It is being reported by the New York Times and other sources that the Libyans engaged in a four hour firefight attempting to protect our embassy in Libya, taking anywhere from 8 to 10 casualties before being defeated by a rocket grenade.
It is being reported by the New York Times and other sources that the Libyans engaged in a four hour firefight attempting to protect our embassy in Libya, taking anywhere from 8 to 10 casualties before being defeated by a rocket grenade. It is reported that when they became aware of the attack on the embassy, the Libyans responded with an entire brigade to defend the embassy. Our ambassador appears to have been particularly well regarded by the majority of mainstream Libyans, so the notion that the Libyan government may have been remiss or lacking a willingness to defend our embassy appears unfounded. A four hour firefight is not indifference to their duty to our embassy.
For those who thought the Libyans were lax or indifferent, I think this puts a very different picture of their actions in front of us. While in Egypt, the protesters were unarmed, except for their black Islamic flags, in Libya the protesters were uncharacteristically heavily armed.
Not coincidentally, the U.S. recently launched a successful drone attack on an insurgent apparent terrorist, an event which received less press than the similar successful attack in Yemen. It is now becoming apparent as more details are available that a local islamist terrorist group claims the credit for the attack - not ordinary Libyans protesting the film.
I have had an running discussion with my very dear and honorable colleague Pen throughout the day about what the governments involved should or should not do in response to these attacks on our embassies. I think the level of outrage over our flag being destroyed and a wall climbed by unarmed protesters is very different from the attack in Libya. To conflate them as the same is a serious mistake.
No, protesters should not have invaded the sovereign territory of our embassy in Egypt; but they were not violent, armed protesters, and the appropriate level of response should be commensurate with the threat. Libya was an entirely different matter, and given the unrest and disorganization in Libya which they are trying to overcome, I think we nee to give them credit for at least attempting to do their best on our behalf against a MUTUAL enemy. A number of them gave their lives for this country, and for our ambassador.
We didn't have all the facts earlier, but there were problems with what was reported that just didn't feel accurate, or right; something struck me as fishy from the beginning. Now we are beginning to find out what and why. I'm sure more details will emerge over the coming days and weeks.
These new details make Sec State Clinton's response clearly all the more appropriate to the incidents. Good for her; once again she is showing the savvy and restraint that makes her very good at this job. Thus is also a clear indication of why it is that Obama IS good at being president, IS good at foreign policy and why Romney, with his neocon and paleocon dual-Israeli citizen policy advisers would be an utter disaster as president if he were elected.
It is being reported by the New York Times and other sources that the Libyans engaged in a four hour firefight attempting to protect our embassy in Libya, taking anywhere from 8 to 10 casualties before being defeated by a rocket grenade. It is reported that when they became aware of the attack on the embassy, the Libyans responded with an entire brigade to defend the embassy. Our ambassador appears to have been particularly well regarded by the majority of mainstream Libyans, so the notion that the Libyan government may have been remiss or lacking a willingness to defend our embassy appears unfounded. A four hour firefight is not indifference to their duty to our embassy.
For those who thought the Libyans were lax or indifferent, I think this puts a very different picture of their actions in front of us. While in Egypt, the protesters were unarmed, except for their black Islamic flags, in Libya the protesters were uncharacteristically heavily armed.
Not coincidentally, the U.S. recently launched a successful drone attack on an insurgent apparent terrorist, an event which received less press than the similar successful attack in Yemen. It is now becoming apparent as more details are available that a local islamist terrorist group claims the credit for the attack - not ordinary Libyans protesting the film.
Local Islamist militant groups capitalizing on the security vacuum have claimed responsibility for some attacks, and some reports on Tuesday suggested that one such group, Ansar al-Sharia, had claimed responsibility for that day’s assault.It appears that the Ansar al-Sharia group was using the dissatisfaction with the Islamaphobia hate film as a pretext, a cover, to mislead the government into expecting an unarmed and relatively peaceful protest, not this attack. It was a ruse.
I have had an running discussion with my very dear and honorable colleague Pen throughout the day about what the governments involved should or should not do in response to these attacks on our embassies. I think the level of outrage over our flag being destroyed and a wall climbed by unarmed protesters is very different from the attack in Libya. To conflate them as the same is a serious mistake.
No, protesters should not have invaded the sovereign territory of our embassy in Egypt; but they were not violent, armed protesters, and the appropriate level of response should be commensurate with the threat. Libya was an entirely different matter, and given the unrest and disorganization in Libya which they are trying to overcome, I think we nee to give them credit for at least attempting to do their best on our behalf against a MUTUAL enemy. A number of them gave their lives for this country, and for our ambassador.
We didn't have all the facts earlier, but there were problems with what was reported that just didn't feel accurate, or right; something struck me as fishy from the beginning. Now we are beginning to find out what and why. I'm sure more details will emerge over the coming days and weeks.
These new details make Sec State Clinton's response clearly all the more appropriate to the incidents. Good for her; once again she is showing the savvy and restraint that makes her very good at this job. Thus is also a clear indication of why it is that Obama IS good at being president, IS good at foreign policy and why Romney, with his neocon and paleocon dual-Israeli citizen policy advisers would be an utter disaster as president if he were elected.
I'm glad to see the update. I agree that an attack by people armed with fully-automatic weapons and rocket-propelled grenades is a terrorist attack and the claim the film caused the attack was a mere cover story. Saying "now look what you made me do" should no more excuse Muslim terrorists than it should wife-beaters.
ReplyDeleteSo, with this new information, are you inclined to change your analysis of whether Americans exercising their First Amendment rights should be denied building permits, or artists forced into hiding? Because when you were buying into the lie, you were pretty harsh on people who now appear to have been mere scapegoats. Has your opinion changed now that you have more facts?
I think hate speech is still hate speech and is often NOT covered under the 1st amendment.
ReplyDeleteAnd if you look at the right wing nuts behind the film, who intended it to do what it did, I think you have trouble with the 'now look what you made me do' line.
I have no desire to see legitimate free speech stifled, including the dissent that the far right has tried to shut down. I've never been unduly harsh on the scapegoats; although I thought my colleague Pen might have been only a little too harsh.
Has YOUR opinon changed, now that YOU have more facts? See my most recent post.
And since you have the resources to comment -- are you going to answer the question about the old right, the new right, and racism?
Cherrypicking is intellectual dishonesty Joe!!!! Shame on you!
Mr. Doakes has, it appears, time for this thread but not time to furnish the information requested of him on a previous thread. Odd that.
ReplyDeleteFreedom of speech, btw, does not mean that speakers are free of moral responsibility or the consequence for what their speech engenders in the listener. See "Chicks, Dixie" and "Williams, Jr., bloviating asswipe".
Joe,
ReplyDeleteI believe Demmcomm and DG are correct in that IF you have time to comment here, you need to address the question they keep posing to you but which you keep ducking while demanding answers from others (answers which they gave).
The conservatives in this country WERE at ONE TIME, Democrats in the South - prior to the civil war. They were joined in the late 1800's by business friendly Republicans in the North who wanted to keep wages low and so acted against unions and labor organizing efforts. Over time, these two factions generally worked in concernt from about the end of WWII through 1965, when, after northern Democrats passed the Civil Rights Act, the southern conservatives switched parties, to a party they found receptive and friendly to their bigotted, racist agenda. That's why the likes of Jerrry Falwell and Strom Thurmond switched parties.
Are you aware of this course of events? Are you aware of the old and new Democratic and Republican parties, are you aware of the old and new forms of conservatism? If not, go learn. Either way, answer the question. Failing that, we don't any more time for your drivel. Demanding that others answer you when you present myopia as fact while refusing to look at or address the larger picture is sophistry and nothing else, and worhty of no reply or consideration.
A minor historical correction; Republicans came into existence as a party with Lincoln. The southerners who were the slave owners, etc. were definitely conservative.
ReplyDeleteBecause they saw Lincoln and the 'carpetbaggers' as Republicans, they identified themselves as democrats POST, not prior, to the civil war in opposition to the north/union.
The north had their share of racist conservatives at all economic levels; together they combined as the old right, and subsequent to the Goldwater campaign as the new right -- both old and new included the anti-civil rights, pro-Jim-Crow racists.
After the civil rights act, the bad dems bailed and joined your lot, where they've remained racists happily through to our current politics. So the question is -- why do you lie about who was responsible for opposing civil rights and oppressing blacks? It was and still is conservatives.