excerpt:
(Reuters) - The U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other embassy staff were killed in a rocket attack on their car, a Libyan official said, as they were rushed from a consular building stormed by militants denouncing a U.S.-made film insulting the Prophet Mohammad.
Gunmen had attacked and burned the U.S. consulate in the eastern city of Benghazi, a center of last year's uprising against Muammar Gaddafi, late on Tuesday evening, killing one U.S. consular official. The building was evacuated.
The Libyan official said the ambassador, Christopher Stevens, was being driven from the consulate building to a safer location when gunmen opened fire.
"The American ambassador and three staff members were killed when gunmen fired rockets at them," the official in Benghazi told Reuters.
There was no immediate comment from the State Department in Washington. U.S. ambassadors in such volatile countries are accompanied by tight security, usually travelling in well-protected convoys. Security officials will be considering whether the two attacks were coordinated.
Tags:
Permalink Reply by JonEdanger on September 12, 2012 at 6:03am
Permalink Reply by Will on September 12, 2012 at 6:30am I had to agree that the administration's response -- to condemn whoever it was that might have upset the attackers -- seemed like parody. Someone murders your people, and you say you're so sorry the murderers were upset? It clarifies, if we still needed clarification: our administration doesn't have the priorities we would expect. It bears asking what those priorities are and where they will take us.
Permalink Reply by Titus Techera on September 12, 2012 at 6:45am This kind of thing--the preemptive apology--was also featured in the September 11 message published by the American Embassy in Cairo.
Permalink Reply by Liam S. on September 12, 2012 at 7:09am I can halfway understand it, if the first priority is restoring calm. But I actually agree with you here - freedom of speech is not a halfway measure. You either mean it, or you don't.
Permalink Reply by JonEdanger on September 12, 2012 at 7:17am 1. Recall all US diplomatic personnel & expel Libyan diplomats from the US
2. Immediately stop all aid
3. The bombing begins in 5 minutes
In 1980 Time magazine named the Ayatollah Khomeni "Man of the Year". The next issue published a letter to the editor which asked them "how can you name that madman MotY". The following week another letter replied: "He was not a madman - a madman would have taken over the Soviet embassy".
And this assumes the attacker was Libyan. For example, I read a piece in the Irish Times by a French surgeon who just came back from working in Syria. In the rebel hospital he worked, over 50% of the injured fighters he treated were non-Syrian jihadists who've come to fight with the rebels.
Permalink Reply by Titus Techera on September 12, 2012 at 7:30am The attacker need not be Libyan. What matters is what the Libyan gov't is going to do about this & in what way it was involved.
I agree. Like the ultimatum Bush gave the Taliban with regards to Al-Quida. If the Libyans show less than expected eagerness in upholding the rule of law on this then the US would be justified in defending its people (and seeing as this is ambassadors we are talking about, that includes war).
Permalink Reply by Titus Techera on September 12, 2012 at 7:55am This may come back to haunt Mr. Obama, who seems to have led from behind in the liberation of Libya. As well, let us see what comes of the situation in Egypt, another of Mr. Obama's legacies...
Permalink Reply by Victor E. Franklin on September 12, 2012 at 11:48am While that might be a little extreme, we need to do something.
Permalink Reply by Josh on September 12, 2012 at 11:38pm Wait, I don't get this. I agree that the radicals behind the attack should be hanged by their own goolies, but who exactly are we going to be bombing? Is this some kind of "one bad apple..." philosophy (ok, more than one but that's how the saying goes), or did my hippie, liberal eyes refuse to read the part where this was sanctioned by the Libyan government?
Permalink Reply by Titus Techera on September 13, 2012 at 1:22am It's not the liberal eyes, it's the fact that you are brainless. Embassies in a country are protected by the laws of that country; the inviolability of ambassadors is the sine qua non of international relations. These laws of international conduct were known very well thousands of years ago. Then liberal mindlessness unlearned, untaught, undid them...
Had it been a terrorist attack, every liberal in the world could have pretended the gov't knew nothing about this--only the American gov't does, even as it's working behind the back of the people, of course--but when it's mobs, not even your garden-variety liberal could pretend that the locals know nothing...
Vytautas replied to Nathan DeParis's discussion Women: The Infallible Baromoter
Vytautas replied to Nathan DeParis's discussion Women: The Infallible Baromoter
Ian Wilson replied to John Muir's discussion Night Photography in the group AoM PhotoGroup
B.A. Poskin added a discussion to the group Scotch Connoisseurs
Michael replied to Nathan DeParis's discussion Women: The Infallible Baromoter
Liam S. replied to Alexander Connell's discussion Wolf Blitzer pushes tornado survivor to admit she thanked the lord. She tells him she's an atheist in the group Gentlemen Atheists
© 2013 Created by Brett McKay.
Powered by