'US ambassador killed' in Libya protest - live updates

reply to post by Propulsion


He was not a bad man. He spent allot of time in the Middle East trying to help people. Not sure why they chose to drag his body around like that. Sad...

reply to post by Digital_Reality


Hillary's story is that they were carrying him to the hospital....

I don't know...I hope she is right...but

Originally posted by reficul
first we take libya,next we'll take iran!

god help us.
heres a clip of the offensive video the muslims are pissed about.
it was supposedly made by a jewish guy,but i cannot confirm that.
it reminds me of a montey python movie.
i'm not muslim,but it is a rediculous joke of a movie that only intends to bash another person's beliefs.
i'd be pissed too!
stuff like this makes it all to easy for the west to rev up war fever!

Fine, you'd be pissed too. Would you kill somebody over it? Sure the flick is ridiculous. Sure it is bashing another person's beliefs. This kind of thing has been happening since the beginning of time, and to murder 4 people who had NOTHING to do with it is cowardice and shows a complete lack of regard for human life. I hope they get caught, tried, and justly and severely punished.

Originally posted by cincycinner
I find it a little confusing...

In Libya 4 people die during a huge mobbing of the US embassy and people claim the attack to be too well conducted and too sophisticated to have been done completely randomly

but in Colorado one man can kill 12 people in a movie theater all by himself??

What they are referring to is the nature of the attacks. As in they were protesting and another group came in using the protestors as cover. From what I am understanding is the weapons used and an apparent two pronged attack on the Embassy. As opposed to the protesters storming the building and dragging him out. Which in all reality is a legitimate theory.

Drones have started to hunt suspects:
www.cnn.com...

And Two Navy Destroyers enroute:

Two US Navy warships are moving towards the coast of Libya, two US officials tell CNN.
The destroyers are the USS Laboon and the USS McFaul. Both ships are equipped with tomahawk missiles that could be used if a strike was ordered. Tomahawks are satellite-guided cruise missiles that can be programmed to hit specific targets.

security.blogs.cnn.com...

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by Digital_Reality

 

Hillary's story is that they were carrying him to the hospital....

I don't know...I hope she is right...but

edit on 12-9-2012 by timetothink because: (no reason given)

Right... I'm having a hard time believing that for some reason.

reply to post by ALF88


No, this isn't blowback. This is the plan.

Destabilise the nation through proxy war. Go in and 're-stabilise' once new government is deemed too incompetent.

It was either this or installing a puppet government. Obviously the latter is a little harder.

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
Why would the CIA be involved in this?

Because they helped orchestrate the entire arab spring movement.

I want to know where the Marine guards were.

Originally posted by LightAssassin
reply to post by ALF88

 

No, this isn't blowback. This is the plan.

Destabilise the nation through proxy war. Go in and 're-stabilise' once new government is deemed too incompetent.

It was either this or installing a puppet government. Obviously the latter is a little harder.

Can you explain why a puppet government would be harder than causing another all-out war?

They have a friendly government there already, why would the US - with feet already in the door and dealing with a friendlier government than Gaddafi - risk everything through more destabilization of the country?

The idea that this was a "plan" by the US is complete nonsense to me. There is no tactical, regional, economic or political advantage that I can see for the US to destabilize the country yet again.

They have a friendly government there already, why would the US - with feet already in the door and dealing with a friendlier government than Gaddafi - risk everything through more destabilization of the country?

reply to post by detachedindividual


Oddly enough, Gaddafi was a friendly regime in the 21st century. Once GW cowboyed up and declared "you're either with us, or against us," Gaddafi said I'm with you and became an ally of the US in the War on Terror. Libya was publicly taken off Bush's hit list. The current regime was put in power with the help of extremists and militants, many of whom were killing US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan before moving into Libya.

Maybe the game plan all along was to let the Islamists wrestle control of Libya from Gaddafi, then let em start tearing the country apart to give NATO an excuse to roll in and take charge.

reply to post by bellagirl


i dont get how all these angry muslims watched the online video when most of em dont have electricity or internet, has libya's reconstruction gone faster the iraq lol

Well, i hope the western powers have learned one thing ( also after Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc.).
Syria can stew in their own miserable juice, and all the other "brotherhoods of spring".

reply to post by timetothink


Hillary's story they were carrying him to a hospital is wrong. Benghazi is a Libyan Rebel stronghold; why would they want to attack the US embassy in the first place, kill the embassador then suggest the Rebels were taking the embassador to the hospital? Does'nt make sense. Does Hillary think we are all stupid?

Where was the US embassy security staff and embassy guards (usually US Military) ? Was the embassador put there in the first place to get rid of him?

reply to post by detachedindividual


I totally agree with you, but we don't see what happens behind the scenes and if this Muslim Brotherhood government is not playing ball with the US like they promised to do then Plan B takes effect.

reply to post by DirtyD


Precisely. Destabilise. 'Restabilise'. Invade.

reply to post by LightAssassin


The Muslim Brotherhood has their own agenda and it's not in line with what the Americans had in mind but it's definately what the powers to be have in mind.....

Originally posted by DirtyD

They have a friendly government there already, why would the US - with feet already in the door and dealing with a friendlier government than Gaddafi - risk everything through more destabilization of the country?

reply to post by detachedindividual

 

Oddly enough, Gaddafi was a friendly regime in the 21st century. Once GW cowboyed up and declared "you're either with us, or against us," Gaddafi said I'm with you and became an ally of the US in the War on Terror. Libya was publicly taken off Bush's hit list. The current regime was put in power with the help of extremists and militants, many of whom were killing US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan before moving into Libya.

Maybe the game plan all along was to let the Islamists wrestle control of Libya from Gaddafi, then let em start tearing the country apart to give NATO an excuse to roll in and take charge.

I actually believe that the Arab Spring was planned for years by the neocons even before W became president.

A wider war in the Middle east is only possible if the dictators and monarchies are over thrown so to release the radicalism of the average person in the Middle East. This combined with a planned collapse in the West will force the need for one world government!

reply to post by bluemirage5


According to what I read, there were zero Marines at the consulate for protection all they had were Libyan police.

The embassy in Tripoli had 18 Marines.....why weren't there Marines where the Ambassador was??

Major screw up or orchestrated?

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by timetothink

 

. Does Hillary think we are all stupid?

edit on 12-9-2012 by bluemirage5 because: (no reason given)

Short answer?

Yes.

We elected Billy, twice, then GW, twice.

There are intelligent voting Americans, just not nearly enough.