It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Looks like the US Ambassador to Libya got exactly what he deserves.

page: 10
71
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Juggernog
 


So you turn your back on your country.
Ask only what your country can do for you?
Well you got the change you asked for.
Now what do you hope for?



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Nite_wing
 

To be honest. If I were able to leave the US right now, I would but my situation prevents it, for the time being at least for the next 5 years.
I heard Panama is nice



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Juggernog
 


Give me your address. I will send you a bus ticket.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nite_wing
reply to post by Juggernog
 


Give me your address. I will send you a bus ticket.


Dont assume that when I say that my situation prevents it, that the situation is financial. I have obligations and commitments, right now
Dont worry when Ive taken care of those, I'll leave, trust me.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   
I agree with the OP in this case, people are inherently selfish and refuse to see what was done to this country in the name of the true American god the Dollar. Libya had nothing to do with Gaddafi being a cruel man or the people wanting change.

Libya like Iraq threatened the stability of the petrodollar and ultimately the continued status of the USD as world reserve currency by introducing a Gold Dinar. The entire Arab Spring has been clandestine in nature and has coincided with the shadowy support of Al Qaeda. These are supposed to be our blood enemies the worst people to walk this earth and yet when they are toppling governments and slaughtering civilians at the behest of our money and our spooks they are just fine.

The best minds and men are supposed to be in this yet a high value target in an obviously hostile area is left as nothing but a soft target. The truth is if it were protesters who took these men they could have at will even without weapons. Instead these men were assaulted with ferocity and precision while their assailants melted back into the night. After the initial attack they also struck marines with mortars again with deadly precision and purpose and again faded away.

This is not characteristic of any of these rebels, it was sophisticated and purposeful, whoever struck was not looking for prisoners or trophies which is neither characteristic of Al Qaeda or the rebels. These men should have been surrounded by a sea of green in any sane mans world. Instead they were sacrificed like animals so you can wet your panties a little more at night while our rights are stripped away and countless lives are snuffed out.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   


That's quite a laundry list of achievements.

Not really. Every year there are thousands and thousands of people who graduate with these sorts of degrees in the U.S. alone....but it certainly qualifies me comment on the subject of foreign relations to a far greater degree than merely being an enlisted grunt. Granted...Colin Powell and David Petraeus would be even more qualified than I am...but unless you tell me otherwise I'm going to assume you weren't a high ranking officer or top military brass.


You won't mind if I'm bit incredulous as to the extent of your education and qualifications honestly. I'd be more inclined to consider your point of view if you could provide the name of your Big 10 School. You don't have to, but if you did I'd publicly vouch for you.

UW Wisconsin.


Secondly, saying that you've been on almost every continent save Antarctica isn't as big as an achievement as you make it out to be. I too meet that qualification.

I agree. But you're the guy making a big deal out not commenting on the subject "unless you have been overseas"...so I figured it was important to you.


That does NOT mean you have been in theater in the Middle East. You could have been to any number of countries in Asia to meet that very broad claim.

Never said I was in a combat theater in the Middle East...but what has that got to do with understanding the geo-political issues that gets us into war in the first place? I'll be the first to say I wouldn't know where to start in sweeping the road for IED's or launching a tomahawk cruise missile. I promise to defer to your superior knowledge and experience should the subject ever come up.


Third, if you condemn our Ambassador for his actions (and the actions of our government), you might as well condemn the French during the American Revolution as well.
Perhaps...but you're forgetting one really HUGE difference. When the French did it...at LEAST IT WORKED. They weren't coming off of a 67 year long string of miserable failures in attempting to free British Colonies. Likewise while it was a "civil war" in a technical sense...there was also a very large ocean between faction A and faction B which makes it logistically a lot more like a war of two opposing factions. That being said...would the French really be that "outraged" if one of their spies was killed in the process of helping the Americans? I'm guessing not, as only a complete fool would think that an individual working in that capacity wasn't seriously putting themselves in harms way. Last but not least...remember...this is the Revolutionary War in REVERSE. Here WE are the imperial power that is toppling a local sovereign government. A better and more logical comparison would be the British infiltrating and colonizing India...and yes...I think the British were absolute rat bastards for doing it and the one's responsible ought to have been tried as war criminals for the needless and senseless suffering they caused.


For that matter, I think you should just hand over your freedoms because obviously, from your point of view the colonists and the French were basically para-military plants meddling in the affairs of the British Empire. At least, that is how you are portraying the Ambassador and his actions.


What country have you been living in? We don't have any freedoms anymore. A US citizen is approximately 22 times MORE LIKELY to be imprisoned than a Chinese citizen who is supposedly being "oppressed". The US has only 300 million of the world's 7 billion people...but WE HAVE 25% OF THE WORLD'S PRISONERS.

If that's what you call "freedom" you need to have your head checked.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by sxt004
So let me get this straight...

Guy works for the US
Guy supposedly helps overthrow the gov't, which i'm sure were his orders/job
Guy deserves to be killed for following orders and because we killed babies while bombing Iraq, Afghan, and Libya.

Hmmm....
So if my boss goes to jail for any reason,
then i deserve to go with him
And hope and pray my company didn't hurt anyone in the mean time because i also will be held responsible for that??

You're a liberal aren't you? Well how about you ask your liberal leader Obama because most of this Libya stuff happened on his watch and he will take credit for the overthrow, but not for the senseless killing.

Seems liberal to me


Nope. Much like Eisenhower I don't think that the Nuremburg Defense of "I was just following orders" excuses war criminals for their role in killing women and children.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by jacobe001
There are a few Anti-American's on this thread I see.
The Anti American's I speak of are the ones going against the founding father's wishes to avoid foreign entanglements. None of this would be happening if these Anti American's did not have their noses in other countries business where they don't belong.

Time to take some personal responsibility and worry about our own country more, than what is going on with other countries.


Correct. I'll second that motion.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maldavius
My friend of four years died in that attack.
How dare you say such hateful things.

massively.joystiq.com...
edit on 13-9-2012 by Maldavius because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-9-2012 by Maldavius because: (no reason given)


Well...if you're friend happened to have been caught in the crossfire and had nothing to do with starting a civil war...then I feel every bit as bad as I do for all of the other innocent civilians caught in the middle and you have my condolences.

However...if he played an integral role in throwing the country into chaos...it sort of goes with the territory, doesn't it?



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by milominderbinder

Originally posted by Helmkat
So I guess the murder of Ambassadors is fair game in the world? So much for civilization. OP, you did not know this man-at all-, yet you say he got what he deserved. I hope you are never judged unfairly.


What I'm saying is that if the "Ambassadors" are graduates of the National War College, illegally enter foreign countries, and assist rebel factions in overthrowing their government, starting a civil war, and torturing and executing thousands and thousands of innocent civilians then we might need to seriously call Webster's to have them provide another possible definition for the word "Ambassador" so that it's more synonymous with the word "terrorist".
Ambassadors deal with relations between countries, right?
Wars are a fact of life.
Would it be a bad idea for an ambassador to be trained to recognize the aggressive behaviors associated with wars?
I'm thinking maybe a few leaders that were involved in the Munich Agreement could have used a bit of this training.

Here is a bit about the National War College and who trains there:


The National War College (NWC) provides a single-phase Joint Professional Military Education (JPME) program for mid-career U.S. military officers,civilian U.S. government officials , and foreign military officers. We achieve our mission by offering a professional, rigorous, multi-disciplinary curriculum emphasizing active-learning and immersion in a joint environment. This joint experience is further enriched by the inclusion of interagency and multinational partners in all aspects of the program. The NWC program is accredited by the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, and qualified graduates are awarded a Masters of National Security Strategy.

Bolding mine.

Source: National War College


"Training" The prick helped to START A CIVIL WAR...and it's being used AS A BRAGGING POINT.

This is not OK.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


I don't appreciate being called an enlisted grunt. Labeling War Fighters and Patriots like that makes you look like you have a superiority complex. You're not the only one with a degree. I have my BS from Penn State, although it isn't in whatever major you threw out earlier.

You twisted my analogy around. I believe that's because you make the assumption that our Ambassador was a CIA spy when that hasn't been proven yet. As far as facts go, he was an Ambassador until proven otherwise (the burden of proof lies with you).

Thus, if a French Ambassador had been killed by militant forces in America - say by a loyalist faction of the British - of course the French would be upset. Ideally, my analogy assumes

1. Libyans (American revolutionaries)
2. Pro Ghadafi / Radical Extremists (British loyalists)
3. The West / America (French)

Here's the deal - there is a significant majority who wanted to overthrow Ghadafi. This is fact. If the rebel forces did not have popular support, there is no way they would have been able to occupy Benghazi and other surrounding cities during the conflict. To that - Ghadafi continually tried to retake Benghazi from his safe zone in Tripoli without success. This was before NATO and the US even got involved.

Christopher Stevens was our Ambassador to help and guide free Libyans to a system of self governance that they wanted. Bashing on this man is down right low, and I believe it shows how little of the situation you really understand from your nice comfortable computer desk vice someone who was really in the theater during the events in question.

Furthermore, contrary to what you say, Americans still enjoy the majority of our freedoms. Last time I checked you still enjoyed the freedom to post on this board and have your say. Most Libyan's couldn't say that during the Ghadafi regime could they?


edit on 13-9-2012 by zeeon because: typo

edit on 13-9-2012 by zeeon because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by stonedogdiary]

You're blaming the US for killing people when the Libyan people were killing each other? How dare we step in! How dare we try to help put an end to that! What a cruel country we are.
.


I always have to wonder if people who say what you just did would take a liking to or welcome some other country stepping on our turf and start blowing away Amercans and destroying our cities to "help" us if we started a civil war?

Its not our place to interfere. We would flip out if anothr country had the audacity to tell Americans how our country should be ran. The military, despite good intentions, are fighting foreign enmies abroad while our real enemies and the only ones who truly threaten our freedom are right here at home.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link   


I don't appreciate being called an enlisted grunt. Labeling War Fighters and Patriots like that makes you look like you have a superiority complex.


Just as I didn't like the way you initially asserted that you were somehow more qualified to talk about US interventionism in the Middle East because you repaired Humvees in Tikrit or whatever. I'm not in any way suggesting that you are not a very intelligent and skilled person...but someone who has really studied this stuff can see that you are a bit untrained in historical matters and geo-politics. That doesn't make you a bad guy...but remember...you were the one who started attacking my credibility to even comment or have an opinion on the subject. Sorry if it didn't work out the way you thought it would.


You twisted my analogy around. I believe that's because you make the assumption that our Ambassador was a CIA spy when that hasn't been proven yet. As far as facts go, he was an Ambassador until proven otherwise (the burden of proof lies with you).
.
...And if you'll note a few posts back I did acknowledge that I don't know for certain he was CIA and could have been working for any one of the other 74 clandestine intelligence agencies of the US Government. This is a pretty fair conclusion based upon the available evidence, given that all major news outlets are reporting that he slipped in secretly by cargo ship to assist rebels prior to be being appointed ambassador in May of 2012. Last time I checked..."diplomats" normally are a point of contact and conduit of information in order for governments to work together, solve problems, and negotiate resolutions to disputes. In short, "Ambassadors" don't normally start civil wars. Likewise, should evidence be presented that would suggest these reports are inaccurate...I'll be the first to re-evaluate my hypothesis. I believe in the scientific method and have no problem changing my views based upon credible evidence to the contrary. Hell...I'll post it myself if I come across it.


Thus, if a French Ambassador had been killed by militant forces in America - say by a loyalist faction of the British - of course the French would be upset. Ideally, my analogy assumes

1. Libyans (American revolutionaries)
2. Pro Ghadafi / Radical Extremists (British loyalists)
3. The West / America (French)


I know...I'm pointing out that you're analogy and model is faulty and incorrect. The Pro Ghadafi factions simply cannot be compared to being "british loyalists" given that the Libyans are already internally governed. True...Ghadafi might have been a bit of a^^hole...but he was still a Libyan. Like Britain...the U.S. is currently the imperial power in the mix looking to impose it's vast will on "the little guy" so to speak. In fact...the British-American analogy is also incorrect given that the American colonies were at least POPULATED by people of European descent.

Whether you like it or not...the British-India comparison is a lot more accurate because it features an imperial power which is imposing it's will and installing a puppet government upon a completely different culture.

Again...sorry if it blows a hole in your argument...but it is what it is.


Here's the deal - there is a significant majority who wanted to overthrow Ghadafi. This is fact.

Give me a source. Got a link to a poll? Preferably not one done by a US or British pollster who has a vested interest in massaging the data until they get an answer that they want to hear?

I agree that there were probably "a lot" of people who wanted Ghadafi out...but what is that number? Did 51% or more of the population REALLY want to get rid of the guy who has handing out 0% mortgages, and free education and medical care for all Libyan citizens? Perhaps...but it seems like a stretch to me.

Unfortunately, the downside to just starting a civil war is that we will never really know what "the majority" of the people wanted since instead of ACTUAL diplomacy our "ambassador" engaged in violence FIRST.

...continued in nxt post due to character limits.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by milominderbinder


I don't appreciate being called an enlisted grunt. Labeling War Fighters and Patriots like that makes you look like you have a superiority complex.


Just as I didn't like the way you initially asserted that you were somehow more qualified to talk about US interventionism in the Middle East because you repaired Humvees in Tikrit or whatever. I'm not in any way suggesting that you are not a very intelligent and skilled person...but someone who has really studied this stuff can see that you are a bit untrained in historical matters and geo-politics.


Wow.

So 'studying' this stuff is better than literal personal experience?
Military service in places other than boot camp automatically renders the 'bit untrained' idea null and void...and if you've never been an enlisted grunt...I don't think you should be calling someone else that...no matter what you think...you haven't been there or done that. Ya know?

I'm not sure how old you are...but I'm guessing you are pretty young...probably < 25 years old?
That is not intended as an insult or derogatory in any way...just an observation based on your viewing of the situation in Libya with the same lens as what is going on these days in Afghanistan with the Taliban, terrorism, etc.

The situation in Libya has been brewing for DECADES.
I know because I am considerably older than 25 and I remember a whole different type of unrest than the kind we have now.

And the people of Libya were oppressed and even abused for years.
All it took was a few of them getting Qadafi (all these years and still no one really knows how to spell that name in English) alone...and the man was shot without remorse...not by interfering Americans but by the same people he was oppressing and whose parents he had oppressed...and who knows? maybe even their parents, too. He and Saddam had long long reigns of tyranny over the people in their country.

The civil war started when peaceful protestors against that regime were fired upon by that regime...I remember when I heard what had happened, that I couldn't believe anyone had finally mustered the boldness to actually do something like that...simply because Qadafi's reaction wasn't a surprise but exactly what you'd expect.

I cannot imagine the horror that living in a place like that with a despot of that degree in control.
And how to get relief from it?
Usually...just hope you die young, probably...even if that is all that a person ever knows...in their soul they know they aren't truly living and that it isn't right.
But there is no help when you are born into a country being held in such forced subjugation.

And...in any country...even when the worst tyrant to ever have lived is gone...for a while it is even worse than that...because there is a power vacuum and many people who, for many many years, have been thinking about how they would change things if the chance ever came. There is suddenly a surge of human passion and relief and anger and every emotion you could imagine...suddenly let loose in everyone.

This is just the way the course of humanity and its efforts socially evolve...I would think you would know this better than I do, since you are the one with the degree in this stuff...

I agree that we should not butt into other sovereign countries and meddle in their affairs...but I also do not feel that it is humanly possible to just sit around and ignore the fact that there are people in countries that may be sovereign but not because their leadership could even be called 'government' in the loosest fashion...if they one day get the nerve to finally stand up for themselves...and ask for help...SOMEONE ought to be there to help.

What if it were us...and we called...and no one came?

A Buddhist proverb goes like this:

If you do not care for each other, who will care for you?



And just for the record, your insensitive and imprudent title is what says more about your age/maturity than your education does...and your sentiment is not at all as informed and sophisticated as you would have yourself believe...there is a middle line that must somehow be reached between compassion and help and interference/disruption and meddling. As a country we are still searching for that line and some tend to one side and some to the others. The Ambassador was, from all accounts, a humanitarian-minded soul who was thinking not about governments but about PEOPLE...as individuals...that is what drives people like him to go into danger like that...the idea that each of us is a human in the same way and it isn't easy to enjoy life if others do not even have the chance to know what that means.

It is called loving your neighbor as your love yourself...and do unto others as you hope they do unto you...even if they don't...do it anyway...and it's a good idea for everyone...that's why they call it the golden rule.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 09:54 PM
link   


To that - Ghadafi continually tried to retake Benghazi from his safe zone in Tripoli without success. This was before NATO and the US even got involved.


Yes...but not before the Good Ambassador got involved apparently. This is sort of why his actions are a problem. Now you're getting it.


Christopher Stevens was our Ambassador to help and guide free Libyans to a system of self governance that they wanted.

Incorrect. He wasn't our "Ambassador" until May of 2012. Ghadafi was killed on 10-20-11. Chris Stevens was in the country and helping to start a civil war BEFORE HE WAS APPOINTED "AMBASSADOR".


edit on 13-9-2012 by milominderbinder because: formatting



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 10:17 PM
link   
milominderbinder,

I was very pleased to read your words:

Likewise, should evidence be presented that would suggest these reports are inaccurate...I'll be the first to re-evaluate my hypothesis. I believe in the scientific method and have no problem changing my views based upon credible evidence to the contrary. Hell...I'll post it myself if I come across it.

And what was your hypothesis?

"Training" The prick helped to START A CIVIL WAR...and it's being used AS A BRAGGING POINT.

Chris Stevens was in the country and helping to start a civil war BEFORE HE WAS APPOINTED "AMBASSADOR".

In short, "Ambassadors" don't normally start civil wars.

ABC has a pretty intersting story.
gma.yahoo.com... It includes the following:

During the early days of the Libyans' fight to overthrow Moammar Gadhafi, Christopher Stevens wrangled a ride on a Greek cargo ship and sailed into the rebels' stronghold city of Benghazi. He arrived at a time when the crackle of gunfire could be heard each night.
Stevens and his team didn't even have a place to stay, but found space in a hotel briefly, moving out after a car bomb went off in the parking lot, according to his own account in State Magazine last year.

Stevens, whose diplomatic foothold were a couple of battered tables, was on literally on the rebels' side while the revolution was at its most vulnerable and in danger of being crushed by Gadhafi's troops who were moving on the city. The threat was pushed back at the last minute by the intervention of NATO planes which began bombing Gadhafi's tanks and troops.
There is more verification of the story in State Magazine of December, 2011, which is linked to in the ABC article.

Last time I checked..."diplomats" normally are a point of contact and conduit of information in order for governments to work together, solve problems, and negotiate resolutions to disputes
That's exactly what he was doing when he arrived after the war had started. As a special envoy, he tried to meet with the leaders of the rebels, establish contact with the rebel movement, was a conduit of information both ways between the rebels and the US, while watching some of his friends die.

Now, go re-evaluate your hypothesis. You said you would.

-C-



new topics




 
71
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join