It looks like bombing Libya and taking out Gaddafi has not helped with America's reputation there
Options
Comments
-
So it looks like not everything has to be linked in the world and each situation is different. I'm sure Lybia is glad to get rid of Gaddafi and would rather not have another one being that they elected their current leader in fair elections.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/world/africa/us-singles-out-libyan-islamist-as-a-commander-in-consulate-attack-libyans-say.html?_r=2&Libyan authorities have singled out Ahmed Abu Khattala, a leader of the Benghazi-based Islamist group Ansar al-Sharia, as a commander in the attack that killed the American ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher StevensMr. Abu Khattala and Ansar al-Sharia share Al Qaeda’s puritanism and militancy, but operate independently and focus only on Libya rather than on a global jihad against the West. -
Swiffness! wrote: »Egypt too.
How dumb is it that they burning ? down and killing ppl cuz some random nobody made an anti-Islam flick? This wasn't a anti-Israel protest..........one of those Islamophobe ? made a propaganda film, somebody reposted with Arabic subtitles........riots. There really is a problem in the Muslim world with them not understanding how free speech works. I mean, if you asked Egyptians on the street if they want Free Speech they'd be like "SURE!" but then ask them if saying not-so-nice things about Islam and The Prophet should be protected under Free Speech and see how many ppl give you a stale face. They still got that backwards 19th Century America mindset towards blasphemy vs. free speech. Seriously, it's like those protesters in the UK that had signs like this:
Christianity as a whole got over this sensitive ? a minute ago. Too many Muslims still expect the whole world to give them special treatment and kiss Islam's ass. Grow up.
I hate this ? , because it really seems like the Extreme Christianists and Extreme Islamists are just hellbent on beefing and the rest of us are gonna be stuck cleaning up the rubble and bodies. Man, that Breivik dude that murked them 77 kids in part because he saw them as "supporting the Muslim invasion of Europe" etc. Pandora's Box is ? open and it is only going to get worse. Post Arab Spring democracies are gonna be unstable as hell, Neo-Fascist movements are gaining strength in Europe via Islamophobia, Iran's prolly gonna start a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, The Next Republican President will be demonizing and profiling Muslims, someone is gonna top 9/11 eventually. ? . Welp, I guess its still better than the dystopian future where we have a Cold War with China.
-
FuriousOne wrote: »So it looks like not everything has to be linked in the world and each situation is different. I'm sure Lybia is glad to get rid of Gaddafi and would rather not have another one being that they elected their current leader in fair elections.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/world/africa/us-singles-out-libyan-islamist-as-a-commander-in-consulate-attack-libyans-say.html?_r=2&Libyan authorities have singled out Ahmed Abu Khattala, a leader of the Benghazi-based Islamist group Ansar al-Sharia, as a commander in the attack that killed the American ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher StevensMr. Abu Khattala and Ansar al-Sharia share Al Qaeda’s puritanism and militancy, but operate independently and focus only on Libya rather than on a global jihad against the West.
What makes you so sure Libya is happy to be free from Gadafi???!!!! LMAO I can't believe you said that, if that's the case, why are Americans so unsafe there? They took down our consulate and American officials are so shook of Libyans that they aren't even investigating on the ground there. It's a disaster of epic proportions, but you are right that Al-Qaeda did not head the attack.
In either case, let's pray Romney does not make things worse if he gets elected (which is likely based on polls I am seeing). Obama has been smart enough to not send Americans there in Libya to investigate, knowing how unsafe Americans are there now. But that just shows you what a stupid war this war was.
-
you DO understand that these are two different things, don't you?kingblaze84 wrote: »What makes you so sure Libya is happy to be free from Gadafi? ... I can't believe you said that, if that's the case, why are Americans so unsafe there?
also, Obama did have Americans there in Libya investigating several weeks ago, so... -
you DO understand that these are two different things, don't you?kingblaze84 wrote: »What makes you so sure Libya is happy to be free from Gadafi? ... I can't believe you said that, if that's the case, why are Americans so unsafe there?
also, Obama did have Americans there in Libya investigating several weeks ago, so...
Yeah but it took a long time for Americans to begin investigating there, and even than, Americans are very unsafe there. Look it up anywhere online, Americans have been told to avoid Libya at all costs and our members for the embassy were even evacuated and as far as I know, still aren't there. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »So it looks like not everything has to be linked in the world and each situation is different. I'm sure Lybia is glad to get rid of Gaddafi and would rather not have another one being that they elected their current leader in fair elections.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/world/africa/us-singles-out-libyan-islamist-as-a-commander-in-consulate-attack-libyans-say.html?_r=2&Libyan authorities have singled out Ahmed Abu Khattala, a leader of the Benghazi-based Islamist group Ansar al-Sharia, as a commander in the attack that killed the American ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher StevensMr. Abu Khattala and Ansar al-Sharia share Al Qaeda’s puritanism and militancy, but operate independently and focus only on Libya rather than on a global jihad against the West.
What makes you so sure Libya is happy to be free from Gadafi???!!!! LMAO I can't believe you said that, if that's the case, why are Americans so unsafe there? They took down our consulate and American officials are so shook of Libyans that they aren't even investigating on the ground there. It's a disaster of epic proportions, but you are right that Al-Qaeda did not head the attack.
In either case, let's pray Romney does not make things worse if he gets elected (which is likely based on polls I am seeing). Obama has been smart enough to not send Americans there in Libya to investigate, knowing how unsafe Americans are there now. But that just shows you what a stupid war this war was.
So you are telling me that the world is safe for Americans no matter where you go? 6 months in with factions that aren't cool with honest elections want to take over and a diplomat rather then a regular tourist got killed. There is still nothing to say that that video made by fundamentalist in the states didn't spark the protest which gave cover for that attack (still a foolish reaction regardless). Everybody is a detective now like answers fall off shelves. You acting like citizens getting killed wholesale over there. Btw, Americans being safe has ? all to do with Libyans being happy to get rid of Gaddafi. There were plenty of people lining up to take a shot at him even before the War started.
This dude was actually on the list for richest people of all time. Where did he even get all that money other then from sucking the resources of his country dry? You can't be telling me that a dictatorship is better then honest elections (which was really refreshing to see after what went down). You looking too much into the negative no matter what positives occur. How the hell is this a disaster of epic (really?) proportions when that's not the fist time we lost a consulate. ? , we had consulates literally blown up, should we stop diplomatic talks and assisting a democracy that fought to exist because of one twisted group. I would think that that fact would decrease the epic proportions into something more manageable. -
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/19/libya-attack-cia-discovery-us-consulate-killings_n_1984429.htmlThe CIA station chief in Libya reported to Washington within 24 hours of last month's deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate that there was evidence it was carried out by militants, not a spontaneous mob upset about an American-made video ridiculing Islam's Prophet Muhammad, U.S. officials have told The Associated Press.Such raw intelligence reports by the CIA on the ground would normally be sent first to analysts at the headquarters in Langley, Va., for vetting and comparing against other intelligence derived from eavesdropping drones and satellite images. Only then would such intelligence generally be shared with the White House and later, Congress, a process that can take hours, or days if the intelligence is coming only from one or two sources who may or may not be trusted.U.S. intelligence officials say in this case the delay was due in part to the time it took to analyze various conflicting accounts.
You can spin that however you want @kingblaze84 -
i have to note there's something ironic about telling me to look this up online when it just follows you telling us "American officials are so shook of Libyans that they aren't even investigating on the ground there"...kingblaze84 wrote: »Yeah but it took a long time for Americans to begin investigating there, and even than, Americans are very unsafe there. Look it up anywhere online, Americans have been told to avoid Libya at all costs and our members for the embassy were even evacuated and as far as I know, still aren't there.
also, the other half of the post stands -
Darrell Issa is putting people the people that aided in the investigation at risk by intentionally leaking diplomatic cables that includes which includes their non-redacted names.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/20/darrell-issa-libya_n_1991064.htmlHouse Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R- Calif.) has come under fire after posting 166 pages of "sensitive but unclassified" State Department cables online Friday afternoon."This does damage to the individuals because they are named, danger to security cooperation because these are militias and groups that we work with and that is now well known, and danger to the investigation, because these people could help us down the road. -
FuriousOne wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »So it looks like not everything has to be linked in the world and each situation is different. I'm sure Lybia is glad to get rid of Gaddafi and would rather not have another one being that they elected their current leader in fair elections.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/world/africa/us-singles-out-libyan-islamist-as-a-commander-in-consulate-attack-libyans-say.html?_r=2&Libyan authorities have singled out Ahmed Abu Khattala, a leader of the Benghazi-based Islamist group Ansar al-Sharia, as a commander in the attack that killed the American ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher StevensMr. Abu Khattala and Ansar al-Sharia share Al Qaeda’s puritanism and militancy, but operate independently and focus only on Libya rather than on a global jihad against the West.
What makes you so sure Libya is happy to be free from Gadafi???!!!! LMAO I can't believe you said that, if that's the case, why are Americans so unsafe there? They took down our consulate and American officials are so shook of Libyans that they aren't even investigating on the ground there. It's a disaster of epic proportions, but you are right that Al-Qaeda did not head the attack.
In either case, let's pray Romney does not make things worse if he gets elected (which is likely based on polls I am seeing). Obama has been smart enough to not send Americans there in Libya to investigate, knowing how unsafe Americans are there now. But that just shows you what a stupid war this war was.
So you are telling me that the world is safe for Americans no matter where you go? 6 months in with factions that aren't cool with honest elections want to take over and a diplomat rather then a regular tourist got killed. There is still nothing to say that that video made by fundamentalist in the states didn't spark the protest which gave cover for that attack (still a foolish reaction regardless). Everybody is a detective now like answers fall off shelves. You acting like citizens getting killed wholesale over there. Btw, Americans being safe has ? all to do with Libyans being happy to get rid of Gaddafi. There were plenty of people lining up to take a shot at him even before the War started.
This dude was actually on the list for richest people of all time. Where did he even get all that money other then from sucking the resources of his country dry? You can't be telling me that a dictatorship is better then honest elections (which was really refreshing to see after what went down). You looking too much into the negative no matter what positives occur. How the hell is this a disaster of epic (really?) proportions when that's not the fist time we lost a consulate. ? , we had consulates literally blown up, should we stop diplomatic talks and assisting a democracy that fought to exist because of one twisted group. I would think that that fact would decrease the epic proportions into something more manageable.
All I'm saying is the Libyan war was not worth it for Americans, we are still hated very much in that part of the world and it is very obvious with the fact the State Dept has advised Americans to avoid Libya as much as possible, and our consulate being blown up. Don't make it look like consulates being blown up is a common thing, it isn't and it's doubly worse considering our consulate was safe when Gaddafi was in charge. "Helping" Libyans by getting rid of Gaddafi has not enhanced our reputation in Libya or in much of the Muslim world, so what positives am I supposed to take from the war? Sure, democracy is better than dictatorships, but it should have been up to the PEOPLE of Libya to free themselves. Blowing up ANOTHER Muslim nation is the last thing America should be doing when we have so many people in that part of the world who already consider America the Great Satan, and with good reason. -
i have to note there's something ironic about telling me to look this up online when it just follows you telling us "American officials are so shook of Libyans that they aren't even investigating on the ground there"...kingblaze84 wrote: »Yeah but it took a long time for Americans to begin investigating there, and even than, Americans are very unsafe there. Look it up anywhere online, Americans have been told to avoid Libya at all costs and our members for the embassy were even evacuated and as far as I know, still aren't there.
also, the other half of the post stands
Americans are being told to avoid Libya Janklow.....all this after "liberating" Libya from Gaddafi. Even if Americans are investigating on the ground now in Libya, it doesn't change the fact that America remains very hated there by many in that nation and that part of the world. War wasn't worth it, and a diary found by journalists belonging to Ambassador Stevens shows that he himself believed Libya to be a very dangerous place for himself and Americans. So if you want me to see positives in the dumb war, tell me where to begin looking. -
Libya still a mess after taking out Gaddafi.......
http://news.yahoo.com/libyan-turmoil-persists-gadhafi-death-224453833.html
TRIPOLI, Libya (AP) — On the anniversary of the capture and killing of Moammar Gadhafi, Libya is still grappling with the legacy of his four decades of rule as the interim government and the dictator's former spokesman engaged in a war of words amid the ongoing chaos.
The Libyan government said Saturday its forces had detained Gadhafi's high profile spokesman Moussa Ibrahim, but an online recording from a man purporting to be Ibrahim denied that claim and said he wasn't even in the country.
The conflicting reports, neither of which could be independently verified, reflect the turmoil that has persisted over the past year, leaving the oil-rich North African nation deeply divided. Tensions have spiked as rival forces battle over the city of Bani Walid.
Bani Walid, some 140 kilometers (90 miles) southeast of Tripoli, was the last major city in Libya to fall to the uprising, thanks in part to its protected location in a valley near the mountains. Over the past year, it has seen periodic violence and emerged as the most significant town in Libya still resisting the country's new authorities since Gadhafi was slain near his hometown of Sirte last year.
"We've lost too many people in Bani Walid and we are still losing them so I don't think it's time for a celebration," said Abdessalem Mahfoud, a local neighborhood council member in Tripoli, when asked about the anniversary of Gadhafi's death.
The turmoil in Libya, which overthrew Gadhafi last year with the help of NATO airstrikes, has become a campaign issue in the U.S. presidential race after an attack on the U.S. consulate in the eastern city of Benghazi killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.
For many who fought against Gadhafi, the new Libya cannot be born until the last vestiges of the old regime, fugitives like Ibrahim and towns like Bani Walid, have been routed.
"I don't think things are really moving in the right direction until we finish with Bani Walid because it is stopping us from making a new Libya," said Abdel-Basit al-Mzirig, a former deputy justice minister and now on Libya's human rights council. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »So it looks like not everything has to be linked in the world and each situation is different. I'm sure Lybia is glad to get rid of Gaddafi and would rather not have another one being that they elected their current leader in fair elections.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/world/africa/us-singles-out-libyan-islamist-as-a-commander-in-consulate-attack-libyans-say.html?_r=2&Libyan authorities have singled out Ahmed Abu Khattala, a leader of the Benghazi-based Islamist group Ansar al-Sharia, as a commander in the attack that killed the American ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher StevensMr. Abu Khattala and Ansar al-Sharia share Al Qaeda’s puritanism and militancy, but operate independently and focus only on Libya rather than on a global jihad against the West.
What makes you so sure Libya is happy to be free from Gadafi???!!!! LMAO I can't believe you said that, if that's the case, why are Americans so unsafe there? They took down our consulate and American officials are so shook of Libyans that they aren't even investigating on the ground there. It's a disaster of epic proportions, but you are right that Al-Qaeda did not head the attack.
In either case, let's pray Romney does not make things worse if he gets elected (which is likely based on polls I am seeing). Obama has been smart enough to not send Americans there in Libya to investigate, knowing how unsafe Americans are there now. But that just shows you what a stupid war this war was.
So you are telling me that the world is safe for Americans no matter where you go? 6 months in with factions that aren't cool with honest elections want to take over and a diplomat rather then a regular tourist got killed. There is still nothing to say that that video made by fundamentalist in the states didn't spark the protest which gave cover for that attack (still a foolish reaction regardless). Everybody is a detective now like answers fall off shelves. You acting like citizens getting killed wholesale over there. Btw, Americans being safe has ? all to do with Libyans being happy to get rid of Gaddafi. There were plenty of people lining up to take a shot at him even before the War started.
This dude was actually on the list for richest people of all time. Where did he even get all that money other then from sucking the resources of his country dry? You can't be telling me that a dictatorship is better then honest elections (which was really refreshing to see after what went down). You looking too much into the negative no matter what positives occur. How the hell is this a disaster of epic (really?) proportions when that's not the fist time we lost a consulate. ? , we had consulates literally blown up, should we stop diplomatic talks and assisting a democracy that fought to exist because of one twisted group. I would think that that fact would decrease the epic proportions into something more manageable.
All I'm saying is the Libyan war was not worth it for Americans, we are still hated very much in that part of the world and it is very obvious with the fact the State Dept has advised Americans to avoid Libya as much as possible, and our consulate being blown up. Don't make it look like consulates being blown up is a common thing, it isn't and it's doubly worse considering our consulate was safe when Gaddafi was in charge. "Helping" Libyans by getting rid of Gaddafi has not enhanced our reputation in Libya or in much of the Muslim world, so what positives am I supposed to take from the war? Sure, democracy is better than dictatorships, but it should have been up to the PEOPLE of Libya to free themselves. Blowing up ANOTHER Muslim nation is the last thing America should be doing when we have so many people in that part of the world who already consider America the Great Satan, and with good reason.
Last i checked, it was the Libyans that laid hands on Gaddafi and they are cleaning up the leftovers. There are always going to be those who hate us, but this wasn't about us. What we did was help with the support of the UN and Nato to stop the mass slaughter of a people. Truthfully, I'm surprised that dude lasted that long being that he was a known terrorist organizer himself who aided in bringing down a plane. That war existed before our aid and it isn't for us to benefit other then to help the region survive post Gaddafi and find some sort of stability. They created their own government, took each town one by one and we evened out their chances by taking out the big guns. There were no boots on the ground other then diplomats who were working with the people there who did appreciate our help.
I'm not acting like consulates being destroyed is common, but it has happened before in countries considered friendly and we did not break ties with them or say everything was lost because of it. We knew a third party was involved just like this situation and dealt with them (swimming with the fishes). The people who killed the ambassador are not part of the government and the current government helped to identify them. What are the chances that Gaddafi would have blown up the consulate himself if we were no longer cool with him, because it was his boys that did it and he supported such tactics in the past. We are on friendly terms with most of the nations in the middle east and the point is to aid in helping the people grow out of tyranny as fellow humans living on earth. More self determined democracy is a good thing and it's helped the rest of Africa to grow. It doesn't always need to come about by war but this situation was unique. Americans don't need to visit over there. It's not about us. -
FuriousOne wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »So it looks like not everything has to be linked in the world and each situation is different. I'm sure Lybia is glad to get rid of Gaddafi and would rather not have another one being that they elected their current leader in fair elections.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/world/africa/us-singles-out-libyan-islamist-as-a-commander-in-consulate-attack-libyans-say.html?_r=2&Libyan authorities have singled out Ahmed Abu Khattala, a leader of the Benghazi-based Islamist group Ansar al-Sharia, as a commander in the attack that killed the American ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher StevensMr. Abu Khattala and Ansar al-Sharia share Al Qaeda’s puritanism and militancy, but operate independently and focus only on Libya rather than on a global jihad against the West.
What makes you so sure Libya is happy to be free from Gadafi???!!!! LMAO I can't believe you said that, if that's the case, why are Americans so unsafe there? They took down our consulate and American officials are so shook of Libyans that they aren't even investigating on the ground there. It's a disaster of epic proportions, but you are right that Al-Qaeda did not head the attack.
In either case, let's pray Romney does not make things worse if he gets elected (which is likely based on polls I am seeing). Obama has been smart enough to not send Americans there in Libya to investigate, knowing how unsafe Americans are there now. But that just shows you what a stupid war this war was.
So you are telling me that the world is safe for Americans no matter where you go? 6 months in with factions that aren't cool with honest elections want to take over and a diplomat rather then a regular tourist got killed. There is still nothing to say that that video made by fundamentalist in the states didn't spark the protest which gave cover for that attack (still a foolish reaction regardless). Everybody is a detective now like answers fall off shelves. You acting like citizens getting killed wholesale over there. Btw, Americans being safe has ? all to do with Libyans being happy to get rid of Gaddafi. There were plenty of people lining up to take a shot at him even before the War started.
This dude was actually on the list for richest people of all time. Where did he even get all that money other then from sucking the resources of his country dry? You can't be telling me that a dictatorship is better then honest elections (which was really refreshing to see after what went down). You looking too much into the negative no matter what positives occur. How the hell is this a disaster of epic (really?) proportions when that's not the fist time we lost a consulate. ? , we had consulates literally blown up, should we stop diplomatic talks and assisting a democracy that fought to exist because of one twisted group. I would think that that fact would decrease the epic proportions into something more manageable.
All I'm saying is the Libyan war was not worth it for Americans, we are still hated very much in that part of the world and it is very obvious with the fact the State Dept has advised Americans to avoid Libya as much as possible, and our consulate being blown up. Don't make it look like consulates being blown up is a common thing, it isn't and it's doubly worse considering our consulate was safe when Gaddafi was in charge. "Helping" Libyans by getting rid of Gaddafi has not enhanced our reputation in Libya or in much of the Muslim world, so what positives am I supposed to take from the war? Sure, democracy is better than dictatorships, but it should have been up to the PEOPLE of Libya to free themselves. Blowing up ANOTHER Muslim nation is the last thing America should be doing when we have so many people in that part of the world who already consider America the Great Satan, and with good reason.
Last i checked, it was the Libyans that laid hands on Gaddafi and they are cleaning up the leftovers. There are always going to be those who hate us, but this wasn't about us. What we did was help with the support of the UN and Nato to stop the mass slaughter of a people. Truthfully, I'm surprised that dude lasted that long being that he was a known terrorist organizer himself who aided in bringing down a plane. That war existed before our aid and it isn't for us to benefit other then to help the region survive post Gaddafi and find some sort of stability. They created their own government, took each town one by one and we evened out their chances by taking out the big guns. There were no boots on the ground other then diplomats who were working with the people there who did appreciate our help.
I'm not acting like consulates being destroyed is common, but it has happened before in countries considered friendly and we did not break ties with them or say everything was lost because of it. We knew a third party was involved just like this situation and dealt with them (swimming with the fishes). The people who killed the ambassador are not part of the government and the current government helped to identify them. What are the chances that Gaddafi would have blown up the consulate himself if we were no longer cool with him, because it was his boys that did it and he supported such tactics in the past. We are on friendly terms with most of the nations in the middle east and the point is to aid in helping the people grow out of tyranny as fellow humans living on earth. More self determined democracy is a good thing and it's helped the rest of Africa to grow. It doesn't always need to come about by war but this situation was unique. Americans don't need to visit over there. It's not about us.
That's all fine and dandy but Libya is now a hotspot for anti-American and terrorist activity. Al-Qaeda is regrouping big time in Libya, and as bad as Gaddafi was, he at least kept a lid on Al-Qaeda and terrorists. With Gaddafi gone, terrorists managed to destroy our consulate and AL-Qaeda allies are popping up all over the place there. Obama says all the time how he wants Al-Qaeda and terrorists on the run, well, he just gave them another safe haven to run wild. If Obama's goal was to create another safe haven for people who (understandably) hate Americans, well congratulations, mission accomplished. I have a feeling though, this isn't what Obama wanted.
-
kingblaze84 wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »So it looks like not everything has to be linked in the world and each situation is different. I'm sure Lybia is glad to get rid of Gaddafi and would rather not have another one being that they elected their current leader in fair elections.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/world/africa/us-singles-out-libyan-islamist-as-a-commander-in-consulate-attack-libyans-say.html?_r=2&Libyan authorities have singled out Ahmed Abu Khattala, a leader of the Benghazi-based Islamist group Ansar al-Sharia, as a commander in the attack that killed the American ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher StevensMr. Abu Khattala and Ansar al-Sharia share Al Qaeda’s puritanism and militancy, but operate independently and focus only on Libya rather than on a global jihad against the West.
What makes you so sure Libya is happy to be free from Gadafi???!!!! LMAO I can't believe you said that, if that's the case, why are Americans so unsafe there? They took down our consulate and American officials are so shook of Libyans that they aren't even investigating on the ground there. It's a disaster of epic proportions, but you are right that Al-Qaeda did not head the attack.
In either case, let's pray Romney does not make things worse if he gets elected (which is likely based on polls I am seeing). Obama has been smart enough to not send Americans there in Libya to investigate, knowing how unsafe Americans are there now. But that just shows you what a stupid war this war was.
So you are telling me that the world is safe for Americans no matter where you go? 6 months in with factions that aren't cool with honest elections want to take over and a diplomat rather then a regular tourist got killed. There is still nothing to say that that video made by fundamentalist in the states didn't spark the protest which gave cover for that attack (still a foolish reaction regardless). Everybody is a detective now like answers fall off shelves. You acting like citizens getting killed wholesale over there. Btw, Americans being safe has ? all to do with Libyans being happy to get rid of Gaddafi. There were plenty of people lining up to take a shot at him even before the War started.
This dude was actually on the list for richest people of all time. Where did he even get all that money other then from sucking the resources of his country dry? You can't be telling me that a dictatorship is better then honest elections (which was really refreshing to see after what went down). You looking too much into the negative no matter what positives occur. How the hell is this a disaster of epic (really?) proportions when that's not the fist time we lost a consulate. ? , we had consulates literally blown up, should we stop diplomatic talks and assisting a democracy that fought to exist because of one twisted group. I would think that that fact would decrease the epic proportions into something more manageable.
All I'm saying is the Libyan war was not worth it for Americans, we are still hated very much in that part of the world and it is very obvious with the fact the State Dept has advised Americans to avoid Libya as much as possible, and our consulate being blown up. Don't make it look like consulates being blown up is a common thing, it isn't and it's doubly worse considering our consulate was safe when Gaddafi was in charge. "Helping" Libyans by getting rid of Gaddafi has not enhanced our reputation in Libya or in much of the Muslim world, so what positives am I supposed to take from the war? Sure, democracy is better than dictatorships, but it should have been up to the PEOPLE of Libya to free themselves. Blowing up ANOTHER Muslim nation is the last thing America should be doing when we have so many people in that part of the world who already consider America the Great Satan, and with good reason.
Last i checked, it was the Libyans that laid hands on Gaddafi and they are cleaning up the leftovers. There are always going to be those who hate us, but this wasn't about us. What we did was help with the support of the UN and Nato to stop the mass slaughter of a people. Truthfully, I'm surprised that dude lasted that long being that he was a known terrorist organizer himself who aided in bringing down a plane. That war existed before our aid and it isn't for us to benefit other then to help the region survive post Gaddafi and find some sort of stability. They created their own government, took each town one by one and we evened out their chances by taking out the big guns. There were no boots on the ground other then diplomats who were working with the people there who did appreciate our help.
I'm not acting like consulates being destroyed is common, but it has happened before in countries considered friendly and we did not break ties with them or say everything was lost because of it. We knew a third party was involved just like this situation and dealt with them (swimming with the fishes). The people who killed the ambassador are not part of the government and the current government helped to identify them. What are the chances that Gaddafi would have blown up the consulate himself if we were no longer cool with him, because it was his boys that did it and he supported such tactics in the past. We are on friendly terms with most of the nations in the middle east and the point is to aid in helping the people grow out of tyranny as fellow humans living on earth. More self determined democracy is a good thing and it's helped the rest of Africa to grow. It doesn't always need to come about by war but this situation was unique. Americans don't need to visit over there. It's not about us.
That's all fine and dandy but Libya is now a hotspot for anti-American and terrorist activity. Al-Qaeda is regrouping big time in Libya, and as bad as Gaddafi was, he at least kept a lid on Al-Qaeda and terrorists. With Gaddafi gone, terrorists managed to destroy our consulate and AL-Qaeda allies are popping up all over the place there. Obama says all the time how he wants Al-Qaeda and terrorists on the run, well, he just gave them another safe haven to run wild. If Obama's goal was to create another safe haven for people who (understandably) hate Americans, well congratulations, mission accomplished. I have a feeling though, this isn't what Obama wanted.
A safe haven would be a place where you can run around unchecked with full support of the nation state. I don't think that Libya is much of a safe heaven. The only people that are supporting Al Qaeda like practices are former Qaddafi henchmen. Libya yet another country that Al Qaeda wants to destabilize and transform using their ideology just like other countries with no direct US involvement. They even have Al Qaeda in China.
http://www.cfr.org/china/washington-quarterly-al-qaeda-rise-china-jihadi-geopolitics/p26791
Qaddafi kept his foot on the neck of his people while he became one of the richest man ever.
-
FuriousOne wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »So it looks like not everything has to be linked in the world and each situation is different. I'm sure Lybia is glad to get rid of Gaddafi and would rather not have another one being that they elected their current leader in fair elections.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/world/africa/us-singles-out-libyan-islamist-as-a-commander-in-consulate-attack-libyans-say.html?_r=2&Libyan authorities have singled out Ahmed Abu Khattala, a leader of the Benghazi-based Islamist group Ansar al-Sharia, as a commander in the attack that killed the American ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher StevensMr. Abu Khattala and Ansar al-Sharia share Al Qaeda’s puritanism and militancy, but operate independently and focus only on Libya rather than on a global jihad against the West.
What makes you so sure Libya is happy to be free from Gadafi???!!!! LMAO I can't believe you said that, if that's the case, why are Americans so unsafe there? They took down our consulate and American officials are so shook of Libyans that they aren't even investigating on the ground there. It's a disaster of epic proportions, but you are right that Al-Qaeda did not head the attack.
In either case, let's pray Romney does not make things worse if he gets elected (which is likely based on polls I am seeing). Obama has been smart enough to not send Americans there in Libya to investigate, knowing how unsafe Americans are there now. But that just shows you what a stupid war this war was.
So you are telling me that the world is safe for Americans no matter where you go? 6 months in with factions that aren't cool with honest elections want to take over and a diplomat rather then a regular tourist got killed. There is still nothing to say that that video made by fundamentalist in the states didn't spark the protest which gave cover for that attack (still a foolish reaction regardless). Everybody is a detective now like answers fall off shelves. You acting like citizens getting killed wholesale over there. Btw, Americans being safe has ? all to do with Libyans being happy to get rid of Gaddafi. There were plenty of people lining up to take a shot at him even before the War started.
This dude was actually on the list for richest people of all time. Where did he even get all that money other then from sucking the resources of his country dry? You can't be telling me that a dictatorship is better then honest elections (which was really refreshing to see after what went down). You looking too much into the negative no matter what positives occur. How the hell is this a disaster of epic (really?) proportions when that's not the fist time we lost a consulate. ? , we had consulates literally blown up, should we stop diplomatic talks and assisting a democracy that fought to exist because of one twisted group. I would think that that fact would decrease the epic proportions into something more manageable.
All I'm saying is the Libyan war was not worth it for Americans, we are still hated very much in that part of the world and it is very obvious with the fact the State Dept has advised Americans to avoid Libya as much as possible, and our consulate being blown up. Don't make it look like consulates being blown up is a common thing, it isn't and it's doubly worse considering our consulate was safe when Gaddafi was in charge. "Helping" Libyans by getting rid of Gaddafi has not enhanced our reputation in Libya or in much of the Muslim world, so what positives am I supposed to take from the war? Sure, democracy is better than dictatorships, but it should have been up to the PEOPLE of Libya to free themselves. Blowing up ANOTHER Muslim nation is the last thing America should be doing when we have so many people in that part of the world who already consider America the Great Satan, and with good reason.
Last i checked, it was the Libyans that laid hands on Gaddafi and they are cleaning up the leftovers. There are always going to be those who hate us, but this wasn't about us. What we did was help with the support of the UN and Nato to stop the mass slaughter of a people. Truthfully, I'm surprised that dude lasted that long being that he was a known terrorist organizer himself who aided in bringing down a plane. That war existed before our aid and it isn't for us to benefit other then to help the region survive post Gaddafi and find some sort of stability. They created their own government, took each town one by one and we evened out their chances by taking out the big guns. There were no boots on the ground other then diplomats who were working with the people there who did appreciate our help.
I'm not acting like consulates being destroyed is common, but it has happened before in countries considered friendly and we did not break ties with them or say everything was lost because of it. We knew a third party was involved just like this situation and dealt with them (swimming with the fishes). The people who killed the ambassador are not part of the government and the current government helped to identify them. What are the chances that Gaddafi would have blown up the consulate himself if we were no longer cool with him, because it was his boys that did it and he supported such tactics in the past. We are on friendly terms with most of the nations in the middle east and the point is to aid in helping the people grow out of tyranny as fellow humans living on earth. More self determined democracy is a good thing and it's helped the rest of Africa to grow. It doesn't always need to come about by war but this situation was unique. Americans don't need to visit over there. It's not about us.
That's all fine and dandy but Libya is now a hotspot for anti-American and terrorist activity. Al-Qaeda is regrouping big time in Libya, and as bad as Gaddafi was, he at least kept a lid on Al-Qaeda and terrorists. With Gaddafi gone, terrorists managed to destroy our consulate and AL-Qaeda allies are popping up all over the place there. Obama says all the time how he wants Al-Qaeda and terrorists on the run, well, he just gave them another safe haven to run wild. If Obama's goal was to create another safe haven for people who (understandably) hate Americans, well congratulations, mission accomplished. I have a feeling though, this isn't what Obama wanted.
A safe haven would be a place where you can run around unchecked with full support of the nation state. I don't think that Libya is much of a safe heaven. The only people that are supporting Al Qaeda like practices are former Qaddafi henchmen. Libya yet another country that Al Qaeda wants to destabilize and transform using their ideology just like other countries with no direct US involvement. They even have Al Qaeda in China.
http://www.cfr.org/china/washington-quarterly-al-qaeda-rise-china-jihadi-geopolitics/p26791
Qaddafi kept his foot on the neck of his people while he became one of the richest man ever.
You don't think Libya is much of a safe haven for terrorists now??? LMAO dog dudes came up to the AMERICAN CONSULATE with rocket launchers and machine guns and burned our ? down to the ground. Where was the Libyan security? Covering for the terrorists?? Come on man, and don't give me that China has Al-Qaeda ? , China doesn't have the same terror issues as America, not even close bruh. LOL come on man be serious for a sec HAHAHA don't make me laugh man in all seriousness. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »You don't think Libya is much of a safe haven for terrorists now??? LMAO dog dudes came up to the AMERICAN CONSULATE with rocket launchers and machine guns and burned our ? down to the ground. Where was the Libyan security? Covering for the terrorists?? Come on man, and don't give me that China has Al-Qaeda ? , China doesn't have the same terror issues as America, not even close bruh. LOL come on man be serious for a sec HAHAHA don't make me laugh man in all seriousness.
I am being serious bro, and it's not hard to set off a bomb in the midst of a protest. Pretest have a habit of getting out of hand and covering other plots and plans. Bombs go off in market places across the globe and it's very difficult to stop it. I wouldn't think that Libya had the same sort high level security as we do over here yet we can't stop planes flying into buildings or mass shootings. We can try to limit and stifle those acts just like the attempted bombing of the Fed on our own soil. A terrorist organization operating in a country does not make that country a safe haven. The point wasn't to compare the level of terrorism that occurs in China to what happens around the world. The point was to show that it Al Qaeda exist around the world.
You also can't discount the terrorist acts that have occurred in China nor do you or anyone have full insight on situations in China. Also, a consulate being attacked isn't indication that all hell has broken lose and the government of Libya has failed. Also, this wasn't perpetrated by Al Qaeda, so why are they even mentioned? It is indication that our Congress should take the funding of diplomatic security more serious. This is also evidence of a post war environment. Post American Civil War, Lincoln was assassinated and there were fire bombs all over NYC. Libya is not responsible for foreign territories which is what a consulate is nor should their security openly attack mostly peaceful protesters that were in sync with others around the globe. -
FuriousOne wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »You don't think Libya is much of a safe haven for terrorists now??? LMAO dog dudes came up to the AMERICAN CONSULATE with rocket launchers and machine guns and burned our ? down to the ground. Where was the Libyan security? Covering for the terrorists?? Come on man, and don't give me that China has Al-Qaeda ? , China doesn't have the same terror issues as America, not even close bruh. LOL come on man be serious for a sec HAHAHA don't make me laugh man in all seriousness.
I am being serious bro, and it's not hard to set off a bomb in the midst of a protest. Pretest have a habit of getting out of hand and covering other plots and plans. Bombs go off in market places across the globe and it's very difficult to stop it. I wouldn't think that Libya had the same sort high level security as we do over here yet we can't stop planes flying into buildings or mass shootings. We can try to limit and stifle those acts just like the attempted bombing of the Fed on our own soil. A terrorist organization operating in a country does not make that country a safe haven. The point wasn't to compare the level of terrorism that occurs in China to what happens around the world. The point was to show that it Al Qaeda exist around the world.
You also can't discount the terrorist acts that have occurred in China nor do you or anyone have full insight on situations in China. Also, a consulate being attacked isn't indication that all hell has broken lose and the government of Libya has failed. Also, this wasn't perpetrated by Al Qaeda, so why are they even mentioned? It is indication that our Congress should take the funding of diplomatic security more serious. This is also evidence of a post war environment. Post American Civil War, Lincoln was assassinated and there were fire bombs all over NYC. Libya is not responsible for foreign territories which is what a consulate is nor should their security openly attack mostly peaceful protesters that were in sync with others around the globe.
This is beyond a bomb though, this is about people with guns and rocket launchers crushing buildings while Libyan security is either covering for the terrorists and OR giving the consulate little protection while being incompetent (along with American security, during the anniversary of 9/11 smh).
Extra security could have been provided for from our military, but it was not through incompetence from the White House and State Dept. I blame the White House more because we should have never dropped bombs in Libya to begin with. The fact that the people responsible for this have ties to AL-Qaeda makes things worse, considering Obama likes to tell people Al-Qaeda and terrorists are on the run. Post war countries are often chaotic true, but I didn't see the people of France and Britain ? Americans and blow up our consulates after World War 2 LOL.....I guess because America was respected in Europe during that time and America has little respect in the Middle East. And YES, the govt of Libya has failed Americans by not protecting the consulate in a good fashion, we gave the rebels enough weapons and ammo to last a lifetime, and meanwhile, we're not even rebuilding our consulate yet. A disgusting and disgraceful situation all around, I can post up many links showing Libya is a safe haven for terrorists now if you want me to. -
As far as China, again, none of their consulates have been blown up recently.....but America can't say the same.....? like this is one of the reasons a terrible candidate like Romney actually has a shot to win this election. I'll have zero sympathy for Obama if he loses the election.
-
something tells me this has primarily to do with the government's lack of firm control over the nation, something you MIGHT expect to happen in the aftermath of removing Gaddafi.kingblaze84 wrote: »Americans are being told to avoid Libya Janklow...
why do you keep pretending that anyone's saying the removal of Gaddafi was somehow supposed to magically fix Libya immediately?kingblaze84 wrote: »...all this after "liberating" Libya from Gaddafi.
what i WANT you to do, as i have said repeatedly, is to stop claiming that either every problem in Libya gets fixed immediately or it means it will NEVER be fixed. this, however, is not going to happen.kingblaze84 wrote: »So if you want me to see positives in the dumb war, tell me where to begin looking.
because taking out Gaddafi is not like defeating the final boss at the end of a video game for the big win.kingblaze84 wrote: »Libya still a mess after taking out Gaddafi...
or getting killed in that attack as well? you've accused the Libyan security of being in collusion with terrorists and/or running immediately before, after which there was no support shown for this... but we're back to this claim again?kingblaze84 wrote: »Where was the Libyan security? Covering for the terrorists? -
something tells me this has primarily to do with the government's lack of firm control over the nation, something you MIGHT expect to happen in the aftermath of removing Gaddafi.kingblaze84 wrote: »Americans are being told to avoid Libya Janklow...
why do you keep pretending that anyone's saying the removal of Gaddafi was somehow supposed to magically fix Libya immediately?kingblaze84 wrote: »...all this after "liberating" Libya from Gaddafi.
what i WANT you to do, as i have said repeatedly, is to stop claiming that either every problem in Libya gets fixed immediately or it means it will NEVER be fixed. this, however, is not going to happen.kingblaze84 wrote: »So if you want me to see positives in the dumb war, tell me where to begin looking.
because taking out Gaddafi is not like defeating the final boss at the end of a video game for the big win.kingblaze84 wrote: »Libya still a mess after taking out Gaddafi...
or getting killed in that attack as well? you've accused the Libyan security of being in collusion with terrorists and/or running immediately before, after which there was no support shown for this... but we're back to this claim again?kingblaze84 wrote: »Where was the Libyan security? Covering for the terrorists?
Okay Janklow let me ask you a question, would YOU have approved the Libyan war? Considering many intelligence experts have been proven right when they stated taking out Gaddadi would mean Libya becoming a stronghold for terrorist activity. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »You don't think Libya is much of a safe haven for terrorists now??? LMAO dog dudes came up to the AMERICAN CONSULATE with rocket launchers and machine guns and burned our ? down to the ground. Where was the Libyan security? Covering for the terrorists?? Come on man, and don't give me that China has Al-Qaeda ? , China doesn't have the same terror issues as America, not even close bruh. LOL come on man be serious for a sec HAHAHA don't make me laugh man in all seriousness.
I am being serious bro, and it's not hard to set off a bomb in the midst of a protest. Pretest have a habit of getting out of hand and covering other plots and plans. Bombs go off in market places across the globe and it's very difficult to stop it. I wouldn't think that Libya had the same sort high level security as we do over here yet we can't stop planes flying into buildings or mass shootings. We can try to limit and stifle those acts just like the attempted bombing of the Fed on our own soil. A terrorist organization operating in a country does not make that country a safe haven. The point wasn't to compare the level of terrorism that occurs in China to what happens around the world. The point was to show that it Al Qaeda exist around the world.
You also can't discount the terrorist acts that have occurred in China nor do you or anyone have full insight on situations in China. Also, a consulate being attacked isn't indication that all hell has broken lose and the government of Libya has failed. Also, this wasn't perpetrated by Al Qaeda, so why are they even mentioned? It is indication that our Congress should take the funding of diplomatic security more serious. This is also evidence of a post war environment. Post American Civil War, Lincoln was assassinated and there were fire bombs all over NYC. Libya is not responsible for foreign territories which is what a consulate is nor should their security openly attack mostly peaceful protesters that were in sync with others around the globe.
This is beyond a bomb though, this is about people with guns and rocket launchers crushing buildings while Libyan security is either covering for the terrorists and OR giving the consulate little protection while being incompetent (along with American security, during the anniversary of 9/11 smh).
Extra security could have been provided for from our military, but it was not through incompetence from the White House and State Dept. I blame the White House more because we should have never dropped bombs in Libya to begin with. The fact that the people responsible for this have ties to AL-Qaeda makes things worse, considering Obama likes to tell people Al-Qaeda and terrorists are on the run. Post war countries are often chaotic true, but I didn't see the people of France and Britain ? Americans and blow up our consulates after World War 2 LOL.....I guess because America was respected in Europe during that time and America has little respect in the Middle East. And YES, the govt of Libya has failed Americans by not protecting the consulate in a good fashion, we gave the rebels enough weapons and ammo to last a lifetime, and meanwhile, we're not even rebuilding our consulate yet. A disgusting and disgraceful situation all around, I can post up many links showing Libya is a safe haven for terrorists now if you want me to.
First off we were not fighting in Britain or France but America was no respected by Germans throwing shots at us post war and the Japanese whom suffered atomic casualties are doing just fine (not that I'm happy about atomic weapons). The point is to illustrate that you sir do not know the future outcome of our actions. Also, half of Europe did not respect us which is why we had a Cold War vs the communist states of Europe along with proxy wars against their main benefactor. This includes a large part of Germany that at one point, we could not enter. You still do not know what China goes through or what Al Qaeda has there. We both know that they do not require and arsenal to blow ? up. Also, the point stands that they exist in a country that does not offer a "Safe Haven".
Bush got the white house the second time after starting and unnecessary war so ? like this does not keep you out of the white house. Hyperbolic cry babies and racist that are disenfranchising voters which is something you should really be concerned with, will keep Obama out of the white house. Still, this attack which was against an ally of your post war enemies was not linked to Al Qaeda. Qaddafi kept them at bay, and his boys whom are left over is keeping up the war efforts. Do you have any other proof that Al Qaeda and not the people that been there with guns are the ones causing problems?
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/19/world/la-fg-libya-attack-20121020
-
FuriousOne wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »You don't think Libya is much of a safe haven for terrorists now??? LMAO dog dudes came up to the AMERICAN CONSULATE with rocket launchers and machine guns and burned our ? down to the ground. Where was the Libyan security? Covering for the terrorists?? Come on man, and don't give me that China has Al-Qaeda ? , China doesn't have the same terror issues as America, not even close bruh. LOL come on man be serious for a sec HAHAHA don't make me laugh man in all seriousness.
I am being serious bro, and it's not hard to set off a bomb in the midst of a protest. Pretest have a habit of getting out of hand and covering other plots and plans. Bombs go off in market places across the globe and it's very difficult to stop it. I wouldn't think that Libya had the same sort high level security as we do over here yet we can't stop planes flying into buildings or mass shootings. We can try to limit and stifle those acts just like the attempted bombing of the Fed on our own soil. A terrorist organization operating in a country does not make that country a safe haven. The point wasn't to compare the level of terrorism that occurs in China to what happens around the world. The point was to show that it Al Qaeda exist around the world.
You also can't discount the terrorist acts that have occurred in China nor do you or anyone have full insight on situations in China. Also, a consulate being attacked isn't indication that all hell has broken lose and the government of Libya has failed. Also, this wasn't perpetrated by Al Qaeda, so why are they even mentioned? It is indication that our Congress should take the funding of diplomatic security more serious. This is also evidence of a post war environment. Post American Civil War, Lincoln was assassinated and there were fire bombs all over NYC. Libya is not responsible for foreign territories which is what a consulate is nor should their security openly attack mostly peaceful protesters that were in sync with others around the globe.
This is beyond a bomb though, this is about people with guns and rocket launchers crushing buildings while Libyan security is either covering for the terrorists and OR giving the consulate little protection while being incompetent (along with American security, during the anniversary of 9/11 smh).
Extra security could have been provided for from our military, but it was not through incompetence from the White House and State Dept. I blame the White House more because we should have never dropped bombs in Libya to begin with. The fact that the people responsible for this have ties to AL-Qaeda makes things worse, considering Obama likes to tell people Al-Qaeda and terrorists are on the run. Post war countries are often chaotic true, but I didn't see the people of France and Britain ? Americans and blow up our consulates after World War 2 LOL.....I guess because America was respected in Europe during that time and America has little respect in the Middle East. And YES, the govt of Libya has failed Americans by not protecting the consulate in a good fashion, we gave the rebels enough weapons and ammo to last a lifetime, and meanwhile, we're not even rebuilding our consulate yet. A disgusting and disgraceful situation all around, I can post up many links showing Libya is a safe haven for terrorists now if you want me to.
First off we were not fighting in Britain or France but America was no respected by Germans throwing shots at us post war and the Japanese whom suffered atomic casualties are doing just fine (not that I'm happy about atomic weapons). The point is to illustrate that you sir do not know the future outcome of our actions. Also, half of Europe did not respect us which is why we had a Cold War vs the communist states of Europe along with proxy wars against their main benefactor. This includes a large part of Germany that at one point, we could not enter. You still do not know what China goes through or what Al Qaeda has there. We both know that they do not require and arsenal to blow ? up. Also, the point stands that they exist in a country that does not offer a "Safe Haven".
Bush got the white house the second time after starting and unnecessary war so ? like this does not keep you out of the white house. Hyperbolic cry babies and racist that are disenfranchising voters which is something you should really be concerned with, will keep Obama out of the white house. Still, this attack which was against an ally of your post war enemies was not linked to Al Qaeda. Qaddafi kept them at bay, and his boys whom are left over is keeping up the war efforts. Do you have any other proof that Al Qaeda and not the people that been there with guns are the ones causing problems?
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/19/world/la-fg-libya-attack-20121020
I don't know what you're talking about when you say America did not fight in Britain or France, have you ever heard of D-Day? D-Day in World War 2 took place in France LOL......the French treated us as liberators after the war, and so did the British. No one in those nations blew up our consulate after we liberated them, unlike in Libya....
Germany and several other nations under Soviet Union control also were wary of an American presence, true, but our consulate was not blown up in either case in Europe after WW2 or even during the Cold War. The consulate in Libya was blown up because we have little to no respect in the Middle East, for excellent reasons, so blowing up more Arabs was not gonna bring us more respect, ? was people expecting? And I don't understand why you keep bringing China up, even if Al-Qaeda is blowing ? up all the time there, we have no proof of that, and we know for a fact China's consulates worldwide are safe cuz, ummmm, there aren't reports of their consulates being blown up in other nations, unlike America.
Regarding Al-Qaeda, I never said Al-Qaeda did the attacks. It doesn't matter which group burned our consulate to the ground, the bottom line is, a TERROR group blew it up. And more terror groups will continue to try to destroy our consulates as long as America has stupid, evil, and ? policies around the world. The Libyan war being among them.
-
kingblaze84 wrote: »
I don't know what you're talking about when you say America did not fight in Britain or France, have you ever heard of D-Day? D-Day in World War 2 took place in France LOL......the French treated us as liberators after the war, and so did the British. No one in those nations blew up our consulate after we liberated them, unlike in Libya....
Germany and several other nations under Soviet Union control also were wary of an American presence, true, but our consulate was not blown up in either case in Europe after WW2 or even during the Cold War. The consulate in Libya was blown up because we have little to no respect in the Middle East, for excellent reasons, so blowing up more Arabs was not gonna bring us more respect, ? was people expecting? And I don't understand why you keep bringing China up, even if Al-Qaeda is blowing ? up all the time there, we have no proof of that, and we know for a fact China's consulates worldwide are safe cuz, ummmm, there aren't reports of their consulates being blown up in other nations, unlike America.
Regarding Al-Qaeda, I never said Al-Qaeda did the attacks. It doesn't matter which group burned our consulate to the ground, the bottom line is, a TERROR group blew it up. And more terror groups will continue to try to destroy our consulates as long as America has stupid, evil, and ? policies around the world. The Libyan war being among them.
Apologies, I meant to say, "fighting Britain and France", as in, they were not our enemies during that time, and we did not fight them in their country. But I'm sure you knew that. I'm sure you also knew i was talking about Germans attacking us post War and the British burning down the white house in the war of 1812 yet we saved their ass in ww2 and ww1. Many had your view that we shouldn't intervene but the ? came to bite us regardless. We didn't have consulates in any of the soviet states nor were there any during WW2 or post WW2. But they did place Nukes in our own backyard and have terrible proxy wars with us including Vietnam and Afghanistan which took far more lives.
We had to rebuild those countries and build a connection with them before we put a consulate there. We also didn't have a consulate in East Germany. We did have a consulate burned down in Pakistan, but we didn't attack them. We also still work with them even though Pakistan is a shady country where terrorist are very active. All of these situations are unique though. In Libya, the a military target was attacked by the remnants of an opposition force not a terrorist group. Terrorist attack civilian tarts like the twin towers. I don't see how helping to end a growing genocide as a ? world policy. We weren't there to gain respect with those who we aided in defeating. Those diplomats were there to work with the elected government. We do have the respect of the people with the example of the show of support from their civilians and the aid that their government has given us with the investigations. -
FuriousOne wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »
I don't know what you're talking about when you say America did not fight in Britain or France, have you ever heard of D-Day? D-Day in World War 2 took place in France LOL......the French treated us as liberators after the war, and so did the British. No one in those nations blew up our consulate after we liberated them, unlike in Libya....
Germany and several other nations under Soviet Union control also were wary of an American presence, true, but our consulate was not blown up in either case in Europe after WW2 or even during the Cold War. The consulate in Libya was blown up because we have little to no respect in the Middle East, for excellent reasons, so blowing up more Arabs was not gonna bring us more respect, ? was people expecting? And I don't understand why you keep bringing China up, even if Al-Qaeda is blowing ? up all the time there, we have no proof of that, and we know for a fact China's consulates worldwide are safe cuz, ummmm, there aren't reports of their consulates being blown up in other nations, unlike America.
Regarding Al-Qaeda, I never said Al-Qaeda did the attacks. It doesn't matter which group burned our consulate to the ground, the bottom line is, a TERROR group blew it up. And more terror groups will continue to try to destroy our consulates as long as America has stupid, evil, and ? policies around the world. The Libyan war being among them.
Apologies, I meant to say, "fighting Britain and France", as in, they were not our enemies during that time, and we did not fight them in their country. But I'm sure you knew that. I'm sure you also knew i was talking about Germans attacking us post War and the British burning down the white house in the war of 1812 yet we saved their ass in ww2 and ww1. Many had your view that we shouldn't intervene but the ? came to bite us regardless. We didn't have consulates in any of the soviet states nor were there any during WW2 or post WW2. But they did place Nukes in our own backyard and have terrible proxy wars with us including Vietnam and Afghanistan which took far more lives.
We had to rebuild those countries and build a connection with them before we put a consulate there. We also didn't have a consulate in East Germany. We did have a consulate burned down in Pakistan, but we didn't attack them. We also still work with them even though Pakistan is a shady country where terrorist are very active. All of these situations are unique though. In Libya, the a military target was attacked by the remnants of an opposition force not a terrorist group. Terrorist attack civilian tarts like the twin towers. I don't see how helping to end a growing genocide as a ? world policy. We weren't there to gain respect with those who we aided in defeating. Those diplomats were there to work with the elected government. We do have the respect of the people with the example of the show of support from their civilians and the aid that their government has given us with the investigations.
You sound like Ronald Reagan and George W Bush now LOL......why should it be America bailing out so many parts of the world when we have so many problems here?? If I sound isolationist, that's fine because America is 16 trillion in debt and is hated enough in many parts of the world, so why butt our noses in in places that already don't like us? You mentioned Vietnam, a war of aggression that America started only (or mostly) to stop the spread of communism. It was a foolish war so I'm surprised you would bring up that example.
Listen, if you wana get your Ronald Reagan and George W Bush on around the world, that's cool. But if our consulate being burned down to the ground is one of the results of "liberating" Libya, give me my isolationism any day. It is sweet of you to say we went into Libya to end "genocide", but it's funny to say things like that when America is mass killing people all over the planet. I bet you Obama has killed way more people than Gaddafi ever did, does that mean someone should begin air raiding America?
This discussion has been closed.