WikiLeaks tweet blames US policy for attack on Libyan embassy

WikiLeaks tweet blames US policy for attack on Libyan embassy

source

WIKILEAKS has sparked outrage - and a quick retraction - with a tweet claiming the Libyan embassy was attacked because the US supported Britain placing police outside the Ecuadorian embassy in London.
US Libyan ambassador Chris Stevens and three other embassy employees were killed on Tuesday night in an attack on the embassy in Benghazi.
On Wednesday WikiLeaks posted on its official Twitter feed: "By the US accepting the UK siege on the Ecuadorian embassy in London it gave tacit approval for attacks on embassies around the world."

(visit the link for the full news article)

It would seem that wikileaks has put their foot in their mouth over this one. Is this being diplomatic? One could say strongly, No. Is it in poor taste and bad judgement? One could say, Yes. Does the Wikileaks tweet have any truth to it? Some would say, maybe.

Has the international press coverage of Julian assanges plight sparked a 'can do' revolution? Will we see more of this embassy storming and the loss of more life?

What responsibility should Wikileaks take considering Assanges situation? By making these sort of comments one could suggest that it does nothing more than to hinder Assanges cause, enrage TPTB and promote unruly , murderous mobs to attack diplomatic refuges.


(visit the link for the full news article)

How is this point lost on everyone?

NATO, led by the United States just bombed Libya via 26,900 sorties and 9,600 strike missions.

Estimates are that they killed 100,000 Libyans in the process.

While this movie may have been a spark (assuming it wasnt a false flag, provoked incident, which it obviously seems to be), it should be obvious to everyone that you cannot obliterate an entire nation without experiencing "blowback".

Libyans had one of the highest standards of living in all of the Middle East and Africa which has now been decimated by the US led bombardment.

deleted

reply to post by magma


Certainly US foreign policy has a role to play in what happened here. Gaddafi was a much loved leader and his removal has evidently left unbalance. It does seem a little odd that this has happened after the UK seiged the Ecuadorian embassy.

reply to post by purplemer


There has to be a tipping point at some moment in time. One can not be repressed and unfairly treaten for indefinate periods of time, without eventually rising up.

Is it possible a domino effect will take place. Does this usher in rationale for military dominance.

Where are human rights?

reply to post by gladtobehere


Who then is going take the accountabilty?

What actions will the US take, apart form deflecting the truth and promoting the incedent as a anniversary attack for 9/11?

I find that obsurd

Originally posted by gladtobehere
How is this point lost on everyone?

NATO, led by the United States just bombed Libya via 26,900 sorties and 9,600 strike missions.

Estimates are that they killed 100,000 Libyans in the process.

While this movie may have been a spark (assuming it wasnt a false flag, provoked incident, which it obviously seems to be), it should be obvious to everyone that you cannot obliterate an entire nation without experiencing "blowback".

Libyans had one of the highest standards of living in all of the Middle East and Africa which has now been decimated by the US led bombardment.

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

I would guess that at least 10% are still fuming about the war, and getting madder by the day as the country turns to crap.

So yes, U.S, foriegn policy did cause the attack, but Wikileaks had nothing to do with it.

I seem to be a bit compulsive on this perspective;

Why should we care what Wikileaks tweets?

The presumption behind it is not explicit, is it?

Does it mean they "know" something?

If so ... what?

I - for one - will never allow myself to to completely trust a 'tweet' from some anonymous user with an IP address that registers as "Wikileaks".

Imagine the power to influence public opinion such trust can generate. And the number of people it reaches is immense.

Am I to believe that they have stated something extraordinary? Or as many have pointed out, this is common sense given the ... ahem .... geopolitical theater, at the moment. Of course US policy is responsible for this... that's their job! There will be plenty of shame to go around in regards to the morally tragic and completely unnecessary violence.

I fear propaganda in all its forms, and 'anonymous' sources don't cut the mustard anymore for me.

Just in case, I suppose this post may be followed with the standard stereotyping and generalizing that creates the narrative of fear... rather than that of conciliation which MUST come somehow, I'm not likely to respond to those today.

So yes, U.S, foriegn policy did cause the attack, but Wikileaks had nothing to do with it.

reply to post by AGWskeptic


Wikileaks tweeted and made a comment.

The awareness has been raised by wikileaks on many levels. They may not have had a direct influence in it, but they have had some influence.

The more important question is, does wikileaks have a moral obligation in their elevated position or are they out to just cause anachy?

Just like the west is filled with propoganda so is the middle east. They are bred to hate the west. Conspiring with the zionists, stealing rain, yada yada...
Then the movie just ignited the whole thing and gave them a reason to burn our flags and protest.
Wikileaks thing with the embassy in the UK is just a coincidence, but a convenient one for wikileaks.

Originally posted by magma

So yes, U.S, foriegn policy did cause the attack, but Wikileaks had nothing to do with it.

reply to post by AGWskeptic

 

Wikileaks tweeted and made a comment.

The awareness has been raised by wikileaks on many levels. They may not have had a direct influence in it, but they have had some influence.

The more important question is, does wikileaks have a moral obligation in their elevated position or are they out to just cause anachy?

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

That's not what the tweet claimed.

The tweet said that by allowing the Equadorian Embassy to be surrounded we greenlit the attacking of any ambassy.

The 2 are hardly the same thing.


I'm an Assange supporter, sent them money even. But this was inane.

reply to post by Maxmars

Does it mean they "know" something?

I don't think they know something as such, I think they were making a statement that as you suggest is pretty much common knowledge.

The bigger issue of the concern is to identify wikileaks as a freind or foe.

I am on the fence

Originally posted by gladtobehere
How is this point lost on everyone?

NATO, led by the United States just bombed Libya via 26,900 sorties and 9,600 strike missions.

Estimates are that they killed 100,000 Libyans in the process.

While this movie may have been a spark (assuming it wasnt a false flag, provoked incident, which it obviously seems to be), it should be obvious to everyone that you cannot obliterate an entire nation without experiencing "blowback".

Libyans had one of the highest standards of living in all of the Middle East and Africa which has now been decimated by the US led bombardment.

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

Actually the number killed according to the Libyan government was 1180 civilians by airstrikes, Now keep in mind this number is suspect since it was qadaffis records howeverofficial NATO counts puts civilian casualties due to airstrikes at around 70 . And the UN said between 10000 and 15000 total total during the whole conflict. So please tell me where you seen 100000 people killed in airstrikes?? How can that be when there wasnt even that many killed in the whole war and we know Qaddafi was attacking cities and did far more damage to cities. So god if us airstrikes killed 100000 then shelling the cities and attacking the with gunships Qaddafi army must have killed at least a million.Love it when people make up facts to support there agenda.

So since we accidentally killed 70 people flying thousands of sorties to protect there bid for independence not to mention stopping Qadaffis army from killing the entire cities civilians and this is the reason they killed our ambassador? What a weird deluded world you live in.

Just curious if this is the only time they tweeted their opinion or if they ever tweeted opinions for other issues around the world from other countries not related to US policies? I mean this organization is supposedly leaking information that benefits the citizens around the world. Now they're a opinion based organization? sorta like MSM? Hmmmm...the whole wikileak organization sounds too damn fishy to begin with.

WikiLeaks must be in touch with the Illuminati World to figure that one out.
The rulers behave cause they get paid from international deals but to Joe blow
mob scene fanatics can turn on a dime. Plus you have the counter agenda
in every one of the countries we don't own outright.