Posted on 09/18/2012 5:29:56 AM PDT by SJackson
Did US Ambassador Christopher Stevens understand why he and his fellow Americans were being murdered?
As he suffocated to death at the US Consulate in Benghazi on the 11th anniversary of the September 11 attacks on the US, did US Ambassador Christopher Stevens understand why he and his fellow Americans were being murdered? From what we have learned of this man since he was killed, it is clear that he was extremely courageous. He stole into Benghazi in April 2011 on a cargo ship to serve as chief US liaison officer to the rebel forces fighting Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi. He did the business of the US government in makeshift offices and moved from safe house to safe house under what can only be considered dire conditions of combat.
But did he understand the forces he was unleashing? Stevens arrived in Benghazi at an early phase of US involvement in the rebellion against Gaddafi, a former US foe who had been neutered since 2004. But even then it was clear that the rebels with whom he worked included jihadist fighters associated with al-Qaida. Their significance became obvious when just after the regime fell in November 2011, rebel forces foisted the flag of al-Qaida over the courthouse in Benghazi.
Did Stevens understand what this meant? Perhaps he did. But his boss, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, certainly didn’t. Following Tuesday’s attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi, Clinton said, “Today, many Americans are asking – indeed, I asked myself – how could this happen? How could this happen in a country we helped liberate, in a city we helped save from destruction? This question reflects just how complicated and, at times, how confounding the world can be.”
Clinton, the bewildered stewardess of US foreign policy, then proclaimed with utter certainty that there is nothing to be concerned about. “We must be clear-eyed, even in our grief. This was an attack by a small and savage group – not the people or government of Libya,” she said.
Of course, what she failed to mention was that after the rebels felled Gaddafi’s regime – with US support – they began imposing Islamic law over large swathes of the country.
Clinton was not the only senior US official who didn’t understand why Stevens and three other Americans were murdered or why the US Consulate in Benghazi was reduced to a smoldering ruin.
Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, thinks that the party responsible for the Muslim violence against the US on the anniversary of September 11 is a kook in Florida who enjoys saying nasty things about Islam.
The day after the murderous assault on the US Consulate in Benghazi, and in the face of an ongoing mob assault on the US Embassy in Cairo, and on US embassies in Yemen and Tunis, Dempsey called Pastor Terry Jones in Florida and asked him to withdraw his support for a film that depicts Muhammad in a negative fashion.
Dempsey’s spokesman Col. Dave Lapan told Reuters, “In a brief call, Gen. Dempsey expressed his concerns over the nature of the film, the tensions it will inflame and the violence it will cause. He asked Mr. Jones to consider withdrawing his support for the film.”
Dempsey’s belief that a third-rate riff on Muhammad supported by a marginal figure in Florida is the cause of the terrorist attacks on US embassies is not simply shocking. It is devastating.
It means that the senior officer in the US military is of the opinion that the party to blame for the assaults on US government installations overseas was an American pastor. To prevent the recurrence of such incidents, freedom of speech must be constrained.
And Dempsey is not the only senior US military commander who harbors this delusion.
A similar response was voiced by Gen. George Casey, the US Army chief of staff, in the wake of the massacre of US forces at Ft. Hood in November 2009 by Maj. Nidal Malik Hassan. Hassan, who had been in contact with al-Qaida commander Anwar al-Awlaki and described himself as a “soldier of Islam,” was clearly acting out of Islamic jihadist motivations when he shot his fellow soldiers.
And yet, responding to the attack, Casey said that worse than the massacre itself – that is more sacred than the lives of his own soldiers – was the notion that “our diversity” should fall casualty to Hassan’s murderous attack. In his words, “Our diversity not only in our army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.”
A word about the much mentioned film about Muhammad is in order. The film was apparently released about a year ago. It received little notice until last month when a Salafi television station in Egypt broadcast it.
In light of the response, the purpose of the broadcast was self-evident. The broadcasters screened the film to incite anti-American violence.
Had they not been interested in attacking the US, they would not have screened the film.
They sought a pretext for attacking America. If the film had never been created, they would have found another – equally ridiculous – pretext.
And here we come to the nature of the attacks against America that occurred on the 11th anniversary of the September 11 jihadist attacks.
A cursory consideration of the events that took place – and are still taking place – makes clear that these were not acts of spontaneous rage about an amateur Internet movie. They were premeditated. In Egypt, the mob attack on the embassy followed the screening of the anti-Islam flick on jihadist television. It was led by Muhammad al-Zawahiri – the brother of al-Qaida chief Ayman al-Zawahiri.
The US’s first official response to the assault on its embassy in Cairo came in the form of a Twitter feed from the embassy apologizing to Muslims for the film.
The day before the attacks, al-Qaida released a video of Ayman al-Zawahiri in which he called for his co-religionists to attack the US in retribution for the killing – in June – of his second in command Abu Al Yahya al-Libi by a US drone in Pakistan.
Zawahiri specifically asked for the strongest act of retribution to be carried out in Libya.
As for the attack in Libya, in an online posting the night before he was killed, US Foreign Service information management officer Sean Smith warned of the impending strike. Smith wrote, “Assuming we don’t die tonight. We saw one of our ‘police’ that guard the compound taking pictures.”
The coordinated, premeditated nature of the attack was self-evident. The assailants were armed with rocket-propelled grenades and machine guns. They knew the location of the secret safe house to which the US consular officials fled. They laid ambush to a Marine force sent to rescue the 37 Americans hiding at the safe house. And yet, Clinton and Dempsey either could not fathom why the attack occurred, or blamed an irrelevant pastor in Florida.
Like Dempsey, the US media were swift to focus the blame for the attacks on the film. The New York Times was quick to report – falsely – that the film’s creator was an Israeli Jew. It took an entire day for that bit of misinformation to be dispelled. But the campaign to blame the attacks on the movie creators continued.
By Wednesday afternoon the media shifted the focus of discussion on the still ongoing attacks from the film to an all-out assault on Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney. Romney became the target of media attention for his temerity in attacking as “disgraceful” the administration’s initial apologetic response to the attack on the embassies.
Following the September 11 attacks, the US Congress formed the bipartisan 9/11 Commission and charged it with determining the causes of the assault and recommending a course of action for the government to follow to prevent such attacks from happening again. It took the commission members nearly three years to finish their report. In the end, they claimed that the chief failure enabling the attacks was “one of imagination.”
Unfortunately for the US, the commissioners had things backwards. It wasn’t that imagination failed America before September 11. It was that imagination reigned in America. And it still does.
It’s just that the land of make-believe occupied by the US foreign policy elite has shifted.
Until September 11, 2001, the US foreign policy elite was of the opinion that the chief threat to US national security was the fact that the US was a “hyperpower.”
That is, the chief threat to the US was the US itself. After September 11, the US decided that the main threat to the US was “terror,” against which the US declared war. The perpetrators of terrorism were rarely mentioned, and when they were they were belittled as “marginal forces.”
Those forces, of course are anything but marginal.
The Islamic ideology of jihad is the predominant ideology in the Muslim world today.
The rallying cry of al-Qaida – the shehada – is the cry of Muslim faith. Jihadist Islam is the predominant form of Islam worshiped in mosques throughout the world. And the ideology of jihad is an ideology of war against the non-Islamic world led by the US.
Then-president George W. Bush and his administration imagined a world where the actual enemies of the US were marginal forces in Islam. They then determined – based on nothing – that the masses of the Muslim world from Gaza to Iraq to Afghanistan and beyond were simply Jeffersonian democrats living under the jackboot.
If freed from tyranny, they would become liberal democrats nearly indistinguishable from regular Americans.
With President Barack Obama’s inauguration, the imaginary world inhabited by the American foreign policy elite shifted again. Obama and his advisers agree that jihadist Islam is the predominant force in the Muslim world. But in their imaginary world, jihadist Islam is a good thing for America.
Hence, Turkish Prime Minister Recip Erdogan is Obama’s closest confidante in the Middle East despite his transformation of Turkey from a pro- Western secular republic into a pro-Iranian Islamic republic in which secularists are jailed without trial for years on end.
Hence Israel – the first target of jihadist Islam’s bid for global supremacy – is strategic burden rather than an ally to the US.
Hence the US abandoned its most stalwart ally in the Arab world, Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, and supported the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood to power in the most strategically vital state in the Arab world.
Hence it supported a Libyan rebel force penetrated by al-Qaida.
Hence it is setting the stage for the reinstitution of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
It is impossible to know the thoughts that crossed Stevens’ mind as he lay dying in Benghazi. But what is clear enough is that as long as imagination reigns supreme, freedom will be imperiled.
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
Note also that the agitators did not select the Ann Barnhardt video with the Koran commentary and bacon bookmarks; nor did they select any of the material Pam Geller could have supplied; nor Robert Spencer’s. They went with the most stupid specimen they could find. That’s no accident any more than the date when the tumult occurred.
BTTT
The reign of imagination-Did US Ambassador understand why he, his fellow Americans were murdered?
?????????????
I guess he is still contemplating it.
Zawahiri specifically asked for the strongest act of retribution to be carried out in Libya.
As for the attack in Libya, in an online posting the night before he was killed, US Foreign Service information management officer Sean Smith warned of the impending strike. Smith wrote, “Assuming we don’t die tonight. We saw one of our ‘police’ that guard the compound taking pictures.”
This is a must read by Caroline Glick. I have three observations:
1. The flag of our Presidency - our Commander in Chief - has been captured by the enemy;
2. Martin Dempsey is a damned fool, and a tyrant wannabe; and
3. This election is for all the marbles.
I really doubt if most Americans REALLY understand Islam and that goes for our “leaders” in BOTH political parties.
Hillary is probably bright enough to understand it, but her sympathies have always lain with these thugs going back to her days as an activist lawyer.
ONCE AGAIN: Islam is NOT a “religion” in the sense that most westerners understand that term. It is a socio-political economic system with a religious base.
Unlike most purely theologically based belief systems, it has been around for 1500 yearrs or so and has NOT essentially altered its ideas. It is still the same system which enslaved or murdered Millions of people in Africa, Europe and Asia.
Based on prior performance and modern behavior, it will NEVER change.
The ONLY way to deal with people who believe in the sword is with a bigger sword - well sharpened.
Successful statesmen deal with reality as it is, not as they wish it to be.
Not encouraging words to be coming from the Secretary of State?
Both understood right before they were killed they were idiots for trusting terrorist and even more of an idiot for trusting the people in this country that were collaborating with terrorist.
There is no evidence that our diversity is our strength yet every lefty spouts this mantra ad nauseam.
Liberalism is a mental disorder, so I doubt he understood. More likely, he thought the crowd was worked up about Todd Akin and the GOP war on women.
The Administration is desperately covering up the failure of its Mideast policy.
Don’t worry,..liberal women will finally clue in about their loss of freedom as the harem doors are closed behind them,...and will still equivocate how they are in control....
See my tag.
Easy pickings.
They would view it as their own harem.
It means that the senior officer in the US military is of the opinion that the party to blame for the assaults on US government installations overseas was an American pastor. To prevent the recurrence of such incidents, freedom of speech must be constrained.
This is Obama-ism. Deflect ... deflect ... deflect ... lie ... blame and repress. This is the essence of the Obama way, and it has nothing to do with pastors or videos or even "the Chicago Way" -- it's totalitarianism and government by an army of lies.
The Left's dream of power is that their ideological juju will be so persuasive, so overweeningly overweening, that people(s) with widely divergent interests, backgrounds, and understandings of life will rush together to support the "overarching" Leftist objective of more, and still more, and still more again, secular power -- hell, let's say it, it's ideologically-based Empire, with the advantage of numbers, i.e. of supporting population base, over the old European empires supported by at best one nationality each.
The Russian Bolsheviks ate and slept that propaganda for generations -- and yet, when Gorbachev left office, the whole enterprise, the Russian and Soviet Empire, split apart into previously-subordinate ethnicities, some of them Russian (Ukraine, Byelorussia aka Belarus). It doesn't work, and yet libs and Progs continue to push it here in the States, with better historical support inasmuch as the U.S. is a compacted, not a national or ethnic, society.
See To Put "Diversity" In Context.
People need to recognize the fact that we are not "debating" with honorable people. We are defending all we hold dear against the Leftist quacks in Academia, and the indoctrinated robots they have been launching into society. We need to stop treating their lunacy as intellectually respectable points of view.
When you encounter some one who is intellectually naked; have the common sense of the little boy in the Andersen fable, to say so.
William Flax
Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, thinks that the party responsible for the Muslim violence against the US on the anniversary of September 11 is a kook in Florida who enjoys saying nasty things about Islam.
The day after the murderous assault on the US Consulate in Benghazi, and in the face of an ongoing mob assault on the US Embassy in Cairo, and on US embassies in Yemen and Tunis, Dempsey called Pastor Terry Jones in Florida and asked him to withdraw his support for a film that depicts Muhammad in a negative fashion.
Dempsey’s spokesman Col. Dave Lapan told Reuters, “In a brief call, Gen. Dempsey expressed his concerns over the nature of the film, the tensions it will inflame and the violence it will cause. He asked Mr. Jones to consider withdrawing his support for the film.”
Dempsey’s belief that a third-rate riff on Muhammad supported by a marginal figure in Florida is the cause of the terrorist attacks on US embassies is not simply shocking. It is devastating.
It means that the senior officer in the US military is of the opinion that the party to blame for the assaults on US government installations overseas was an American pastor. To prevent the recurrence of such incidents, freedom of speech must be constrained.
And Dempsey is not the only senior US military commander who harbors this delusion.
A similar response was voiced by Gen. George Casey, the US Army chief of staff, in the wake of the massacre of US forces at Ft. Hood in November 2009 by Maj. Nidal Malik Hassan. Hassan, who had been in contact with al-Qaida commander Anwar al-Awlaki and described himself as a “soldier of Islam,” was clearly acting out of Islamic jihadist motivations when he shot his fellow soldiers.
And yet, responding to the attack, Casey said that worse than the massacre itself – that is more sacred than the lives of his own soldiers – was the notion that “our diversity” should fall casualty to Hassan’s murderous attack. In his words, “Our diversity not only in our army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.”
What these nauseating comments by these tin soldier/milicrat officers represent is that after two generations Robert Strange McNamara’s expressed goal of changing the officer corps from combat leaders to ‘managerialists’ has succeeded. George Casey who is surely a zero was the son of a hero who died in heroic circumstances. His son's actions disgrace the service of the father. Martin Dempsey is a classic example of the ventriloquist dummy who says what his handlers tell him to say. He has absorbed the Progressive mind set so well that he automatically spews out the coded words of ‘we have to be reasonable to keep the Muslims engaged in a strategic dialog’. Note the safety of the men and unfortunately now women commanded by these two uniformed hollow men are not the first and last concern. Indeed it appears they are not a concern at all. How could the lives and well being of mere American soldiers be as important as ‘diversity’ and ‘politically correct dialog’.
The hope I nourish is that the Islamists are really stupid versions of the Nazis and they will overplay their hand in some incredibly atrocious way that will force the Progressives to act like patriots at least for long enough to incinerate the Islamacists.
Obama is responsible for the take over the ME by Al Qadea and friends.
He is the one who bombed Gaddafi — without congressional approval. He is the one who ordered a “kinetic military operation” at a cost of $100,000 a week of tax payer dollars making the world save for Sharia.
Nice work Democrats! The world is a much more dangerous place thanks to the misleadership of this reprehensible and disgusting president.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.