• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Sept 2012: U.S. Ambassador in Libya and two others killed in attack of consulate

  • Thread starter Thread starter jollyjacktar
  • Start date Start date
On a lighter note, it seems like Newsweeks "Muslim Rage" has now become a Twitter meme where some damned funny tweets came up.

'Muslim Rage' Explodes On Twitter, But In A Funny Way (Yes, Really)

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/09/17/161315765/muslim-rage-explodes-on-twitter-but-in-a-funny-way-yes-really

Reaction to the Innocence of Muslims film and the violence it sparked has ranged from confusion and anger to the fear of possible reprisals against religious groups. And now, on Twitter, at least, humor has managed to coalesce around an unlikely hashtag: #muslimrage.

Inspired by the all-caps headline "MUSLIM RAGE" on this week's cover of Newsweek, irreverent tweeters who happen to be Muslim are giving a glimpse of what really ticks them off — or at least, what makes them irate enough to make a joke.

Here are a few examples:

"I'm having such a good hair day. No one even knows. #MuslimRage" — Hend (retweeted 2900 times).

Lost your kid Jihad at the airport. Can't yell for him. #MuslimRage — Leila (retweeted 1000 times).

"When you realize that if you have a 5 o'clock shadow it can be deemed a security threat." — Taufiq Rahim.

"#muslimrage when you order halal chicken and find out the chef cooked it in alcohol!" — Hassan Sultan.

"You go to a football watch party and all these is to eat is pepperoni pizza and beer battered chicken wings #MuslimRage" — Waliya.

"i dont feel any rage....does that mean i am not muslim?#someonegetmeadrink #MuslimRage " — Ramah Kudaimi.

The hashtag was meant to host a rather more serious discussion sparked by a Newsweek feature written by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, describing "how she survived Muslim rage—and how we can end it."

I've included a link to the Twitter feed:

https://twitter.com/#!/search/?q=%23MuslimRage&src=hash


My personal favorite is "Lost your kid Jihad at the airport. Can't yell for him."  ;D
 
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/385258/20120917/pakostan-innocence-muslims-youtube-ban-ashraf.htm

However, YouTube said it has blocked access to the film in Libya, Egypt, India and Indonesia.

So why can't youtube
1. Block the assholes that dub swearing into dora and toopy & bino movies and;
2. Do something about the jerks who upload "official music videos" that turn out to be their shitty covers of them singing the song?

Icanhazmuslimragenow?
 
Yesterday's National Post had an article that it was Libyans who found Ambassador Stevens, after the attack, and that he was still alive when they took him to the hospital. Re-produced under the Fair Dealing Provisions of the Copyright Act.

Libyans found U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens breathing after attack, tried to save him

Associated Press | Sep 17, 2012 2:50 PM ET | Last Updated: Sep 17, 2012 7:03 PM ET
More from Associated Press

CAIRO — Ambassador Chris Stevens was still breathing when Libyans stumbled across him inside a room in the American Consulate in Benghazi, cheering, “Alive, alive” and “God is great” when they discovered he was still breathing and then trying to rescue him after last week’s deadly attack in the eastern Libyan city, witnesses told The Associated Press on Monday.

Fahd al-Bakoush, a freelance videographer, was among the Libyan civilians roaming freely through the consulate after gunmen and protesters rampaged through it last Tuesday night. Al-Bakoush said he heard someone call out that he had tripped over a dead body.

A group of people gathered as several men pulled the seemingly lifeless form from the room. They saw he was alive and a foreigner, though no one knew who he was, al-Bakoush said.

He was breathing and his eyelids flickered, he said. “He was alive,” he said. “No doubt. His face was blackened and he was like a paralyzed person.”

Video taken by al-Bakoush and posted on YouTube shows Stevens being carried out of a dark room through a window with a raised shutter by a crowd of men. “Bring him out, man,” someone shouts. “Out of the way, out of the way!”

“Alive, Alive!” come other shouts, then a cheer of “God is great.”

The next scene shows Stevens lying on a tile floor, with one man touching his neck to check his pulse.

The video has been authenticated since Stevens’ face is clearly visible and he is wearing the same white t-shirt seen in authenticated photos of him being carried away on another man’s shoulders, presumably moments later. Two colleagues of al-Bakoush who also witnessed the scene confirmed that he took the footage.

The accounts of all three witnesses mesh with that of the doctor who treated Stevens that night. Last week, the doctor told The Associated Press that Stevens was nearly lifeless when he was brought by Libyans, with no other Americans around, to the Benghazi hospital where he worked. He said Stevens had severe asphyxia from the smoke and that he tried to resuscitate him with no success. Only later did security officials confirm it was Stevens. He was being driven from the consulate building to a safer location when gunmen opened fire.

A freelance photographer who was with al-Bakoush at the scene, Abdel-Qader Fadl, said Stevens was unconscious and “maybe moved his head, but only once.”

Ahmed Shams, a 22-year-old arts student who works with the two, said the group cried out “God is great” in celebration after discovering he wasn’t dead. “We were happy to see him alive. The youth tried to rescue him. But there was no security, no ambulances, nothing to help,” he said.

The men carried Stevens to a private car to drive him to the hospital since there was no ambulance, all three witnesses said.

Article Link (with photos)
 
This report was on FOX News the night it happened along with several photos of the Ambassador. One of the photos showed him being removed (unconscious ??) from a vehicle, and another in a hospital. FOX News medical contributor said it looked possibly like the Ambassador died of smoke inhalation.

No one saw the report, cause they don't pay the extra to subscribe to FOX, but endlessly criticize the network.
 
Accidental truth telling at the NYT. This is the paper that initially reported the attack on page A4, just to keep things in context:

http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=44580

A Gaffe At The Gray Lady
By Rand Simberg on September 19, 2012 at 6:00 am
Posted In: Media Criticism, Political Commentary

In the Kinsleyan sense of accidentally telling the truth, that is. The paper is running a story today that essentially admits that Nakoula was arrested as a scapegoat:

The film was produced in the United States, though its origins are still shrouded. American federal authorities identified the man behind the film as Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, 55. Though the film does not appear to violate any American laws, the authorities took Mr. Nakoula in for questioning on Saturday over possible federal parole violations connected to an unrelated criminal conviction. That action has done little to tamp down the unrest.
Emphasis mine. Was it supposed to have that effect? If so, it makes it all the worse, because it is a concession to the violent rioters, and simply encourages them, and sends the message that violence will get them what they want. As Professor Jacobson says, empowering people who set fires to define the limits of free speech is how free speech dies.

In other accidental truth telling, the paper also admits that Occupy Wall Street was a pointless fizzle.
[Update a few minutes later]

Related thoughts from Lileks (you’ll have to scroll a bit):


Can’t quite imagine Buddhists rioting over it. Can’t quite imagine Hindus giving a rancid fig for Bill Maher’s opinion. Can’t imagine Copts or Zoroastrians or devotees of Odin pounding the table and shouting THIS SHALL NOT STAND and marching off with a gun to set things right. For that matter, can’t imagine Christians in the South, Africa, or China deciding that the rest of the day shall be devoted to yelling about the existence of a movie written and performed by a comedian who’s just got religion’s number, totally, like no one else ever.

So it’s almost as if -

No, that’s silly.

Okay, I’ll say it. It’s almost as if the author of the piece is carving out a First Amendment exception based on the possible reaction of a particular set of people in a particular place in the world.

Oh, it’s just a little exception. Sure, “you can’t cry fire in a crowded theater” becomes “you can’t mail someone in another country a picture of a match.” But that’s a hard and fast line. You can see quite clearly where the emanation ends, and the penumbra begins.

Don’t give them an inch.

 
images
 
Thucydides:
Accidental truth telling at the NYT. This is the paper that initially reported the attack on page A4, just to keep things in context:

And nothing, absolutely nothing in today's NYT re the WH finally admitting it was a deliberate terrorist attack.

Do a word search for "Libya". Nothing.

For the Obama administration and the Democrat's there is a "War on Women", but using the phrase "War on Terrorism" is banned i.e. Fort Hood was workplace violence.
 
After the collapse of the Administration's foreign policy in the Middle East, it will take decades for future administrations to rebuild relationships. If the turmoil in the Middle East disrupts oil supplies, the economic shock will be global but the real victims will be American allies like Europe, India and Japan which import most Middle Eastern oil (North America can exploit its domestic reserves, shale oil and oil sands):

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/09/21/charles-krauthammer-obamas-cairo-doctrine-lies-in-ruins-of-benghazi/

Charles Krauthammer: Obama’s Cairo Doctrine lies in ruins of Benghazi

Charles Krauthammer | Sep 21, 2012 8:59 AM ET
More from Charles Krauthammer

In the week following 9/11/12 something big happened: the collapse of the Cairo Doctrine, the centerpiece of President Obama’s foreign policy. It was to reset the very course of post-9/11 America, creating, after the (allegedly) brutal depredations of the Bush years, a profound rapprochement with the Islamic world.

On June 4, 2009, in Cairo, Obama promised “a new beginning” offering Muslims “mutual respect,” unsubtly implying previous disrespect. Curious, as over the previous 20 years, America had six times committed its military forces on behalf of oppressed Muslims, three times for reasons of pure humanitarianism (Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo), where no U.S. interests were at stake.

But no matter. Obama had come to remonstrate and restrain the hyperpower that, by his telling, had lost its way after 9/11, creating Guantanamo, practicing torture, imposing its will with arrogance and presumption.

First, he would cleanse by confession. Then he would heal. Why, given the unique sensitivities of his background — “my sister is half-Indonesian,” he proudly told an interviewer in 2007, amplifying on his exquisite appreciation of Islam — his very election would revolutionize relations.

And his policies of accommodation and concession would consolidate the gains: an outstretched hand to Iran’s mullahs, a first-time presidential admission of the U.S. role in a 1953 coup, a studied and stunning turning away from the Green Revolution; withdrawal from Iraq with no residual presence or influence; a fixed timetable for leaving Afghanistan; returning our ambassador to Damascus (with kind words for Bashar al-Assad — “a reformer,” suggested the secretary of state); deliberately creating distance between the U.S. and Israel.

These measures would raise our standing in the region, restore affection and respect for the United States and elicit new cooperation from Muslim lands.

It’s now three years since the Cairo speech. Look around. The Islamic world is convulsed with an explosion of anti-Americanism. From Tunisia to Lebanon, American schools, businesses and diplomatic facilities set ablaze. A U.S. ambassador and three others murdered in Benghazi. The black flag of Salafism, of which al-Qaeda is a prominent element, raised over our embassies in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and Sudan.

The administration, staggered and confused, blames it all on a 14-minute trailer for a film no one has seen and may not even exist. What else can it say? Admit that its doctrinal premises were supremely naive and its policies deeply corrosive to American influence?

Religious provocations are endless. (Ask Salman Rushdie.) Resentment about the five-century decline of the Islamic world is a constant. What’s new — the crucial variable — is the unmistakable sound of a superpower in retreat. Ever since Henry Kissinger flipped Egypt from the Soviet to the American camp in the early 1970s, the U.S. had dominated the region. No longer.

“It’s time,” declared Obama to wild applause of his convention, “to do some nation-building right here at home.” He’d already announced a strategic pivot from the Middle East to the Pacific. Made possible because “the tide of war is receding.”

Nonsense. From the massacres in Nigeria to the charnel house that is Syria, violence has, if anything, increased. What is receding is Obama’s America.

It’s as axiomatic in statecraft as in physics: Nature abhors a vacuum. Islamists rush in to fill the space and declare their ascendancy. America’s friends are bereft, confused, paralyzed.

Islamists rise across North Africa from Mali to Egypt. Iran repeatedly defies U.S. demands on nuclear enrichment, then, as a measure of its contempt for what America thinks, openly admits that its Revolutionary Guards are deployed in Syria. Russia, after arming Assad, warns America to stay out, while the secretary of state delivers vapid lectures about Assad “meeting” his international “obligations.” The Gulf States beg America to act on Iran; Obama strains mightily to restrain … Israel.

Sovereign U.S. territory is breached and U.S. interests are burned. And what is the official response? One administration denunciation after another — of a movie trailer! A request to Google to “review” the trailer’s presence on YouTube. And a sheriff’s deputies’ midnight “voluntary interview” with the suspected filmmaker. This in the land of the First Amendment.

What else can Obama do? At their convention, Democrats endlessly congratulated themselves on their one foreign policy success: killing Osama bin Laden. A week later, the Salafist flag flies over four American embassies, even as the mob chants, “Obama, Obama, there are still a billion Osamas.”

A foreign policy in epic collapse. And, by the way, Vladimir Putin just expelled USAID from Russia. Another thank you from another recipient of another grand Obama “reset.”

letters@charleskrauthammer.com.
 
Think of Presidents Bush and Obama are something akin to King John and Queen Mary Tudor. The latter two rid England of its French pretensions ~ John lost the Angevin Empire and Mary, finally, lost Calais. At the time I'm sure most Englishmen, including English statesmen of the first order, were horrified at the losses but, in the fullness of time, we can appreciate that John and Mary did England a service: they forced it to focus on its own bit of the British Isles and subsequent monarchs, despite keeping a fleur-de-lys emblem on the royal coat of arms until 1800, could focus on making England English and taming the Scots. Maybe Bush (both 41 and 43) and Obama have done America a similar favour. Maybe America needs to refocus away from the Middle East, including away from Israel, and look closer to home - to solving problems in Mexico and pacifying the Canadians, too.  ;)

 
Too bad it did not stick with England.  There's a nightmare nowadays with how un-English it is swiftly becoming thanks to the likes of Blair and Brown.  Although, I think if you're correct E.R. it will do them and others a big favor if they start to take care of business at home instead of elsewheres.  Maybe we need to follow suit to a greatere degree.
 
jollyjacktar said:
Too bad it did not stick with England.  There's a nightmare nowadays with how un-English it is swiftly becoming thanks to the likes of Blair and Brown.  Although, I think if you're correct E.R. it will do them and others a big favor if they start to take care of business at home instead of elsewheres.  Maybe we need to follow suit to a greatere degree.


Here, courtesy Wikipedia, is a breakdown of the population of the UK:

From the United Kingdom Census 2001:

Ethnic group Population % of total*
White British 50,366,497 85.67%
White (other) 3,096,169 5.27%
Indian             1,053,411 1.8%
Pakistani           977,285 1.6%
White Irish         691,232 1.2%
Mixed race         677,117 1.2%
Black Caribbean  565,876 1.0%
Black African       485,277 0.8%
Bangladeshi       283,063 0.5%
Other Asian       247,644 0.4% (non Chinese)
Chinese             247,403 0.4%
Other                 230,615 0.4%
Black (others)     97,585 0.2%
* Percentage of total UK population

We tend to think of Singapore, for example, as a Chinese city, but:

Chinese:  74.1%
Malays:    13.4%
Indians:    9.2%
Others:      3.3%

In Canada South Asians (Indians and Pakistanis) and Chinese account for 4% of the population each and Blacks, Philippinos, Latin Americans, Arabs and Koreans account for 6%+ so we are more racially diverse that are the British.
 
Those numbers are from almost 12 years ago.  I should have, however, said that my comments are from the many (former) Britons whom I've had dealings with over the past decade. 

My wife has been making fairly regular visits back to the London area over this period.  Each time she see's a marked change in whom one  sees whilst out and about.  She said that it's come to the point where you can go for hours at a time with out really running into (native born) Britons.  There are Legions of Eastern Europeans and South Asians in evidence by appearances of whom and what you see.  I have heard similar comments from numerous recent immigrants from the UK that I work with on my side line.  My wife has also commented that the England my Parents and Grandparents etc knew, no longer exists.

As my wife says, "if one man calls you an ***, you can ignore him.  If more than one does, it may be time to buy a saddle."  I'm hearing more or less the same thing from multiple directions, bearing that in mind, something is going on.  And if it was all beer and skittles, there should not be the rise of such mobs as the EDL as there would be no appetite for them.  IIRC, there are certain areas in the country which are for all intents and purposes damn near as close to Sharia as you could get without living in one of the "Stan" lands.
 
The Administration's story collapses as well. several internal links on the post to stories in the WSJ, AP and Eli Lake:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/obamas-embassy-cover-story-dissolves/2012/09/21/ab61bb1c-03fc-11e2-91e7-2962c74e7738_blog.html

Obama’s embassy cover story dissolves
By Jennifer Rubin

It is a measure of how skewed the reporting is and how intellectually inconsistent is most of the “analysis” from the mainstream media that while Mitt Romney’s comment on the embassy attacks held the attention of the press for days (when in fact he had correctly surmised that the administration was trying to make excuses for the embassy attack by expressing regret over an anti-Muslim video), there has been comparatively little concern with a much more critical story: Did the Obama team intentionally lie to voters (or just shoot first and aim later) for a week about what it knew, and did the deaths of four Americans result, in part, from defective security and preparation at the Benghazi consulate? Well, thankfully some reporters are beginning to perk up, although the “opinion makers” are trying their best to bury their heads in the sand, wary, no doubt, about attacking the president and effectively admitting they had failed to grasp the real story.

There is ample evidence that the administration screwed up. The Wall Street Journal has a must-read in-depth report that explains what the administration has refused to tell us:

    The deadly assault on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya on Sept. 11 was preceded by a succession of security lapses and misjudgments, compounded by fog-of-battle decisions, that raise questions about whether the scope of the tragedy could have been contained.

    U.S. officials issued alerts and ordered security precautions in neighboring Egypt ahead of protests and violence on Sept. 11, but largely overlooked the possibility of trouble at other diplomatic postings in the region.

    The State Department chose to maintain only limited security in Benghazi, Libya, despite months of sporadic attacks there on U.S. and other Western missions

That is a scandal of the first order, which in any unbiased media environment would be the biggest story of the year and reason to demand a full explanation from the White House. Did Obama and his advisers incorrectly assess the ongoing threat of jihadists, lack sufficient intelligence on the ground in Libya (after chest-thumping about our leading-from-behind strategy in the war) and fail to grasp that blaming a video is only feeding into the mentality of the jihadists (i.e., the West is to blame for violence)?

Now, let’s see how the administration, either by mendacity or incompetence, put out a false story of the attacks, which is now shredding day by day.

For a week the White House press secretary, the ambassador to the United Nations and the president told us this was about an anti-Muslim video, was spontaneous and did not reflect on the United States or its policies. Then yesterday, as news reports and lawmakers were decrying this as patently false (and the day after a national security official called the assault a “terrorist” attack), the White House changed its tune. Jay Carney for the first time used “terrorist” in connection with the attack. And the president for the first time conceded that the video was a pretext. The Associated Press reports:

    President Barack Obama said Thursday that extremists used an anti-Islam video as an excuse to assault U.S. interests overseas, including an attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya that killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.

    The president’s comments came as Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton faced questions from members of the House and Senate about the Sept. 11 attack on the consulate in Benghazi in a series of closed-door classified briefings on Capitol Hill. . . .

    “What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests,” the president said at a candidate forum on the Spanish-language network Univision.

    Asked if that meant al-Qaida, Obama said, “We don’t know yet.”

In short, only under pressure from outside reports and lawmakers, who openly disputed the administration’s cover story and blew up over a useless briefing, did the administration try an about-face.

There is no way to reconcile the first Obama story (spontaneous, all about the movie) and the new version (terrorism, the movie was a pretext). By definition, terrorists don’t act spontaneously, nor do they get offended by movies. They are “offended” by the West and are at war with us.

National security reporter Eli Lake is one of the few to connect the dots and point the finger back to the White House. He writes:

    Ten days after the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, the White House’s official story about the incident appears to be falling apart.

    In the days following the killing of the U.S. ambassador and two ex-Navy SEALs, President Obama and top State Department officials portrayed the attack as a spontaneous reaction to an Internet video depicting the Muslim prophet Mohammad as a lascivious brute. The protests, White House spokesman Jay Carney said last week, were “in response to a video—a film—that we have judged to be reprehensible and disgusting.”

It remains an open question whether the administration was intentionally misleading the public so as to avoid the appearance of an administration failure, or was simply making things up without pinning down the facts (what the Democrats accused Romney of doing). Lake quotes a retired CIA official as saying: “I think this is a case of an administration saying what they wished to be true before waiting for all the facts to come in.” That’s the most generous take on what happened.

But now that we know the administration was wrong, why no demands for an apology, let alone an explanation? Why do the pundits turn a blind eye after raking Romney over the coals for calling out the administration’s first sniveling responses to the attack?

The State Department spokeswoman was doing her best yesterday to be nondefinitive:

    QUESTION: Before we leave this part of the world, can I just ask you about reporting out there? That’s – a former Guantanamo detainee – detainees – is believed to have been behind the attack in Benghazi.

    MS. NULAND: I saw that report. Frankly, I don’t have anything for you on it one way or the other. The intelligence community, I expect, will speak to it.

That might be the most honest thing said since the murders occurred, namely that the Obama administration doesn’t know very much.

There is, as always, a media scandal here, a deliberate effort, conservatives believe, to construct narratives that favor the president. But that is small potatoes compared with the mounting evidence of a scandal in the Obama administration. If the administration was negligent in planning, convinced of its own spin (the war on terror is over!) and politicized national security to aid the president's reelection campaign, that is all a big deal. In any event, it should make for an interesting foreign policy presidential debate.
 
And the #Muslimrage, continues.  At least 19 idiots die in riots in Pakistan over this lunacy.    ::) Time to resurrect this gem from the past.

muslimcartoonsb-727306.jpg
 
Some good news, Libyan civilians overrun a Salafist militia compound apparently in protest against the attack on the US consulate. There should be unequivocal support for friends like these, sadly, there seems to be no indication of that being the case. The Green Revolution in Iran was also shown the back of this administration's hand, and eventually withered. We can only hope these people can make it on their own:

http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/michael-j-totten/libyan-civilians-overrun-islamist-militia-headquarters

Libyan Civilians Overrun Islamist Militia Headquarters

21 September 2012
Libya sure is different from Egypt.

This is the best news I’ve seen from the Arab world in some time:

Hundreds of Libyan protesters have stormed the Benghazi headquarters of Islamist group Ansar al-Sharia in a backlash against last week's attack on the US consulate.

Witnesses say militiamen opened fire as the crowd overran the base, but it is not clear if there are casualties.

Buildings and a car were set alight and fighters evicted following a day of anti-militia protests in the city.

US Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others died in the 11 September attack.

Earlier, some 30,000 protesters had marched through the eastern Libyan city calling for an end to the armed groups that have sprung up in the country since last year's ousting of Col Gaddafi.

Several thousand supporters of Ansar al-Sharia lined up outside its headquarters, in front of the crowd, waving black and white banners, AP news agency reported.

They fired into the air to try to disperse the protesters, but fled with their weapons after the base was surrounded by waves of people shouting "no to militias", the report added.
 
Ambassador Stevens was popular and was seen as a supporter of the revolution. His murder has enraged the people of Benghazi.
 
I guess everyone has heard that pers from CNN found Ambassador Stevens' personal journal at the scene, four days after his murder.

In the journal, Ambassador Stevens  expresses concern for his safety, the increasing strength of Al Qaeda in Libya, and that he thought he had been targeted for assassination by Al Qaeda.

Of course the State Dept is furious that CNN broadcasted this.

Like I wrote earlier: I would love to read the cellphone transcripts of any of the four slain that day. 
 
And the State department's minion gives an unbelievable answer to a reporter asking abut the diary and other issues related to the Benghazi fiasco:

http://althouse.blogspot.ca/2012/09/lets-not-get-too-distracted-by-state.html

Let's not get too distracted by the State Department spokeman's saying "frig Off" and "Have a good life"...

... to that BuzzFeed reporter, Michael Hastings. There's so much more of immensely great importance in their email exchange about what that spokesman — Phillippe Reines — had been trying to get us to think about CNN's use of the Chris Stevens journal, found at the site of the murder in Benghazi, after our diplomatic personnel fled the scene.

Hastings emailed an excellent set of questions:
Why didn't the State Department search the consulate and find AMB Steven's diary first? What other potential valuable intelligence was left behind that could have been picked up by apparently anyone searching the grounds? Was any classified or top secret material also left? Do you still feel that there was adequate security at the compound, considering it was not only overrun but sensitive personal effects and possibly other intelligence remained out for anyone passing through to pick up? Your statement on CNN sounded pretty defensive--do you think it's the media's responsibility to help secure State Department assets overseas after they've been attacked?

And Reines couldn't or wouldn't answer these questions. He continued those pretty defensive efforts to shift the focus to CNN. When Hastings pressed him, Reines resorted to "frig Off" and "Have a good life." Those nasty comebacks shouldn't be the story. They should direct us to the set of questions. Those are great questions, and the State Department will not answer them. Without answers, they feel like questions that answer themselves.
 
Actually, he asked the questions in person and was told to frig Off to his face. He later emailed as you posted and got the response as indicated including FO.
 
Some more good news; the Lybian Army takes to the field against the militias:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19708084

Libyan army removes heads of Benghazi militias
Libyan security forces in Tripoli, 23 September 2012 Libya's security forces have been on the move, ordering rogue groups to leave state and military premises
Continue reading the main story
Libya Crisis
 
Libya's army has removed the heads of two of Benghazi's main militia groups, as it tries to reassert control over armed groups or disband them.

The February 17 Brigade's Fawzi Bukatif and Rafallah al-Sahati's Ismail al-Salabi were replaced by colonels.

Last week saw demonstrations against armed groups in Benghazi following this month's killing of the US ambassador.

Islamist militants have denied being behind the attack, but the killing sparked widespread fury in Benghazi.

Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three others Americans died during an attack on the city's US consulate on 11 September, which coincided with protests over an anti-Islam video produced in the US.

'Stop using violence'

The Islamist Ansar al-Sharia group was driven out of its headquarters in Benghazi over the weekend in unrest which left at least 11 people dead.

Meanwhile two militant groups based in the Islamist stronghold of Derna - a port city to the east of Benghazi - disbanded on Sunday.

Libya's interim leaders have taken advantage of the wave of popular sentiment in order to bring the unauthorised groups under control, analysts say.

The government has relied on some brigades to help provide security in post-Gaddafi Libya, analysts say, and many will be watching to see how the authorities undertake the mammoth task of gaining full military control over the country.

"[We want to] dissolve all militias and military camps which are not under the control of the state," Mohammed Magarief - the parliamentary speaker who acts as head of state until elections next year - said on Sunday.

"We call on everyone to stop using violence and carrying weapons in the streets and squares and public places."
 
Back
Top