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

Originally posted by Nite_wing
Based on your post about 3500 "lousy" civilians who died on 9-11, I can only imagine you celebrated.
The rest of us cried but you justify it.

No...it's not justified at all. I'm just correctly noting that the civilian death toll which Chris Stevens partook in while in Libya ILLEGALLY was approximately 14.2 times more severe and devastating than the civilian death toll which we experienced on 9-11.

Civilian deaths are civilian deaths. If Bin Laden & Co. were labeled terrorists for killing 3500 innocent civilians...then what do we call a guy who gets 50,000 innocent civilians killed?

My point is that the actions which Chris Stevens engaged in PRIOR to be named "ambassador" were unlawful by both Libyan and International law and that assuming the reports of his role and assistance in fomenting the Libyan civil war...then he should be remembered and regarded in very much the same way as Bin Laden is remembered and regarded.

The ends do not justify the means. Christ...once upon a time we might have even been able to build a half-a**ed "justification" for it based upon the idea that Ghadaffi arbitrarily would take political prisoners and torture them without trial. Unfortunately...Republican and Democratic presidential administrations BOTH have shown through their actions that they fully support torture and imprisonment without trial...so I guess it's pretty hypocritical to cite that as a reason.

It's NOT ok to start a civil war (which ALWAYS have notoriously high civilian casualty rates) just because we don't like the leader of the country. Likewise, it's NOT ok to "pick sides" either as there is absolutely ZERO empirical evidence which would suggest that our intervention will end in anything less than a complete and utter DISASTER.

We attempt not to kill civilians when the cowardly terrorists hide among them. They purposely targated civilians.
There is a difference, even if you can't see it.

What country have you been living in the last decade or so? Did you see the "collateral murder" video on wikileaks? That looked to be the very definition of "targeting civilians" to me. Estimates for the civilian death toll in Iraq range from 655,000 to 1 million. So...EITHER we are absolutely "targeting" civilians OR we have just about the most utterly incompetent military in the history of the entire world given that we f^ck up the mission an average of 5,458.33 times each and every month since the day we invaded ON THE CONSERVATIVE SIDE OF THINGS.

Personally...I don't think the military is incompetent at all.

reply to post by milominderbinder


Simply put, good sir. Unless you recognize these all-too-true connections, then you are, in fact, picking and choosing. And I do not follow illogical morality.

In fact, this is the reason why morality is meaningless to me. It's a contradiction and a thing of pride.

Ironically, the word "moral", doesn't show up in the Bible, nor in rules of war, nor in many other things. It is a social construct. Utterly false and fabricated.

You can pride yourself on your selectively chosen cleanliness laws. I accept that I have helped kill the Earth, and endeavor to fix it.

I've neither the time nor inclination to pick and choose illogical biased reasons of who is clean and who is unclean. We are all unclean.

In war, you will kill, in peace, you will plot. We are all responsible for every bad thing on this planet. Pretending you are an island, somehow innocent, is foul-hearty.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
People who want to know about Chris Stevens should read a novel by Graham Greene called The Quiet American. All Americans should read that novel.

Chris Stevens was a fine civil servant and seemed to be a very nice guy whose heart was in the right place, a true believer in his country's ideals, a classic "Quiet American" overseas.

Really? Because to me it seems like he played a major role in 50,000 civilian deaths and pushed us ever-closer to a completely preventable WWIII.

I guess we all have our own opinions, though.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by marker3221

 

Honestly if the Chinese started buying and donating rifles to American militias, I would call them my friends.

They know our history and culture. By giving our people guns, they are telling me that they are not interested in invading, and want to help us defend ourselves.

edit on 15-9-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

Yes...if only we knew the history and culture of the countries we decided to play God with.

Originally posted by JDmOKI
reply to post by milominderbinder

 

No! this is not a good thread. this should have been taken down days ago. The only thing this type of "USA deserves this BS" does is divide and ignite more HATE on ATS and the world. The last thing we need on this site is more hate and sensationalism. ATS is getting worse than the MSM.

Nonsense. I never said the "USA deserves this". I said it appears as though Chris Stevens probably did. Big difference.

One is an entire country...the other is a single individual who illegally entered the country in order to assist armed rebels to overthrow Africa's most prosperous, stable government, and human rights-oriented government into a civil war which ultimately killed 50,000 civilians.

...and no...that doesn't mean that Libya had a great civil rights record....it means that it had the best of what AFRICA has to offer and therefore should have probably been the DEAD LAST place we would have intervened on the basis of humanitarian rights.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by milominderbinder

 

Simply put, good sir. Unless you recognize these all-too-true connections, then you are, in fact, picking and choosing. And I do not follow illogical morality.

In fact, this is the reason why morality is meaningless to me. It's a contradiction and a thing of pride.

Ironically, the word "moral", doesn't show up in the Bible, nor in rules of war, nor in many other things. It is a social construct. Utterly false and fabricated.

You can pride yourself on your selectively chosen cleanliness laws. I accept that I have helped kill the Earth, and endeavor to fix it.

I've neither the time nor inclination to pick and choose illogical biased reasons of who is clean and who is unclean. We are all unclean.

In war, you will kill, in peace, you will plot. We are all responsible for every bad thing on this planet. Pretending you are an island, somehow innocent, is foul-hearty.

edit on 16-9-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

What the hell are you talking about? You haven't made any "connections" and I really don't care what the Bible says, given that I'm an atheist. "Cleanliness laws"...are you on crack?

If I understand you're extremely bizarre views correctly...you are a Ron Paul supporter who ironically thinks it's OK to meddle in nation-building, strongly believes in the inevitability of violence and warfare and thinks morality is an illusion and that there is no difference between "right" and "wrong".

So...what exactly do you think Ron Paul has right, given that you disagree with pretty much everything the guy stands for?

...and you say I'm illogical. Right. Gotcha.

Originally posted by Nite_wing
If you feel that an American ambassador and his staff got what they deserved, then you are not fellow American of mine so don't pretend to be.

Thats messed up thinking. Is what you are saying is if you are critical of a system you then you do not deserve to be part of the system... Its not nice to hear about anyone getting killed. However I do not understand why people are shocked. The US funded terrorist forces and overthrow a much loved African leader. The country is now in a state of disarray. You reap what you sow.

reply to post by milominderbinder


You took my words and twisted them to what you want to view me as.

So tell me. Why should I waste time with a man who cannot think objectively?

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by milominderbinder

 

You took my words and twisted them to what you want to view me as.

So tell me. Why should I waste time with a man who cannot think objectively?

I didn't twist anything at all...and you shouldn't feel so self-important as to think I have any particular way that I "want to view you". There's no political axe to grind. I'm a Ron Paul supporter and intend on voting for Gary Johnson in this election.

I'm just taking your own stated views on these matters and pointing out the inherent contradictions with what supposedly and presumably are the rest of your political ideologies. The definition of "objective thinking" is:
"Thinking which is not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion..

Tell me...specifically how am I "twisting your words"?
Ron Paul is absolutely opposed to this brand of American interventionism and nation-building. You are defending it. Ron Paul was the ONLY anti-war candidate out of the entire field of Republicans and Democrats alike this election cycle. You are justifying a civil war which killed 50,000 innocent civilians and quite clearly compared it to using electricity or buying an ipod.

That's not "twisting your words"...that's repeating them. Don't blame me if it sounds nuts...and feel free to change your position if you have also decided it's sounds a bit nutty. I'm not stopping you and I promise I won't make you feel bad by saying "told you so" and rubbing it in or whatever.

Not only does Ron Paul and Gary agree with you, but so do the founding fathers:

en.wikipedia.org...'s_Farewell_Address

Foreign relations and free trade

Washington dedicates a large part of his farewell address to discussing foreign relations, and the dangers of permanent alliances between the United States and foreign nations.

Once again making reference to proper behavior based upon religious doctrine and morality, Washington advocates a policy of good faith and justice towards all nations, and urges the American people to avoid long-term friendly relations or rivalries with any nation.

He argues these attachments and animosity toward nations will only cloud the government's judgment in its foreign policy. Washington argues that longstanding poor relations will only lead to unnecessary wars due to a tendency to blow minor offenses out of proportion when committed by nations viewed as enemies of the United States.

He continues this argument by claiming that alliances are likely to draw the United States into wars which have no justification and no benefit to the country beyond simply defending the favored nation. Washington continues his warning on alliances by claiming that they often lead to poor relations with nations who feel that they are not being treated as well as America's allies, and threaten to influence the American government into making decisions based upon the will of their allies instead of the will of the American people.


[Washington makes an extended reference to the dangers of foreign nations who will seek to influence the American people and government. He makes a point to say that he believes both nations who may be considered friendly as well as nations considered enemies will try to influence the government to do their will and it will only be "real patriots" who ignore popular opinion and resist the influence of friendly nations to seek what is best for their own country.

Originally posted by milominderbinder

I didn't twist anything at all...and you shouldn't feel so self-important as to think I have any particular way that I "want to view you". There's no political axe to grind. I'm a Ron Paul supporter and intend on voting for Gary Johnson in this election.

reply to post by jacobe001


Thanks....I know.

I have a Master's Degree in history and I don't ever expect anyone here on ATS to have a professional historians level of understanding about how we got to our present day situation...but it drives me totally insane when I see so many people who just don't have any clue at all about US History.

reply to post by milominderbinder


You're mixing all sorts of terminologies like nation building and inevitability of violence.

Furthermore, you're acting like a puritan zealot when it comes to Paul's beliefs. I can support most of his policies without agreeing with everything.

If you cannot see the emotion, even now in your last post, and how it's affecting your reasoning, then quite frankly, I'm done.

We have a rant sub forum if you'd like to accuse and assume some more.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by milominderbinder

 

You're mixing all sorts of terminologies like nation building and inevitability of violence.

I'm not "mixing terminologies". I'm repeating what you said. If fomenting a civil war in order to "influence" a country to have a government that we like better isn't "nation building"...then what the hell is?

Furthermore, you're acting like a puritan zealot when it comes to Paul's beliefs. I can support most of his policies without agreeing with everything.
No...I'm not. I too, don't share many of Ron Paul's beliefs. Namely, I think religion of all sorts is a farce, and I don't believe the Federal OR the state government has the right and authority to legislate human reproductive practices.

However...my disagreements with certain aspects of Ron Paul's beliefs are radically radically different than your blanket statements that morality doesn't exist and buying an ipod has the same detrimental effect on human life as piling up 50,000 dead bodies in someone else's civil war.

Again...don't be upset with me if you feel like your argument doesn't make any sense. Instead, just modify your argument so that it DOES make sense. You'll be much farther ahead.

I see a lot of people here blaming Americans for what the U.S. Gov. is doing in the world. Why??

reply to post by milominderbinder


Because nation building is a two edge sword. There is nation building that involves financing a civil war, nation building that involves direct military intervention, and nation building that involves what the US did in the late 1800s, of which I like the most. And what the US did in the late 1800s is indeed similar to what we are doing today, and honestly, it's not that bad of a thing.

No...I'm not. I too, don't share many of Ron Paul's beliefs. Namely, I think religion of all sorts is a farce, and I don't believe the Federal OR the state government has the right and authority to legislate human reproductive practices.

Well lo and behold, those are the exact things I do agree with him on.

See how funny it is when you try to create a false dichotomy using Ron Paul?

However...my disagreements with certain aspects of Ron Paul's beliefs are radically radically different than your blanket statements that morality doesn't exist and buying an ipod has the same detrimental effect on human life as piling up 50,000 dead bodies in someone else's civil war.

In fact it's worse. Mass consumerism has killed and enslaved more people than any war could ever hope to.

Again...don't be upset with me if you feel like your argument doesn't make any sense. Instead, just modify your argument so that it DOES make sense. You'll be much farther ahead.

It makes quite a lot of sense to influence nations you want to with economy and favoritism rather than military, and to regulate people who want to kill human life just because they feel like it, at home. Which is why I really like Ron Paul.

Because nation building is a two edge sword. There is nation building that involves financing a civil war, nation building that involves direct military intervention, and nation building that involves what the US did in the late 1800s, of which I like the most. And what the US did in the late 1800s is indeed similar to what we are doing today, and honestly, it's not that bad of a thing.

Which foreign goverments did we topple by fomenting a civil war in the late 1800's? I surely can't think of any. The only "nation-building" that we were involved in was in stealing land from Mexico and exterminating Indians.

See how funny it is when you try to create a false dichotomy using Ron Paul?

What false dichotomy? I'm pointing out that I certainly DON'T think you have agree with Ron Paul on all matters, and identified two instances in which I myself DO NOT agree with him on. One of these, his belief in god, isn't even a political issue and on the issue of abortion Ron Paul and I agree on 50% of the matter. Both of us think that the Federal government is overstepping it's authority in EITHER legalizing OR banning abortions. However, Ron Paul believes that states ought to have some authority over this matter. That being said...the difference is minor enough that I'm willing to compromise my beliefs and still support Ron Paul even though we have a minor disagreement about what constitutes "life".

These are pretty minor differences which have don't really have much to do with policy or politics. However, I would assert that supporting Ron Paul whilst also supporting Chris Stevens role in killing 50,000 innocent civilians is a bit incongruous to say the least.

What's weird is how you don't really see how completely opposite Ron Pauls foreign and domestic policy is to your own views. A HUGE part of the reason Ron Paul wants to "End the Fed" is to make this sort of meddling impossible.

In fact it's worse. Mass consumerism has killed and enslaved more people than any war could ever hope to.

Wow...so you are ALSO against free-market capitalism? The phrase "Mass consumerism has killed and enslaved more people than any war could ever hope to." sounds likes it almost bordering on Marxism. You aren't kidding about having some different views than what Ron Paul has. The only thing I can see thus far that you agree on seems to be religion...which isn't even a geo-political or economic issue.

It makes quite a lot of sense to influence nations you want to with economy and favoritism rather than military, and to regulate people who want to kill human life just because they feel like it, at home. Which is why I really like Ron Paul.

I wholeheartedly agree.

However...did you miss the part about Chris Stevens starting a civil war in a country which he was in illegally at the time? He wasn't there haggling out most favored nation status or working for a better tariff rate. He was assisting armed rebels and caused the death of 50,000 innocent civilians....in short...the exact sort of thing Ron Paul DOES NOT support.

Hell...send his office and email and ask him if you don't believe me. He or one of his aides will be happy to respond that Mr. Paul would not support the covert manipulation of a civil war in the Middle East. I promise.

Originally posted by Propulsion
I see a lot of people here blaming Americans for what the U.S. Gov. is doing in the world. Why?

?

Huh?

Whose blaming "Americans"? Do you have an actual example?

Originally posted by purplemer

Originally posted by Nite_wing
If you feel that an American ambassador and his staff got what they deserved, then you are not fellow American of mine so don't pretend to be.

Thats messed up thinking. Is what you are saying is if you are critical of a system you then you do not deserve to be part of the system... Its not nice to hear about anyone getting killed. However I do not understand why people are shocked. The US funded terrorist forces and overthrow a much loved African leader. The country is now in a state of disarray. You reap what you sow.

Exactly. ...and our operative on the ground who spearheaded the whole operation was none other than Chris Stevens who wasn't named "ambassador" until 7 months after Ghadaffi was killed.

...hence the title of this thread.

If we don't like it...maybe we should stop screwing around with other peoples governments.

reply to post by My.mind.is.mine

America is one of the worlds youngest countries, with the most extensive military history EVER, killing innocent people in their sleep from thousands of miles away using unmanned lethal means - yet americans should only die of natural causes because karma isn't a bitch but a nice woman down the block.... right?

LOL

That was one of the most poetic paragraphs written on ATS, ever.

Belongs in a hiphop track with minor changes of course.