US Ambassador to Libya killed in attacks

[GostHacked]

I knew the blame would eventually fall back to the U.S. and you didn't disappoint. Of course if it was "some guy released from Gitmo some time back," that wouldn't indicate that the guys held at Gitmo shouldn't have been released like some were calling for, it would indicate that Gitmo is to blame. Gitmo is training Muslims to kill Americans. To make it look like al Queda's fault. Have I got that right?

Follow the trail.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/25/world/guantanamo-files-libyan-detainee-now-us-ally-of-sorts.html

DARNAH, Libya — For more than five years, Abu Sufian Ibrahim Ahmed Hamuda bin Qumu was a prisoner at the Guantánamo Bay prison, judged “a probable member of Al Qaeda” by the analysts there. They concluded in a newly disclosed 2005 assessment that his release would represent a “medium to high risk, as he is likely to pose a threat to the U.S., its interests and allies.”

The US released a known terrorists.

He was captured in Pakistan after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, accused of being a member of the militant Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, and sent to Guantánamo — in part because of information provided by Colonel Qaddafi’s government.

“The Libyan Government considers detainee a ‘dangerous man with no qualms about committing terrorist acts,’ ” says the classified 2005 assessment, evidently quoting Libyan intelligence findings, which was obtained by The New York Times. “ ‘He was known as one of the extremist commanders of the Afghan Arabs,’ ” the Libyan information continues, referring to Arab fighters who remained in Afghanistan after the anti-Soviet jihad.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703712504576237042432212406.html

Sufyan Ben Qumu, a Libyan army veteran who worked for Osama bin Laden's holding company in Sudan and later for an al Qaeda-linked charity in Afghanistan, is training many of the city's rebel recruits.

Both Messrs. Hasady and Ben Qumu were picked up by Pakistani authorities after the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and were turned over to the U.S. Mr. Hasady was released to Libyan custody two months later. Mr. Ben Qumu spent six years at Guantanamo Bay before he was turned over to Libyan custody in 2007.

They were both released from Libyan prisons in 2008 as part of a reconciliation with Islamists in Libya.

The west helps arm these idiots too.

France did it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/29/nato-review-libya-france-arming-rebels

The UK did it

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16573516

The US did it

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/03/30/qaddafi-forces-pressure-rebels-key-oil-port/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/29/arms-libya-rebels

Nato did it.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/03/nato-is-all-over-the-place-on-arming-libyan-rebels/

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-14/us/gitmo.detainees_1_detainees-guantanamo-bay-naval-base-pentagon?_s=PM:US

Dozens of suspected terrorists released by the United States from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, are believed to have returned to terrorism activities, according to the Pentagon.

Since 2002, 61 former detainees have committed or are suspected to have committed attacks after being released from the detention camp, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said at a briefing Tuesday.

The number is up since the Pentagon's last report in March 2008 when officials said 37 former detainees had been suspected of returning to the battlefield since 2002.

Since 2007, more than 100 detainees were released, significantly more than in previous years, according to Pentagon officials.

Too often have I heard/read reports that these terrorists are released and then end up causing more trouble for the west.

But make up your own mind about it.

[kimmy]

Jones does not advocate for violence. He is very aggressive with putting out the information which is the goal.

Not Alex Jones. Terry Jones, the pastor involved with the video.

But at the same time we are helping to support violence overseas by supporting the rebels that took down some of these leaders, and with the help of AL-Queda.

Has anybody noticed that pro-American Libyans have stormed the base of the Islamists that attacked the embassy and driven away the militia?

The unprecedented movement suggests that ordinary Libyans are rising up against Al Qaeda fighters who seek to hijack the democratic reforms of the Arab Spring.

Ansar al-Sharia militants initially fired in the air to disperse the crowd, but eventually abandoned the site with their weapons and vehicles after it was overrun by waves of protesters shouting 'No to militias.'

'I don't want to see armed men wearing Afghani-style clothes stopping me in the street to give me orders, I only want to see people in uniform,' said Omar Mohammed, a college student who took part in the takeover of the site.

No deaths were reported in the incident, which came after tens of thousands marched in Benghazi against armed militias. One vehicle was also burned at the compound.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

Has anybody noticed that pro-American Libyans have stormed the base of the Islamists that attacked the embassy and driven away the militia?

They weren't all "pro-Americans" by any means; 'pro-Libya' is more accurate regarding the whole.

[GostHacked]

They weren't all "pro-Americans" by any means; 'pro-Libya' is more accurate regarding the whole.

I would agree with that assessment.

[GostHacked]

Not Alex Jones. Terry Jones, the pastor involved with the video.

I guess when I see the name 'Jones' I automatically think Alex.

[BubberMiley]

I think Davy. But I'm not sure if it's the pirate, the monkee, or David Bowie before he changed his name.

[Guest American Woman]

Apparently there's a bounty on the filmmaker's head; a Pakistani minister has offered $100,000 to anyone who kills him, inviting the Taliban and al Qaeda to join him in this "blessed mission." And of course, rather than getting the message of "free speech in America" out in Pakistan, Obama and Clinton were simply apologizing. (Honestly, right now I don't feel as if I could vote for either candidate come November....)

link

Edited September 23, 2012 by American Woman

[sharkman]

Funny how Religulous didn't set off these Muslim clerics, and the You tube video didn't until someone apologized for it. At least the Christian world knows what to do with these silly attempts at movie making: ignore them.

[jbg]

Apparently there's a bounty on the filmmaker's head; a Pakistani minister has offered $100,000 to anyone who kills him, inviting the Taliban and al Qaeda to join him in this "blessed mission." And of course, rather than getting the message of "free speech in America" out in Pakistan, Obama and Clinton were simply apologizing. (Honestly, right now I don't feel as if I could vote for either candidate come November....)

link

I am sickened that we apologize to our sworn enemies.

[BubberMiley]

I am sickened that we apologize to our sworn enemies.

I hope you'll feel better when you find out nobody apologized, but that you were just lied to by your Republican brethren.

[Bitsy]

I am sickened that we apologize to our sworn enemies.

Were you equally as sickened when Bush apologized?

http://www.salon.com/2012/09/13/when_bush_apologized_to_muslims/

[Guest American Woman]

Were you equally as sickened when Bush apologized?

http://www.salon.com/2012/09/13/when_bush_apologized_to_muslims/

I would like to see/hear what Bush had to say rather than read someone else's take on it, but it's not necessary in order to see that there is a huge difference between a soldier disrespecting Islam in Iraq and a citizen exercising freedom of speech in America. You do see the difference, right?

There is also a huge difference between Bush, the Commander in Chief of the U.S., speaking out to correct a Pentagon official, who represents the U.S. government, for misspeaking and likening the war to being a religious war - and a citizen, who has no connection to the government, exercising their freedom of speech in America. Do you do recognize that, too, right?

I would hope that you are able to recognize the difference between the situations.

Edited September 23, 2012 by American Woman

[Wilber]

I would like to see/hear what Bush had to say rather than read someone else's take on it, but it's not necessary in order to see that there is a huge difference between a soldier disrespecting Islam in Iraq and a citizen exercising freedom of speech in America. You do see the difference, right?

As soon as you put it on youtube you are broadcasting your opinion to the whole world. Saying your are just exercising free speech in America is about as disingenuous as you can get.

[jbg]

Were you equally as sickened when Bush apologized?

http://www.salon.com/2012/09/13/when_bush_apologized_to_muslims/

Yes, and I was in 2001 when he went to mosques after the massacre and emphasized Islam's peaceful nature.

[Guest American Woman]

As soon as you put it on youtube you are broadcasting your opinion to the whole world. Saying your are just exercising free speech in America is about as disingenuous as you can get.

So what if one is broadcasting their opinion to the whole world? It's still happening within the U.S., so U.S. laws apply. If people in other countries choose to expose themselves to it by going to YouTube and purposely clicking on it, that's quite different from it occurring in their country. Furthermore, they are choosing to expose themselves to it. The soldier in Iraq was going against the laws of Iraq.

It's why Americans don't have to abide by Canada's hate laws within the U.S., even if they decide to put it on YouTube, but Canadians do have to abide by it within their country.

According to your mindset, we must all live by the laws of every nation because someone might put what we said/did on FB or YouTube or some such thing. In other words, the freedoms we enjoy in our nations no longer exist. Ridiculous.

[Bitsy]

Yes, and I was in 2001 when he went to mosques after the massacre and emphasized Islam's peaceful nature.

And did that sicken you also?

[Wilber]

So what if one is broadcasting their opinion to the whole world? It's still happening within the U.S., so U.S. laws apply. If people in other countries choose to expose themselves to it by going to YouTube and purposely clicking on it, that's quite different from it occurring in their country. Furthermore, they are choosing to expose themselves to it. The soldier in Iraq was going against the laws of Iraq.

It's why Americans don't have to abide by Canada's hate laws within the U.S., even if they decide to put it on YouTube, but Canadians do have to abide by it within their country.

According to your mindset, we must all live by the laws of every nation because someone might put what we said/did on FB or YouTube or some such thing. In other words, the freedoms we enjoy in our nations no longer exist. Ridiculous.

I am saying it is disingenuous and cynical as you can get to put something on a world wide forum then say you are only expressing your opinion in your own country. I've never said you can't or shouldn't ever do it.

[jbg]

And did that sicken you also?

Sure did. The most I wanted him to do was inveigh against and take steps to prevent retaliatory violence against Muslims.

[Guest American Woman]

I am saying it is disingenuous and cynical as you can get to put something on a world wide forum then say you are only expressing your opinion in your own country. I've never said you can't or shouldn't ever do it.

I didn't say he was only expressing his opinion in his own country. I said he was exercising his freedom of speech in his own country.

[Wilber]

I didn't say he was only expressing his opinion in his own country. I said he was exercising his freedom of speech in his own country.

And by putting it on youtube he was also exercising it in the rest of the world. With the internet, where you physically are means nothing.

[BubberMiley]

Condemning a message is neither apologizing for it nor inhibiting the freedom to say it.

[Guest American Woman]

And by putting it on youtube he was also exercising it in the rest of the world. With the internet, where you physically are means nothing.

Nooooo, he's not exercising it in the rest of the world. He didn't go to Iraq, or Saudi Arabia, or Libya, or anywhere else to express himself. He did it in the U.S., where it is legal. If the governments in Iraq, or Saudi Arabia, or Libya, or anywhere else don't like it, they can make it illegal for their citizens to access YouTube/whatever. They can make the internet illegal. They can do whatever they want, except expect Americans to abide by their laws and what upsets them when they are in the U.S.

Again. Americans can say whatever in the U.S., and if someone puts it on YouTube and it breaks Canada's hate laws, they are still simply expressing themselves according to their rights in the U.S.

In other words, where you physically are means everything.

Edited September 23, 2012 by American Woman

[Bitsy]

Sure did. The most I wanted him to do was inveigh against and take steps to prevent retaliatory violence against Muslims.

And how did you feel when Reagan apologized to the Japanese?

[Wilber]

Nooooo, he's not exercising it in the rest of the world. He didn't go to Iraq, or Saudi Arabia, or Libya, or anywhere else to express himself. He did it in the U.S., where it is legal. If the governments in Iraq, or Saudi Arabia, or Libya, or anywhere else don't like it, they can make it illegal for their citizens to access YouTube/whatever. They can make the internet illegal. They can do whatever they want, except expect Americans to abide by their laws and what upsets them when they are in the U.S.

Again. Americans can say whatever in the U.S., and if someone puts it on YouTube and it breaks Canada's hate laws, they are still simply expressing themselves according to their rights in the U.S.

You keep going on about rights, No one is questioning their right but some people are very good at hiding behind them to avoid the consequences of their actions. You seem very reluctant to call those people to task.

If it was someones right in their country to burn down a US embassy and murder innocent US citizens in the street because they feel they have been insulted by someone expressing their right in the US, you should respect that. After all it is their right in their country. Right.

[Guest American Woman]

And how did you feel when Reagan apologized to the Japanese?

Care to elaborate - as you ignore the differences between the situations you posted about regarding Bush's apologies and an American citizen exercising his freedom of speech in America?