeda.


(COMMENT)

Libyan President Mohammed el-Megarif is very quick to say it way al-Qaeda. That is the great political buzz-word that triggers emotion in the US. But you will note that he is phasing his words carefully.

• foreigners have been infiltrating his country over the past few months
• the attackers, who he believes are connected to Al Qaeda, used the protests at the consulate as a cover to attack
• he believes Al Qaeda is responsible for the deadly attack
• those who joined in the attack were foreigners, who had entered Libya "from different directions, some of them definitely from Mali and Algeria."

This is important message to imprint on Americansfirst, especially if it turns-out that it was anti-American elements in the Police who were involved.


It is easy to steer misleading conclusions within the first few hours.



We need to be careful that we don't make our assessment too early.

Most Respectfully,
R

Well it looks like a jihadi terrorist group by the name of "Ansar al-Sharia (Libya)" did it, taking advantage of the mob incited by that jihadi Saudi-funded TV show on NileSat satellite TV.

Ansar al-Sharia (Libya) were run out of Benghazi by the people and although they have now disbanded as a group - to avoid US retribution for killing the US ambassador no doubt - we have not seen the last of the enemy.

So who are they? Who is backing them? You can probably guess but I'll tell you, or Wikipedia will tell you.

Wikipedia: Ansar al-Sharia was formed during the 2011 Libyan revolution and rose to prominence after the death of Muammar Gaddafi. Made up of former rebels from the February 17 Brigade[1], the Salafist militia initially made their name by posting videos of themselves fighting in the Battle of Sirte.[2] Their first major public appearance occurred on 7 June 2012, when they led a rally of armed vehicles along Benghazi’s Tahrir Square and demanded the imposition of Sharia from which they were later the same day chased out by local residents.[3] Its leader, Sheikh Muhammad al-Zahawi, later gave an interview on a local TV station forbidding participation in the July 7 GNC elections on the grounds that they were un-Islamic. [4] The militia went on to provide security to some public property in eastern Libya, including Benghazi's Al Jala Hospital.[2] The group is reportedly the military arm of a charitable organization named Al-Dawa wa Al-Islah.
...
Ansar al-Sharia faced accusations it carried out the 2012 U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi.

So we know it's a Salafist militia and it has got financial backers, presumably who are also Salafists and that'll be why they fund a Salafist militia.

So who do we know that is a Salafist with plenty of money to back various charities as fronts for various militias to kill Americans?

Wikipedia: Salafi - Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab

Many today consider Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab as the first figure in the modern era to push for a return to the religious practices of the salaf as-salih.... After his death, his views flourished under his descendants, the Al ash-Sheikh, and the generous financing of the House of Saud and initiated the current worldwide Salafi movement.
...
The migration of Muslim Brotherhood members from Egypt to Saudi Arabia and Saudi King Faisal's "embrace of Salafi pan-Islamism

So did you guess correctly? Yup, it's our old business partners, Saudi Arabia once again. We buy Saudi-controlled oil, they buy our weapons, they fund "charities" and political groups as fronts to fund terrorists to kill Americans and your allies, like us Britons.

Regime-change Saudi Arabia! It's the only way to solve the jihadi terror problem at its root. Only when petrodollars are being spent in the interests of the Arab people by a government they elect will the funding of terrorism dry up and the war on terror finally be won.

 

[Texas_tea]

Islam isn't just a religion. It's also political. You can't separate them and it's never going to change. Otherwise, they would have moderated by now.

Question:
Can Muslim citizens be loyal to a non-Muslim government?

Summary Answer:
Many Muslims are loyal to the non-Muslim countries in which they live, of course, but it is in spite of Islamic teaching. Unlike other faiths, Islam is not just a religion but a political system as well. The state is intended to be inseparable from religious rule. Islamic law, or Sharia, is complete and not designed to coexist with or be subordinate to other legal systems.

Muslims are not meant to be ruled by non-Muslims. The Qur'an is very clear that they are to resist unbelievers by any means until Islam establishes political supremacy. This doesn't mean that everyone must be forced to become Muslim, but rather that everyone must submit to Muslim rule.

The Qur'an:
Qur'an (5:3) - "This day have I perfected your religion for you." This verse is often interpreted to mean that any government outside of Sharia is unnecessary at best, and corruptive at worst.

Qur'an (18:26) - "[Allah] maketh none to share in his government." This was probably intended as a slam against polytheists and the Christian belief in the Trinity, but it has also been used as the basis for criticizing earthly governments.

Qur'an (4:141) - "...And never will Allah grant to the unbelievers a way (to triumphs) over the believers."

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/014-loyalty-to-non-muslim-government.htm

 

[GenSeneca]

Regime-change Saudi Arabia! It's the only way to solve the jihadi terror problem at its root. Only when petrodollars are being spent in the interests of the Arab people by a government they elect will the funding of terrorism dry up and the war on terror finally be won.

What makes you believe they would vote for a western style democracy? As we've seen in the "Arab Spring" and elsewhere, Muslims tend to vote for a Sharia based "democratic" Theocracy when given the chance.

 

[Cruella]

What makes you believe they would vote for a western style democracy? As we've seen in the "Arab Spring" and elsewhere, Muslims tend to vote for a Sharia based "democratic" Theocracy when given the chance.

There are an awful lot of Radicals running around Saudi Arabia. I don't see any kind of Democracy taking root there. The King that recently died was probably the most liberal and western friendly ruler you'll see out of that country.

 

[Aus22]

Question:
Can Muslim citizens be loyal to a non-Muslim government?

Summary Answer:
Many Muslims are loyal to the non-Muslim countries in which they live, of course, but it is in spite of Islamic teaching. Unlike other faiths, Islam is not just a religion but a political system as well. The state is intended to be inseparable from religious rule. Islamic law, or Sharia, is complete and not designed to coexist with or be subordinate to other legal systems.

Muslims are not meant to be ruled by non-Muslims. The Qur'an is very clear that they are to resist unbelievers by any means until Islam establishes political supremacy. This doesn't mean that everyone must be forced to become Muslim, but rather that everyone must submit to Muslim rule.

The Qur'an:
Qur'an (5:3) - "This day have I perfected your religion for you." This verse is often interpreted to mean that any government outside of Sharia is unnecessary at best, and corruptive at worst.

Qur'an (18:26) - "[Allah] maketh none to share in his government." This was probably intended as a slam against polytheists and the Christian belief in the Trinity, but it has also been used as the basis for criticizing earthly governments.

Qur'an (4:141) - "...And never will Allah grant to the unbelievers a way (to triumphs) over the believers."

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/014-loyalty-to-non-muslim-government.htm

This debate should really be in the religion section. To quote a few verses of the Qurán and says what they mean requires an expertise in Islam I do not see any experts quoted here.
How Qurán 5.3 has anything to do with government I do not know.. In my quarán it is about food.> In an introduction to Chapter 5, which is sub headed AL Maídah, (the Table Spread) It states, This surah deals by way of recapitulation, with the backsliding of Jews and Christians from their pure religions, to which the copying stone was replaced by Islam. It refers particularly to the Christians and to their solemn sacrament of the Last Supper, to which mystic meaning they are declared to have been false
As a logical corollary to the corruption of the earlier religions of God, the practical precepts of Islam. about food, cleanliness, justice and fidelity are recapitulated.
The third verse contains the memorable declaration, "This day have I perfected your religion for you"which was promulgated in 10AH during the Prophet's last Pilgrimage to Makkah, Chronologically it was the last verse to be revealed".
It says nothing about government but that Islam is the perfection of the older religions. And in food preparation it is superior.

The next verses does not use the word government in my translation It simple says nor does He share His Command with any person whatever. I do not see it as a attack on earthly Governments except to say they need the protection of God alone. I can not see the reference to 4 :141 My verse simply says the onces who wait and watch about you; if ye gain a victory from God they say, "Were we not with you and did we not guard you from the believers? But God will judge betwixt you on the Day" of Judgement And never will God grant to the unbelievers a way to triumphs over the believers"."/.. Chapter 4 is sub headed Al Nisa (The Women) while it says women should be held in honour and their rights should be recognised , in contrast to the actions of extreme Muslims today it says the princple of goodness should be extended to all beings great and small. It does say in other sections (4:43-70) should no go after gods but should accept the authority of the Prophet and obey him. Then it will be their privilege to be admitted to a great and glorious Fellowship.
There all the verses you quote do not refer to government but the Superiority of Islam and thet God will eventually give victory to the beleivers. This is similar to Christianity.. So all the verses are related to the superiority of Islam as a religion

 

[Texas_tea]

This debate should really be in the religion section. To quote a few verses of the Qurán and says what they mean requires an expertise in Islam I do not see any experts quoted here.
How Qurán 5.3 has anything to do with government I do not know.. In my quarán it is about food.> In an introduction to Chapter 5, which is sub headed AL Maídah, (the Table Spread) It states, This surah deals by way of recapitulation, with the backsliding of Jews and Christians from their pure religions, to which the copying stone was replaced by Islam. It refers particularly to the Christians and to their solemn sacrament of the Last Supper, to which mystic meaning they are declared to have been false
As a logical corollary to the corruption of the earlier religions of God, the practical precepts of Islam. about food, cleanliness, justice and fidelity are recapitulated.
The third verse contains the memorable declaration, "This day have I perfected your religion for you"which was promulgated in 10AH during the Prophet's last Pilgrimage to Makkah, Chronologically it was the last verse to be revealed".
It says nothing about government but that Islam is the perfection of the older religions. And in food preparation it is superior.

The next verses does not use the word government in my translation It simple says nor does He share His Command with any person whatever. I do not see it as a attack on earthly Governments except to say they need the protection of God alone. I can not see the reference to 4 :141 My verse simply says the onces who wait and watch about you; if ye gain a victory from God they say, "Were we not with you and did we not guard you from the believers? But God will judge betwixt you on the Day" of Judgement And never will God grant to the unbelievers a way to triumphs over the believers"."/.. Chapter 4 is sub headed Al Nisa (The Women) while it says women should be held in honour and their rights should be recognised , in contrast to the actions of extreme Muslims today it says the princple of goodness should be extended to all beings great and small. It does say in other sections (4:43-70) should no go after gods but should accept the authority of the Prophet and obey him. Then it will be their privilege to be admitted to a great and glorious Fellowship.
There all the verses you quote do not refer to government but the Superiority of Islam and thet God will eventually give victory to the beleivers. This is similar to Christianity.. So all the verses are related to the superiority of Islam as a religion

I understand it to be that way too. But, radical Islamist see it otherwise and that is my point. I careless what you think it means. I pay more attention to what they think it means and how they are acting upon it!

 

[dogtowner]

I understand it to be that way too. But, radical Islamist see it otherwise and that is my point. I careless what you think it means. I pay more attention to what they think it means and how they are acting upon it!

I'm going to have to guess but I don't think either of you are fluent in arabic so Tex's point is well taken that it may well be seen in a very different light by those who speak the language.

 

[Texas_tea]

I'm going to have to guess but I don't think either of you are fluent in arabic so Tex's point is well taken that it may well be seen in a very different light by those who speak the language.

I am simply trying to point out the facts in context to current events. Arguing over our western interpretation or that these events are not happening around the world is futile! I do not claim to be an expert in fluent arabic, just an astute observant!

 

[Cruella]

I'm repeating myself here, but the son of the Hamas leader that converted has given interviews about this. He say's you can't really understand the Koran unless you read it in Arabic. It has a differen't connotation from the translated versions - and it's worse than we think.

I also read that in the Koran there is a lot of contradiction. But it was also explained that the later declarations superceded any earlier ones and were now the rule. So many of the Koran's verses (that were later contradicted) are no longer considered in effect.

 

[Texas_tea]

I'm repeating myself here, but the son of the Hamas leader that converted has given interviews about this. He say's you can really understand the Koran unless you read it in Arabic. It has a differen't connotation from the translated versions - and it's worse than we think.

I also read that in the Koran there is a lot of contradiction. But it was also explained that the later declarations superceded any earlier ones and were now the rule. So many of the Koran's verses (that were later contradicted) are no longer considered in effect.

This is why I stated, in context to current events. It matters not what some wacko liberal interprets it as .... what matters are current events ... look what is happening!

The wacko liberals are constantly trying to spin this, like the killing of our Ambassador on the anniversary of 9/11 was caused by a youtube clip that no one has seen .... actual current events dictate otherwise!

 

[Aus22]

I'm repeating myself here, but the son of the Hamas leader that converted has given interviews about this. He say's you can really understand the Koran unless you read it in Arabic. It has a differen't connotation from the translated versions - and it's worse than we think.

I also read that in the Koran there is a lot of contradiction. But it was also explained that the later declarations superceded any earlier ones and were now the rule. So many of the Koran's verses (that were later contradicted) are no longer considered in effect.

I am not fluent in Arabic either. I am just saying that there are interpretations of Islam quite different to radical Muslims. I quoted the example of women. Most Arabs do not show the respect demanded in the qur'an. There are many sects of Islam and other books besides the Qu'ran. So it is impossible to judge all Muslims.. Hamas is an example of this different extremist interpretation. Like some Christians they equate political power with the religion. This is not the belief of the majority of Muslims.

 

[Cruella]

Another thing to consider too, is that the later ones are more violent? aggressive? than the earlier ones. Mohammed changed in his later years. It's even been said he went mad. He became more violent/agressive and the Koran reflects that. Oh, and one more thing, the Koran also wasn't in chronological order. If it's been published in a chron order, I don't know.

 

[Texas_tea]

I am not fluent in Arabic either. I am just saying that there are interpretations of Islam quite different to radical Muslims. I quoted the example of women. Most Arabs do not show the respect demanded in the qur'an. There are many sects of Islam and other books besides the Qu'ran. So it is impossible to judge all Muslims.. Hamas is an example of this different extremist interpretation. Like some Christians they equate political power with the religion. This is not the belief of the majority of Muslims.

Really? Have any example s of that?

 

[Aus22]

Really? Have any example s of that?

There are so many examples where Christian leaders use reference in the Bible for political power. Some of the Popes in the Middle Ages were not even clergy but exercise both political power and spiritual power .They waged war in the name of their religion but used the armies of the poltilical states they control and influence. The most famous example is the crusades which were supposly wage for religious object to free the Holy City but were in fact waged to gain power to European states. The Inq2uisition where people were tried for religious crimes like heresy by state courts influence by the religious leaders. The witch trials at Salem but were in fact the same. The victims were label witchess and wizards by religious leaders and tried in civill courts Examples were Demark Vvesey and other negroes slaves who were sentence to death. Even white people who were different were tried. This applies even today in the Bible Belt where three young men were found guilty of killing children have now been release as the evidence were not conclusive.
Where even any religion has political power it often uses uses it to impose its religious views.

 

[dogtowner]

There are so many examples where Christian leaders use reference in the Bible for political power. Some of the Popes in the Middle Ages were not even clergy but exercise both political power and spiritual power .They waged war in the name of their religion but used the armies of the poltilical states they control and influence. The most famous example is the crusades which were supposly wage for religious object to free the Holy City but were in fact waged to gain power to European states. The Inq2uisition where people were tried for religious crimes like heresy by state courts influence by the religious leaders. The witch trials at Salem but were in fact the same. The victims were label witchess and wizards by religious leaders and tried in civill courts Examples were Demark Vvesey and other negroes slaves who were sentence to death. Even white people who were different were tried. This applies even today in the Bible Belt where three young men were found guilty of killing children have now been release as the evidence were not conclusive.
Where even any religion has political power it often uses uses it to impose its religious views.

quite a dropoff from the Crusades to three kids who you did not bother to demonstrate any religious connotation of. sounds like what we've been saying for some time now that its muslims who routinely practice murder and mayhem while Christians don't.