US ambassador to Libya killed in attack on Benghazi consulate

[GGT]

So because an event or situations on the ground could change in the near future, we should expect politicians to refrain from talking about them? If you expect our leaders to wait for absolutely perfect information before they comment then you are going to be waiting a long time to hear anything.

Come to think of it, that might not be a bad idea...

One particular politician, candidate for office of the Presidency -- Head of State, Commander in Chief, "Leader of the Free World" -- knowing full well that every word he utters and statement he makes is being watched/reported/repeated by the global press, other international leaders, allies and foes. Yes, I have a higher bar of expectations for POTUS candidates, especially after our (weird) party primary elections have whittled it down to ONE main opponent vs the incumbent.

Romney doesn't seem to grasp the gravity of it all. He acts as if he's still fighting a state caucus or closed primary by appealing to his party "base". He practically acts surprised (and feigns outrage) when he realizes that everyone is watching.....including his fellow Governance-Republicans, bi-partisan Diplomats, Independents, Undecideds, and the rest of the world.

No, it's not. Those are values that many of us hold dear that are also deeply offensive to many Muslims.

It's a red herring (or strawman, or whatever else) because it doesn't deal with the situation at hand. The "Values" being tossed around (like a volleyball) are Free Speech, Religious Tolerance, and Democratically-elected governance. NO ONE in American leadership condones violence or murder, let alone terrorism, in the name of those values.

Then where's the criticism to the people who actually could have made a difference in the safety of the people on the ground? Where does the buck stop?

They weren't on security detail, at least one was in the country looking for and destroying shoulder fired missiles. If there was credible intelligence that there was a threat 48 hours in advance and nothing was done, who is to blame?

The embassy had US security forces, Ambassador Stevens had a security detail. It's disingenuous to suggest those public servants and diplomats didn't know their OWN risks, that they were abrogating their OWN safety needs, or that the Obama administration was denying them somehow. That's preposterous. It makes more sense to assume every international diplomat was on "high alert" simply because of the date -- 9/11.

Got to love reflexive anti-Americanism. The only racists I see are people like you who think attacking an entire country for the actions of a private individual is acceptable.

Being partisan is the least of the problems of people like GGT. Inability to think rationally and critically seems like a bigger issue.

Let's look at this thread. On the one hand, you have Romney supporters who all agree that what Romney said was politically motivated and more than a little stupid. On the other hand, you have Obama fanboys who parrot the talking points of the DNC.

On the other hand, we have people like you who aspire toward International Relations, yet continue to repeat the inflammatory language, put people into This or That category, and feed off the divide. How diplomatic is that.

I like the way Romeny has supporters but Obama has fanboys.

Anyway, what Romney supporters have done in this thread is try and paint what he said as politics as usual and gloss over the fact that what he did was actually to violate a pretty major taboo against using events like this to score political points, and that was the primary cause of all the criticism he's received over it, and then claim there are more important issues to talk about - another classic tactic to shut down something you don't want to see discussed,

<such as recently used by the Tories against Lib Dem ideas about house of lords reform - but with the excuse that there actually is a limited amount of parliamentary time to devote to issues>

where as here we can discuss Romeny's comments, the failures of security at the Libya embassy or any other failings of Obama people think are relevant.

Precisely.

Eh? I've probably been the most vocal "supporter" of Romney in this thread, and I'm anything but. I think that blaming Romney for making an announcement before an event that could not be foreseen is partisan. That being said, the criticism of him doubling down on his original statement seems fair to me.

You keep asking where the buck stops. Well, in the Romney campaign the buck stops with him. He's the candidate, the nominee, and needs to take as much responsibility for every word that comes out of his mouth...or is attributed to him by way of his surrogates. If he is so anxious to attribute any Obama administration emissary/mission/consulate/press statement or action to Obama himself...then he needs to apply the same standard to himself.

Romney has either surrounded himself with a bunch of idiot savants, or he's an idiot himself. Either way, he's not Presidential material. That is my personal opinion.

It's my personal observation that millions of people will vote for Romney because he's on the Republican ticket (without realizing the changes within the GOP)...or as a vote against President Obama.

[GGT]

I think the titles are pretty accurate. I don't believe a single Romney supporter here is really a fan of Romney; we just think he's better than Obama. Most of the Obama supporters here believe him to be some kind of a beacon of goodness who would save the world if only not for the mean Republicans getting in his way.

Weren't you an early Hillary Clinton supporter?

[Steely Glint]

I think the titles are pretty accurate. I don't believe a single Romney supporter here is really a fan of Romney; we just think he's better than Obama. Most of the Obama supporters here believe him to be some kind of a beacon of goodness who would save the world if only not for the mean Republicans getting in his way.

Well, I can't speak for Obama supporters here (and I'm not exactly sure how you can claim to either), but I'm pretty sure large section of the left in America are throughly disillusioned with Obama, and will only turn out and vote for him because, wait for it, they think he's better than Romney.

As for the second point, when exactly did this become a taboo?

How the fuck should I know when it became taboo?

I recall Bush getting attacked whenever a soldier was killed...

You're obviously lying through your teeth. Again. not remembering correctly. Anyway, the problem is not with criticizing politicians over these things, because that would mean important issues never got discussed but doing so in the immediate aftermath of the event. It is perfectly legitimate to criticize Bush for ignoring warnings about 9/11, it would not have been legitimate for a democratic politician to say, on September 12, "this never would have happened if one of our guys had been president" or anything to that effect.

[GGT]

Steely is correct. Saint Reagan said as much during the Iranian hostage crisis, when his political opponent was Jimmy Carter. It's considered tacky and beneath Presidential diplomacy to do otherwise, during moments of crisis.

[Loki]

You're obviously lying through your teeth. Again. not remembering correctly. Anyway, the problem is not with criticizing politicians over these things, because that would mean important issues never got discussed but doing so in the immediate aftermath of the event. It is perfectly legitimate to criticize Bush for ignoring warnings about 9/11, it would not have been legitimate for a democratic politician to say, on September 12, "this never would have happened if one of our guys had been president" or anything to that effect.

You're right, it would be a rather idiotic thing to say. Good thing Romney said nothing of the sort. He hasn't attacked Obama for the death of the ambassador; he attacked him for the perception that Obama was apologizing to extremists in the wake of the attacks (which isn't that bright either from a presidential candidate, but not what people here and elsewhere are claiming).

[Dreadnaught]

Sooo...this keeps on going. Danish Cartoons redux?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/15/wo...r-4th-day.html

Meanwhile, I can't help feeling really weird saying this because this is the kind of language used by conspiratorial wingnuts. But what do people think are the chances this was some really weird false flag operation? Those kinds of things are incredibly hard to pull off, and I dismiss anyone who usually screams "false flag" (usually because they are accusing the Jews/capitalists/Americans/infidels of planting this).

But here we have an incoherent anti-Muslim video that's been out for months. Some Islamic preachers draw attention to it. When reached for comment, the YouTube uploader invites reporters to call him and unleashes a ridiculous statement about how he's Israeli-American and 100 Jews donated $5 million to make it. Then the story shifts to Copts who may have made it. Now maybe it was directed by a softcore porn director and then dubbed later to make it inflamatory.

EXTRA | September 13, 2012, 4:30 p.m. ET
Who is 'Sam Bacile'?
New intriguing leads on the man who made the world's most deadly movie trailer.

By BRET STEPHENS

U.S. diplomatic missions in Libya, Egypt and Yemen have come under violent assault in recent days, all ostensibly on account of an online trailer for a film nobody has seen called "Innocence of Muslims." The 14-minute clip, almost comically badly acted, depicts the Muslim Prophet Muhammad in a, well, unflattering light. The actors in the clip have insisted they were duped into thinking the film was set 2,000 years ago in (pre-Islamic) Egypt, and that the Muhammad character was named "George." The anti-Islamic thrust of the clip appears to have been added later by way of some crude overdubbing.

Since then questions have swirled about the identity of the film-maker. On Tuesday, the Journal spoke to a man who claimed to be the director and called himself Sam Bacile. He described himself as a 52-year-old Israeli-American real-estate developer, called Islam a "cancer," and said the film had been funded by Jewish donors to the tune of $5 million.

But as the Journal reports, there are no records of a "Sam Bacile" either in the U.S. or Israel. The Journal also reports that "Sam Bacile's" phone number was traced to an address in Cerritos, Calif., which appears to be the home of somebody named Nakoula Bassely Nakoula. Along with a "Sam Basselley," Mr. Nakoula is listed as one of the film's producers. In a conversation with the Associated Press, he denied being Sam Bacile but claimed to be a Coptic Christian and the manager of the company that had produced the film. Records indicate that a man named Nakoula Nakoula recently served a prison sentence for bank fraud. Among his known aliases are Mark Basseley Youssef and Youssef M. Basseley.

With help from a tipster, I've done some sleuthing myself and come up with a few intriguing leads. Until the page suddenly vanished yesterday, someone named Sam Bassel had a Facebook page in which he identified himself as a male "Movei [sic] maker" in Hollywood, California. Also promoted as a "Favorite" on the page is a movie called "Innocence of bin Laden," which seems to have been the original title for "Innocence of Muslims." Most of the written exchanges on the page are in Arabic, and most of Sam Bassel's Facebook friends appear to be of Arab origin as well. Also listed as a Favorite on the page is a link to a Facebook group called "I am Egyptian."

The "Sam Bassel" Facebook page abruptly vanished yesterday. But I caught a screen grab of the page before it disappeared.



Note the name under the "Work and Education" tag: "matthew mtta dba," in Norwalk Calif. A Google search finds that a legal notice for a Fictitious Business Name Statement was posted in the Nov. 4-10, 2010 issue of the San Gabriel Valley Examiner, on page B11. It reads: "The following person(s) doing business as: MATTHEW MTTA" and gives the registrant's name as "Abanob Basseley," along with an address in Norwalk.

So who is Abanob Basseley? Yesterday I called a number listed to that name with an address in Cerritos, CA—the same town in which Nakoula Nakoula apparently lives. The number was no longer in service, so the hunt goes on. But a few tentative conclusions:

Sam Bacile/Bassel is not an Israeli-American, and his attempt to pass himself off as one is a potentially deadly slander. His film—if there really is any footage beyond the 14-minute clip—did not cost anything like $5 million to make. There is no cabal of Jewish donors who put up the money. Sam Bassel, or whoever used that name as a Facebook alias, speaks and writes fluent Arabic and likely has an Egyptian background. The name Abanob Basseley is, as one Egyptian friend tells me, as typically Coptic as, say, Mohammad is Muslim or Shlomo is Jewish. (St. Abonoub is a Coptic saint named after an Egyptian child martyred by the Romans.) The fact that the film was publicly promoted by Morris Sadek, the head of the National American Coptic Assembly, also suggests a Coptic connection to the film.

No doubt we'll learn more about "Sam Bacile" in the days to come. What effect, if any, an accurate account of the video clip's true origins will have on the protesters rampaging in Arab capitals remains to be seen.

Mr. Stephens writes Global View, the Journal's foreign affairs column.

[GGT]

You're right, it would be a rather idiotic thing to say. Good thing Romney said nothing of the sort. He hasn't attacked Obama for the death of the ambassador; he attacked him for the perception that Obama was apologizing to extremists in the wake of the attacks (which isn't that bright either from a presidential candidate, but not what people here and elsewhere are claiming).

Romney has used the protests at American embassies, including the death of Ambassador Stevens, to suggest that President Obama's policies are "apologetic" AND to blame for any/every thing bad happening in the middle east. Without giving a coherent policy alternative.

[Ominous Gamer]

The guy can't visit the Olympics without pissing off a country, you think he would know the first thing in how to handle something as touchy as this?

[GGT]

Dread, it doesn't matter much to most Americans. We don't care if the film was funded, produced, directed or disseminated by an "American-Israeli Jew" or a "Coptic Christian" or a "micro-church southern Christian anti-Islamic bigot" or anything in between. Because we have a distinct view of Freedom of Speech and religious tolerance.

Some Islamic 'preachers' drew attention to it, but so did some Christian 'preachers'. It seems obvious that the (crappy, low budget) film was made and disseminated for nefarious reasons, and meant to incite hate-based reactions. Some of the actors came forward to express their shock and dismay, confirming that the title and dialogue had been altered. The thing had been around since June....with few views, and few complaints.

Who knows how it found its first "offended" viewer, why it turned into a viral video, or which came first? It's pretty hard to explain free and uncensored speech (including offensive speech) to people who've spent their whole lives in a sea of government monitored/censored speech....while they're finding their new sea legs.

[Loki]

It was only translated into Arabic in the last week.

[Lewkowski]

I think the titles are pretty accurate. I don't believe a single Romney supporter here is really a fan of Romney; we just think he's better than Obama. Most of the Obama supporters here believe him to be some kind of a beacon of goodness who would save the world if only not for the mean Republicans getting in his way.

As for the second point, when exactly did this become a taboo? I recall Bush getting attacked whenever a soldier was killed...

I'm a Romney supported. Sure i would of liked someone with a more consistent record but the guy was a successful businessman - something we need more of in government. Obama and people like him simply don't understand (or don't care) the ramifications of over regulation. We need more CEO's in office. We need more folks who understand economics. Romney isn't perfect but I support him and think he'll make a great president.

[Lewkowski]

Honestly the best response to Muslim violence like this is force and more mocking of their religion. Don't like people making fun of Islam? Stop reacting to it then. Like a stubborn dog sometimes you have to beat some sense into people and in this case an entire culture. Every attack is lead with more mocking of their prophet and their god. Every attack is another bomb that kills them. Every attack is another denigration of what they hold dear.

Sadly America is so too wimpy to do it. People all up in arms over potential Koran burning... go ahead and burn the damn thing. Violence happens? OK - lets have another burn the Koran rallies and kill 10x the people they kill. Japan used to be a stubborn nation. Fought us tooth and nail. Then we broke them. Literally broke the will of an entire people. Made their Emperor submit and dramatically transformed their world. Its totally possible to do in the middle east if our leaders had a pair of balls between them.

[Lebanese Dragon]

Obama and people like him simply don't understand (or don't care) the ramifications of over regulation

What regulation in particular do you not like? I think the agendas Obama has pushed are worthwhile, I just wish more passed.

[Enoch the Red]

I'm a Romney supported. Sure i would of liked someone with a more consistent record but the guy was a successful businessman - something we need more of in government. Obama and people like him simply don't understand (or don't care) the ramifications of over regulation. We need more CEO's in office. We need more folks who understand economics. Romney isn't perfect but I support him and think he'll make a great president.

I'm really not following that logic. George Soros and Ted Turner were both also successful in business. I somehow doubt that qualifies them to be president.

[Aimless]

Hey Lewk would you nuke the Middle East if you could get away with it?

[Ominous Gamer]

I'm a Romney supported. Sure i would of liked someone with a more consistent record but the guy was a successful businessman - something we need more of in government. Obama and people like him simply don't understand (or don't care) the ramifications of over regulation. We need more CEO's in office. We need more folks who understand economics. Romney isn't perfect but I support him and think he'll make a great president.

ambition alone is perhaps one of the worst reasons to support someone for president

[Lewkowski]

I'm really not following that logic. George Soros and Ted Turner were both also successful in business. I somehow doubt that qualifies them to be president.

Absolutely would qualify them for being the president. Of course they have different political viewpoints so I wouldn't vote for them. Qualified to lead a country != always agrees with me.

[Lewkowski]

What regulation in particular do you not like? I think the agendas Obama has pushed are worthwhile, I just wish more passed.

Frank-Dodd for one has required banks to face double regulation. Barring some stipulations if Texas has a law that requires banks to do X and I live in Texas, the bank that chooses to serve me must follow that law even if their home base is in another state. This subjects national banks to 49 extra states worth of regulations if they choose to operate in those states. This one act has costs millions of dollars in new compliance management for national banks. Furthermore its a liberal play to punish states with looser regulations then they like. Now national banks cannot "shop" for home base of operations in states with more freedom orientated approaches to regulation.

Or for example the extra regulation on credit cards - unable to alter interest rates based on risk, fee caps ect. This makes credit *less* available. Those folks (typically the poor) turn to other sources of credit that actually put them at a further disadvantage ie payday loans.

On a local level I know someone who as part of their business operates a fuel pump for their delivery trucks. Well guess what - they need to spend several thousand dollars hiring an "expert" to certify that the fuel pump isn't leaking into the ground. Now on the surface you might be thinking, oh we don't want to potentially toxic stuff in the ground, great regulation! But what people don't understand is that its a *BUSINESS* They know exactly how much fuel is used and when. If there was a discrepancy between fuel used and fuel that should be there they would make damn sure they would fix the problem because its their bottom line. Of course the high priced "certified" dude said there were no problems. Gee imagine that. Its those little things that no one would ever know unless they ran their business or was told by someone who does run their business.

[Lewkowski]

Hey Lewk would you nuke the Middle East if you could get away with it?

I would not be in favor of using nukes on the entire middle east. I wouldn't have a problem with an ultimatum to Iran stating they had to end their nuclear problem or be nuked in 30 days.

[Aimless]

How many people in Iran would you like to murder? Just a ballpark figure

[Lewkowski]

How many people in Iran would you like to murder? Just a ballpark figure

0. Have the balls to carry it out and they will give up. You might need to drop one nuke maybe two but like WW2 taught us you won't need to drop 3.

[Illusions]

Every attack is another bomb that kills them.

I really have no problem with defending ourselves, or defending the right to publish or say offensives things, but this thought right here is pretty much the same logic they are using in replying to us, so it just seems to lead to cyclical violence, rather than any sort of resolution.

0. Have the balls to carry it out and they will give up. You might need to drop one nuke maybe two but like WW2 taught us you won't need to drop 3.

I don't really think you've thought this through. I don't think anyone else in the world would respond well to us nuking a country, let alone the fact that WW2 Japan is not similar in culture or government to modern day Iran.

[Lewkowski]

I really have no problem with defending ourselves, or defending the right to publish or say offensives things, but this thought right here is pretty much the same logic they are using in replying to us, so it just seems to lead to cyclical violence, rather than any sort of resolution.

Expect as of right now we have the bigger stick. They want to attack us? They need to suffer the consequences. Its not a war of body counts its a war of ideas and culture. As long as they continue to use violence on us - we need to attack their culture. Humiliate, destroy and disgrace the beliefs they have. Every attack they do should be returned 10 fold and with a healthy dosing of derision. "Oh you bombed an embassy, well there goes holy site #1. There goes 10x the number of terrorists. You people suck why can't Allah protect you?" Instead of dropping bombs drop some propaganda leaflets of images of their prophet fking a goat. Want to stop being offended, stop attacking our shit. It might take awhile but they will figure out that regardless of what they do they can never win. Once that is ingrained in their psyche can lasting peace exist.

Sure America has won victories but so have the terrorists. They've knocked down the WTC. They hit the pentagon. They have bombed several places across the world. They have stormed embassies. They have beheaded westerners. They have overthrown world governments (Egypt). They have killed authors and film makers that have offended them. They aren't getting the message. They still think they can "win" and that they can drive the west out of the Middle East. They think they can build a society where their religion isn't mocked. Its time to prove them wrong in every way.

Sadly in this era we don't have the stomach to win. As soon as there is any form of collateral damage people whine. In war innocents die. Its tragic but it happens. War is not pretty and it will never will be. America could not have won WWII if we were as hamstring by the media and public opinion of how war should be fought as we are now.

[Steely Glint]

The actual harm these people can do to American interests with their protests is no where near the harm America would do to it's own interests by taking such a course of action. Just make sure your embassies are properly protected and let them have their temper tantrums.

[Veldan Rath]

How far would you say embassy guards can go to defend it?

[Flixy]

Well, I can't speak for Obama supporters here (and I'm not exactly sure how you can claim to either), but I'm pretty sure large section of the left in America are throughly disillusioned with Obama, and will only turn out and vote for him because, wait for it, they think he's better than Romney.



How the fuck should I know when it became taboo?



You're obviously lying through your teeth. Again. not remembering correctly. Anyway, the problem is not with criticizing politicians over these things, because that would mean important issues never got discussed but doing so in the immediate aftermath of the event. It is perfectly legitimate to criticize Bush for ignoring warnings about 9/11, it would not have been legitimate for a democratic politician to say, on September 12, "this never would have happened if one of our guys had been president" or anything to that effect.

Hush, talking reasonably isn't respected in AMerican politics.

[GGT]

Expect as of right now we have the bigger stick. They want to attack us? They need to suffer the consequences. Its not a war of body counts its a war of ideas and culture. As long as they continue to use violence on us - we need to attack their culture. Humiliate, destroy and disgrace the beliefs they have. Every attack they do should be returned 10 fold and with a healthy dosing of derision. "Oh you bombed an embassy, well there goes holy site #1. There goes 10x the number of terrorists. You people suck why can't Allah protect you?" Instead of dropping bombs drop some propaganda leaflets of images of their prophet fking a goat. Want to stop being offended, stop attacking our shit. It might take awhile but they will figure out that regardless of what they do they can never win. Once that is ingrained in their psyche can lasting peace exist.

Who's this THEY you want to attack, humiliate, destroy and disgrace....then indoctrinate....for a "lasting peace"? Terrorists and religious extremists are found all over the world, including the US. Some claim to be Christians, too.

Sure America has won victories but so have the terrorists. They've knocked down the WTC. They hit the pentagon. They have bombed several places across the world. They have stormed embassies. They have beheaded westerners. They have overthrown world governments (Egypt). They have killed authors and film makers that have offended them. They aren't getting the message. They still think they can "win" and that they can drive the west out of the Middle East. They think they can build a society where their religion isn't mocked. Its time to prove them wrong in every way.

You think Terrorists overthrew Egypt's government? The only thing you've said that makes any sense is that building a society where religion isn't mocked is an impossible goal. At least if it's an open and democratic society with freedom of expression (speech and religion).

Sadly in this era we don't have the stomach to win. As soon as there is any form of collateral damage people whine. In war innocents die. Its tragic but it happens. War is not pretty and it will never will be. America could not have won WWII if we were as hamstring by the media and public opinion of how war should be fought as we are now.

Make up your mind. If it's not a "war of body counts" but a "war of ideas and cultures"....then bombs and military interventions are as stupid as the radical protesters using violence and killing.

[Lewkowski]

Attack humiliate and destroy the terrorists. The young folks rioting and protesting are going to get more pissed when we post even more "blasphemous" pictures. Then they protest again. Then we do it again - and immediately. We draw the connection between their violence and mocking of their religion.

As for Egypt...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood
http://dickmorris.rallycongress.com/...-organization/

[Loki]

Do you really want to declare the political leadership of the most popular Arab state in the world terrorists?

[Hazir]

How many people in Iran would you like to murder? Just a ballpark figure

I pointed out before that several random Iranians (living in Tehran) were hoping the US would bomb their country. I suppose they see the regime as so evil that they'd even be willing to become collateral damage in order to get rid of it.

I must say I was heartened by pictures of demonstrations in Libya against the violence with people holding placards apologising to the US for what happened and acknowledging that Chris Stevens was a friend of the Libyan people, not their enemy.