1 Dead in Pakistan Consulate Attack

[BigBallinStalin]

The protesters were running around the compound just looking for Americans, they just wanted to find an American so they could catch one."

AMERICON - Gotta catch 'em all!

[fadedpsychosis]

actually patches, my comment wasn't aimed strictly at the people in Libya... there are plenty of fanatics in the US that are just as high on my list (starting with the guy who made the damn movie). And honestly I freaking WORK for NATO and I wasn't terribly sanguine about what we did. You'd think with what happened in Afghanistan the 1st time we'd have learned our lesson about arming rebels to take out the govt. but apparently not...

but yeah, in this particular instance, the evidence seems to be pointing to the fact that this was a targeted attack. WHY we were targeted I can't say. The US govt. has certainly done plenty to deserve it I dare say but what do I know...

[thegreekdog]

Congratulations America for supporting the "peaceful" Arab Spring (and the rebels in Libya)

So you don't believe that the people of a nation should be able to form their own government? You're ready for the United Nations to tell America what kind of government we can have, are you?

Actually, I think he's saying that we shouldn't have gotten involved. Which is equally applicable to, I don't know, fucking Iraq.

Without knowing too much about foreign policy, I support the president's non-interventionist policies with respect to these two incidents as well as his apparenty denial of a meeting with any Israeli officials.

[Woodruff]

Congratulations America for supporting the "peaceful" Arab Spring (and the rebels in Libya)

So you don't believe that the people of a nation should be able to form their own government? You're ready for the United Nations to tell America what kind of government we can have, are you?

Actually, I think he's saying that we shouldn't have gotten involved.

Re-reading it, you may be right. I may have misunderstood what he was getting at. Is thegreekdog right, Night Strike?

[saxitoxin]

actually patches, my comment wasn't aimed strictly at the people in Libya... there are plenty of fanatics in the US that are just as high on my list (starting with the guy who made the damn movie). And honestly I freaking WORK for NATO and I wasn't terribly sanguine about what we did. You'd think with what happened in Afghanistan the 1st time we'd have learned our lesson about arming rebels to take out the govt. but apparently not...

+5,000 SaxBucks

[BigBallinStalin]

Congratulations America for supporting the "peaceful" Arab Spring (and the rebels in Libya)

So you don't believe that the people of a nation should be able to form their own government? You're ready for the United Nations to tell America what kind of government we can have, are you?

Actually, I think he's saying that we shouldn't have gotten involved. Which is equally applicable to, I don't know, fucking Iraq.

Without knowing too much about foreign policy, I support the president's non-interventionist policies with respect to these two incidents as well as his apparenty denial of a meeting with any Israeli officials.

That surprised me.

Of course, a meeting in person could be substituted for a phone call, or a quick Txt:

Netanyahu: yo, Osama. let get these guys.
Obama: Osama?
Netanyahu: sorry, Obama, damn that auto-correct.
Obama: yeah sure, i'm definitely not holding meeting with you

[thegreekdog]

Congratulations America for supporting the "peaceful" Arab Spring (and the rebels in Libya)

So you don't believe that the people of a nation should be able to form their own government? You're ready for the United Nations to tell America what kind of government we can have, are you?

Actually, I think he's saying that we shouldn't have gotten involved. Which is equally applicable to, I don't know, fucking Iraq.

Without knowing too much about foreign policy, I support the president's non-interventionist policies with respect to these two incidents as well as his apparenty denial of a meeting with any Israeli officials.

That surprised me.

Of course, a meeting in person could be substituted for a phone call, or a quick Txt:

Netanyahu: yo, Osama. let get these guys.
Obama: Osama?
Netanyahu: sorry, Obama, damn that auto-correct.
Obama: yeah sure, i'm definitely not holding meeting with you

I was being marginally sarcastic. Drudge is screaming about how Obama won't meet with Netanyahu. I suspect the administration doesn't really know what to do yet and will make a decision today or tomorrow. I would expect a strong response given that A FUCKING AMBASSADOR WAS KILLED!!! But, nationalism and anger aside, who knows?

[patches70]

I would expect a strong response given that A FUCKING AMBASSADOR WAS KILLED!!! But, nationalism and anger aside, who knows?

I suspect Obama would send a strongly worded letter to whomever is charge of whatever particular province.

Alexander the Great would send ambassador's into cities he was approaching. The terms were always pretty much the same, lay down your arms, don't resist, swear loyalty and pay tribute, or something to that effect. The smart rulers of said cities would comply.

One city, however, made the mistake of killing Alexander's ambassador. Alexander marched upon the city, surrounded it and got ready to raze it. The leaders saw the error of their ways and attempted to surrender. Alexander, not surprisingly, told them they had their chance and proceeded to completely destroy the city, kill the entire population and sowed the ground with salt so nothing would grow.

No one else ever killed another of Alexander's ambassadors.
Obama is no Alexander the Great.....

[Baron Von PWN]

Congratulations America for supporting the "peaceful" Arab Spring (and the rebels in Libya)

So you don't believe that the people of a nation should be able to form their own government? You're ready for the United Nations to tell America what kind of government we can have, are you?

Actually, I think he's saying that we shouldn't have gotten involved. Which is equally applicable to, I don't know, fucking Iraq.

Without knowing too much about foreign policy, I support the president's non-interventionist policies with respect to these two incidents as well as his apparenty denial of a meeting with any Israeli officials.

That surprised me.

Of course, a meeting in person could be substituted for a phone call, or a quick Txt:

Netanyahu: yo, Osama. let get these guys.
Obama: Osama?
Netanyahu: sorry, Obama, damn that auto-correct.
Obama: yeah sure, i'm definitely not holding meeting with you

I was being marginally sarcastic. Drudge is screaming about how Obama won't meet with Netanyahu. I suspect the administration doesn't really know what to do yet and will make a decision today or tomorrow. I would expect a strong response given that A FUCKING AMBASSADOR WAS KILLED!!! But, nationalism and anger aside, who knows?

I'm not sure what an appropriate response would be. What do you do when terrorists manage to kill your ambassador? I suspect this is what it was rather than an angry mob. I know the USA just deployed some commando's to the area. So presumably they have the job of getting payback.

The US has committed to supporting the Libyan pseudo government, so they can't exactly flip shit at them for a security failure. That would just make the USA look ridiculous as well as seemingly completely counter productive to their helping the rebels win in the first place.

[BigBallinStalin]

@ TGD and maybe BVP

Yeah, "who knows" is correct.

That policy process is not transparent, which is understandable. And, it can only be gleaned from rhetoric and observable actions... which is problematic.


Let's make predictions!

Urged on by these assaults on US embassies, the US expands its counter-terrorism/insurgency policies by "asking" the Libyan and Egyptian governments if they would like some "assistance" in matters of national security. As in Columbia, the US will exports its advisers, trainers, weaponry, and elite soldiers to help the foreign government consolidate its control against those evil rebels--not the good rebels, just the ones which the US doesn't like and maybe gave weapons too, but lol whatever!

[Baron Von PWN]

I would expect a strong response given that A FUCKING AMBASSADOR WAS KILLED!!! But, nationalism and anger aside, who knows?

I suspect Obama would send a strongly worded letter to whomever is charge of whatever particular province.

Alexander the Great would send ambassador's into cities he was approaching. The terms were always pretty much the same, lay down your arms, don't resist, swear loyalty and pay tribute, or something to that effect. The smart rulers of said cities would comply.

One city, however, made the mistake of killing Alexander's ambassador. Alexander marched upon the city, surrounded it and got ready to raze it. The leaders saw the error of their ways and attempted to surrender. Alexander, not surprisingly, told them they had their chance and proceeded to completely destroy the city, kill the entire population and sowed the ground with salt so nothing would grow.

No one else ever killed another of Alexander's ambassadors.....

Yeah the USA should probably burn bengazi to the ground and kill all it's inhabitants. This would surely help America in its diplomatic attempts in the future.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm not sure what an appropriate response would be. What do you do when terrorists manage to kill your ambassador? I suspect this is what it was rather than an angry mob. I know the USA just deployed some commando's to the area. So presumably they have the job of getting payback.

The US has committed to supporting the Libyan pseudo government, so they can't exactly flip shit at them for a security failure. That would just make the USA look ridiculous as well as seemingly completely counter productive to their helping the rebels win in the first place.

The US sent some specialist CT team of Marines, about 50 of them.

I'm expecting that the US will ramp up their involvement in the national security of Egypt and Libya. To close their embassy and retreat would be unacceptable and would be perceived as a sign of defeat. US policymakers would expect that this plan would embolden the perpetrators.

And the US will very likely not choose to do nothing; otherwise, it would be interpreted as a sign of weakness.

So, that leaves one option: further intervention. The US will become more involved in the national security matters of Egypt and Libya. The US can apply pressure to those two countries by leveraging US control over the unilateral transfers (i.e. "bribes"), Foreign Aid, US-granted acceptance on certain weapon sales, and IMF loans in order to compel EGY and LIB to accept such "assistance."

This assistance could be in training and advise, and coordinated operations within their country. It's CT/COIN training and operations. I would be surprised if the US did not further pursue this type of plan within the next 6 to 12 months because of these embassy attacks.

[aad0906]

Although the film may have served as a tipping point, what are the fundamental causes of directing violence toward the US?

If it's radical Islam, then why don't they attack other countries' consulates whenever a provocative film is produced within whatever nations' borders?

They have a term for it. It's called Blowback. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blt9_hy1di4

[Baron Von PWN]

@ TGD and maybe BVP

Yeah, "who knows" is correct.

That policy process is not transparent, which is understandable. And, it can only be gleaned from rhetoric and observable actions... which is problematic.


Let's make predictions!

Urged on by these assaults on US embassies, the US expands its counter-terrorism/insurgency policies by "asking" the Libyan and Egyptian governments if they would like some "assistance" in matters of national security. As in Columbia, the US will exports its advisers, trainers, weaponry, and elite soldiers to help the foreign government consolidate its control against those evil rebels--not the good rebels, just the ones which the US doesn't like and maybe gave weapons too, but lol whatever!

This is what I would expect to be the reaction from the USA, and would be the correct response. It's entirely possible this was an alqeda operation. We know they've been operating in the area. See their conquest of half of Mali with captured Libyan weapons. http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news ... -dine-coup.

It isn't difficult to imagine that the same group that lifted weapons from Libyan depots could organize an attack against a relatively vulnerable US target.

[BigBallinStalin]

Although the film may have served as a tipping point, what are the fundamental causes of directing violence toward the US?

If it's radical Islam, then why don't they attack other countries' consulates whenever a provocative film is produced within whatever nations' borders?

They have a term for it. It's called Blowback. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blt9_hy1di4

YEAH YOU RIGHT.

But it may be difficult to show the chain of causation, since much of the pertinent information will remain hidden for about 20-30 years until someone compels the US to abide by the Freedom of Information Act, which may also be ignored or strongly resisted for who knows how long.

[saxitoxin]

I'm not sure what an appropriate response would be. What do you do when terrorists manage to kill your ambassador?

Or they kill your ambassador with grenades you gave them?

This is like living next to a known serial killer. Then, one day, you invite him over to babysit your 16 year old daughter while you go on a vacay. Oh, and before you leave, you give him a duffel bag filled with rope, a gag, and an assortment of knives. Who's really at fault for what happens next?

USA Options

#1 - do nothing; send a new ambassador from the pool
#2 - switch sides to the pro-Qadaffi secular Green Resistance you just bombed into smithereens and attack the "NTC" regime

[BigBallinStalin]

@ TGD and maybe BVP

Yeah, "who knows" is correct.

That policy process is not transparent, which is understandable. And, it can only be gleaned from rhetoric and observable actions... which is problematic.


Let's make predictions!

Urged on by these assaults on US embassies, the US expands its counter-terrorism/insurgency policies by "asking" the Libyan and Egyptian governments if they would like some "assistance" in matters of national security. As in Columbia, the US will exports its advisers, trainers, weaponry, and elite soldiers to help the foreign government consolidate its control against those evil rebels--not the good rebels, just the ones which the US doesn't like and maybe gave weapons too, but lol whatever!

This is what I would expect to be the reaction from the USA, and would be the correct response. It's entirely possible this was an alqeda operation. We know they've been operating in the area. See their conquest of half of Mali with captured Libyan weapons. http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news ... -dine-coup.

How do you know that's Al-Qaeda? (anything could possibly be anything)

My opinion is that they are not Al-Qaeda; however, they are insurgents seceding away from an incompetent and predatory State.


From what I've seen, in order to justify further intervention in other countries, the US tends to arbitrarily label Rebel groups, resistance fighters, and terrorists--all alike--as "Al-Qaeda" or "connected with Al-Qaeda." For example, if faced with two sets of intelligence reports--one saying "not Al-Qaeda"; the other saying "Al-Qaeda/Al-Qaeda connected"--the policymakers will opt for the later intelligence, which will shape their agenda. It's about chasing perceived threats and increasing one's importance and budget. Of course, good intentions may also be involved, but they're only a portion of the incentives which these decision-makers face.

Furthermore, foreign governments have the same incentive of broadly labeling enemy insurgents (not govt-backed insurgments, mind you) as Al-Qaeda because that would increase their chances of receiving US foreign "aid."

It's a reinforcing feedback loop. "Al-Qaeda" appears to be EVERYWHERE.

In Mali, the rebels were pissed at the national government, which was incompetent, so they decided to break away. If someone's treating you poorly, you can appeal to the UN (lol), fight them, or break away and fight them in your newly created territory. But that's just my perspective on Mali and terrorism.

It isn't difficult to imagine that the same group that lifted weapons from Libyan depots could organize an attack against a relatively vulnerable US target.

[Woodruff]

Obama is no Alexander the Great.....

You say that like it's a bad thing.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm not sure what an appropriate response would be. What do you do when terrorists manage to kill your ambassador?

Or they kill your ambassador with grenades you gave them?

This is like living next to a known serial killer. Then, one day, you invite him over to babysit your 16 year old daughter while you go on a vacay. Oh, and before you leave, you give him a duffel bag filled with rope, a gag, and an assortment of knives. Who's really at fault for what happens next?

USA Options

#1 - do nothing; send a new ambassador from the pool
#2 - switch sides to the pro-Qadaffi secular Green Resistance you just bombed into smithereens and attack the "NTC" regime

I do not possess an intricate breakdown of all the major players in Libya, but I think we can both agree that there are more options than the pro-Qadaffi group and the homogenous blob of "NTC."


If the US can determine which group is responsible, and if they have the reliable information on that group's location, then they can---oh sorry, with the help of NTC/Benghazi--use a "divide and conquer" policy, by playing local groups against the disliked group.

[thegreekdog]

@ TGD and maybe BVP

Yeah, "who knows" is correct.

That policy process is not transparent, which is understandable. And, it can only be gleaned from rhetoric and observable actions... which is problematic.


Let's make predictions!

Urged on by these assaults on US embassies, the US expands its counter-terrorism/insurgency policies by "asking" the Libyan and Egyptian governments if they would like some "assistance" in matters of national security. As in Columbia, the US will exports its advisers, trainers, weaponry, and elite soldiers to help the foreign government consolidate its control against those evil rebels--not the good rebels, just the ones which the US doesn't like and maybe gave weapons too, but lol whatever!

I completely agree.

[saxitoxin]

I'm not sure what an appropriate response would be. What do you do when terrorists manage to kill your ambassador?

Or they kill your ambassador with grenades you gave them?

This is like living next to a known serial killer. Then, one day, you invite him over to babysit your 16 year old daughter while you go on a vacay. Oh, and before you leave, you give him a duffel bag filled with rope, a gag, and an assortment of knives. Who's really at fault for what happens next?

USA Options

#1 - do nothing; send a new ambassador from the pool
#2 - switch sides to the pro-Qadaffi secular Green Resistance you just bombed into smithereens and attack the "NTC" regime

I do not possess an intricate breakdown of all the major players in Libya, but I think we can both agree that there are more options than the pro-Qadaffi group and the homogenous blob of "NTC."


If the US can determine which group is responsible, and if they have the reliable information on that group's location, then they can---oh sorry, with the help of NTC/Benghazi--use a "divide and conquer" policy, by playing local groups against the disliked group.

The only things I know are, (1) if the Jamahriyah was still in control today, there wouldn't be a bunch of YouTube video of Christopher Stevens body being dragged through the streets of Benghazi, (2) The Jamahriyah is not in control because of the attack against it led by Canadian Lt.-Gen. Charles Bouchard on Barack Obama's orders. And we should have cause to reasonably suspect that, (3) Christopher Stevens was killed with weapons dumped into Libya like candy by NATO itself.

You Break It, You Buy It

[BigBallinStalin]

@BVP and that article by Marc-Andurrrs Whatever


http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news ... -dine-coup

Notice the use of language in this article:

Just eight months ago, Mali was held up as a model of democracy in Africa. Today, it is practically a failed state with much of the north governed by a consortium of militant groups sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/Mali2010.pdf

Looks nice! But it's an aggregate. It doesn't expain the variance of "democracy" across the region, nor does it address economic considerations.

Economic Freedom Index (covers political and economic matters)
http://www.heritage.org/index/country/mali





Oh, so Mali is pretty crappy. Gee, could people be annoyed by that? It's not like Democracy itself is a good thing in all cases--which the author is implying, with his choice of words.


Let's see the details of that Polity IV Index.

In the May 2007 presidential elections Toure was returned to office with 68% of the vote. While President Toure was affiliated with no official party, he gained the backing of numerous groups in civil society and 22 minor parties organized under the banner of the Alliance for Democracy and Progress. The opposition parties argued that the voters’ list used in this election favored the incumbent and accused Toure’s supporters of using state assets to fund his election campaign. While foreign observers declared the election to be mostly fair, the opposition parties formally asked the Constitutional Court to annul the results.

Political competition in Mali is strongly influenced by ethnic divisions (50% Mande, 17% Peul, 12% Voltaic, 10% Moor and Tuareg). In 1991, Tuareg groups formed a coalition named the Azawad Liberation Front and, despite government efforts for a peaceful settlement, continued rebel military activities until 1996. By 1999, the government had completed the process of integrating elements of former Tuareg rebel forces into its armed forces, however, Tuareg economic and political grievances continued to go unresolved. In May 2006 Tuareg rebels looted weapons in the town of Kidal, raising fears of a new rebellion. In response, the government signed an Algerian-brokered peace deal. Under the deal, the Tuaregs dropped demands for greater regional autonomy in exchange for a poverty reduction program. The government has promised to do more to develop Mali’s northern desert regions, where the Tuaregs live.

The Azawad Liberation Front had greviences which were not being addressed sufficiently, so they said, "f*ck it, leave us alone, we're going to handle our own problems."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuareg_reb ... %282012%29

Basically, you have them, the FLNA, breaking away as competing groups join the rebellion, e.g. the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad (MLNA) and others.


Since the UN views the "nation-state" as sacrosanct, then regardless of the predatory nature of any State, the UN, especially the UNSC, will tend to side with the national government. This is why the rebellion is viewed as "illegitimate" although compared with the facts, their reasons for secession are understandable. Keep this in mind while you hear about Mali and people touting about the holiness of democracy and the State.



Anyway, now that's clear, moving on:

The shocking turn of events worries security officials in the United States, which has been chasing Al Qaeda all over Asia, the Middle East and the Gulf for more than a decade.

Mali’s descent from democracy began in March when soldiers, unhappy with the amount of government resources given to them to fight a band of nomadic Tuareg rebels in the north, gave up that fight and instead staged a coup in Bamako, Mali’s capital.

More from GlobalPost: In-depth series: Al Qaeda in Africa

Seizing the opportunity, and buoyed by weapons and fighters from Libya, the Tuareg rebels swiftly took Mali’s north from the disintegrating Malian army. The three main northern cities fell within 48 hours after the coup.

The Tuaregs, however, had been infiltrated by foreign terrorist organizations, which gave rise to something tantamount to an Al Qaeda-controlled area the size of France in Mali's north. The Tuareg watched their rebellion slip away as Al Qaeda evicted them from their last stronghold, Assongo, in mid-July.

But this is a simplistic view, with a huge assumption that they've been infiltrated. There are multiple groups with different agendas hitting different places while experiencing different levels of "terrorist infiltration," and of that "terrorist infiltration," how much is actually Al-Qaeda? I would guess most likely none, or it wouldn't matter because some of these groups may favor terrorism without the influence of Al-Qaeda--other groups would strictly resort to insurgency though.

Which groups do this and by how much? The author, Marc-Andre Boisvert, of that article has no idea--only his opinions. He is a free-lance journalist, taking a few pics while asserting his opinions as fact.


Look at how he distorts this:

The first to appear was Ansar Dine, which floated its black flag over Timbuktu and declared its own version of Sharia law. It is led by a well-known Tuareg leader, who had converted to Al Qaeda's ideology.

Their ideology? Al-Qaeda != Islamic fundamentalism, nor does it follow that if a group implements Shari'ah Law, that they are somehow Al-Qaeda. Sorry, Marc, that's not how it works. He's trying to shove different facts into the same category.



Here's more:

Mali’s north belongs now to two groups aligned with Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, or AQIM, which operates primarily in Algeria but coordinates with both Al Shabaab in Somalia and Boko Haram in Nigeria.

Okay, Marc, how so?

The first link provides no evidence that Al Shabaab is operating in Mali. Its main title (above the article's title) asserts this claim but provides no evidence. Marc's "fact" has been proven false--given his own provided "evidence."

The second link provides no evidence either; it is irrelevant to Mali; and in fact, it redirects me to Marc's link. Talk about some serious bullshit here. Marc now lacks credibility.

Now, the US Department, from the second link, states:

Days before Ham’s statement, the US State Department named Boko Haram’s assumed leader, Abubakar Shekau, and two other associates, “Specially Designated Global Terrorists.” But unlike Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, the United States has yet to deem Boko Haram a “Foreign Terrorist Organization.”

Wait, so the evidence he cited is actually not even Al-Qaeda, and its "foreign terrorist organization" label is pending. That's coming from the US State Dept. Wow, Marc. Good job.


Then from these baseless allegations, he states that Al-Qaeda is doing X, Y, and Z in Mali. Talk about a steaming pile of bullshit. I'll stop there with his article. Based on the above, the author is not a legitimate authority on the subject. At best, he's a weak propagandist.

That's why journalist pieces, especially from nutcases like Marc, should be taken with much skepticism.

[Qwert]

I just wonder who are going to be blame now when Quadafy are killed and Government troops not exist anymore?

[saxitoxin]

I just wonder who are going to be blame now when Quadafy are killed and Government troops not exist anymore?

Ghost!

[Dukasaur]

I'm not sure what an appropriate response would be. What do you do when terrorists manage to kill your ambassador?

Or they kill your ambassador with grenades you gave them?

This is like living next to a known serial killer. Then, one day, you invite him over to babysit your 16 year old daughter while you go on a vacay. Oh, and before you leave, you give him a duffel bag filled with rope, a gag, and an assortment of knives. Who's really at fault for what happens next?

USA Options

#1 - do nothing; send a new ambassador from the pool
#2 - switch sides to the pro-Qadaffi secular Green Resistance you just bombed into smithereens and attack the "NTC" regime

Stranger things have happened.

The US had no problem switching direction in mid-stride and sending aid to the Khmer Rouge in 1980 after spending the previous 15 years trying to bomb the Khmer Rouge out of existence.