Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Is the murder of American Diplomats in Libya on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11/01 planned and intentional?

Yesterday, on the eleventh anniversary of the 09/11/01 attack on the US by Islamist terrorists, Islamists attacked two separate US facilities in two separate nations, Libya, located in North Africa and Egypt, located in the MIddle East, killing the US Ambassador and three members of his staff.

Is it even remotely possible that these near simultaneous attacks occurred far apart, in different nations, on this particular day of import in the US without malice aforethought and planning? How much responsibility must President Obama accept, having supported the overthrow of the Libyan and Egyptian regimes that were at least marginally pro-American?
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
GnatFree
Or maybe it's the fact that they happened in nations RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER, says that it was carried out a group that spans borders but is small and local. Not to mention the fact that on Adolf Hitler's birthday anti-semitic attacks and vandalism occur, the idea of them being all co-ordinated is ridiculous. It's more likely that it's independently done and they both decided to have attacks on a day that stick out in America's Mind.

Also the lybian and egyptian regimes were pro American because we installed them, in fact half of the governments toppled int he arab spring uprisings were pretty much puppet governments for the US government. Of course we supported them, just like Saddam Hussein and Osama bin laden in the 80s, we were aiding and abetting them in committing crimes against their own people, why? They promised to not go communist or socialist. So duh, they were pro-american.

These guys are fundamentalist Muslims who make up a small group of the population, they hate America, Israel, and their own moderate government. Why? Because it's not Sharia law. They'd love for america to come in and try to do a regime change, as soon as we leave then they can set up a anti-western fundamentalist theocracy. Just like what's gonna happen when we leave afganistan. The best thing to do is to try and maintain order while beefing up security and letting Egypt's government do it's job.
Lickitysplit · 70-79, M
Libya was hardly a friend and Quadafi clearly not someone propped up by any American administration. Mubarak was propped up by US dollars, but we had no hand in his initial ascent to lead Egypt. Neither was a puppet for the US. People with mutual interests are allies and it was in our national interest to support Mubarak and in his to encourage our money.
While the initial demonstration in Egypt may have been unplanned, but probably instigated by a third party, the attack in Libya was well planned, coordinated, highly armed, and used intelligence information on the location of Ambassador Stevens. Most likely it was an Iranian Quds Force operation, not the act of street thugs and I'll educated Islamists.
GnatFree
Really...Then what's this news organization doing with a story on how As soon as we stopped sanctions on Libya the oil companies like Hess, Conoco, and Marathon oil rushed in there and grabbed significant shares of the oil? http://links.org.au/node/2179 Plus the documents found in libya that point to bechtel employee David Welch coaching and instructing Gaddafi's minions on how to win "the propaganda war" and how to undermine the rebel opposition with the assistance of foreign intelligence agencies. That can be found here, http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2011/08/2011831151258728747.html So Clearly, gaddafi had a thing for capitalism. Don't even get me started on mubarak. Anyway, yes it was planned, but my point is that thinking various anti-american actions across the region are all coordinated is fantasy. And them taking advantage of the already ocurring protests as cover is not unexpected. Also if I was a libyan and I wanted to kill a foreign diplomat, attacking their embassy would be pretty obvious to me. Not to mention with sheer numbers and the readily available firepower such a thing could happen easily. I think it's a bit premature and blantantly biased to say " it was obviously iranian special forces" especially when Libya has it's own strongly anti-american organizations. Why couldn't it be domestic libyan terrorists, why is it always "Iran's fault".
Lickitysplit · 70-79, M
You misquoted me. I said it was most probably The Iranian Quds Force. You have to consider this: who would most benefit at this time, by these acts. Amb Stevens was well liked and was even viewed by some in the Muslim Brotherhood, as a friend. His murder, at least initially, makes the Brotherhood look bad and hurts their cause in the short run. These events help Iran in many ways, not least by taking attention away from them and their nuclear program, embarrasses the US and the Obama Administration, and disrupts one of the largest multinational naval exercises ever conducted in that part of the world. If you wish to consider my analysis to be biased, go ahead. It seems however, that my analysis has actually led that of much of the press, which was reporting tonight, that the Libyan govt believes it was well planned and executed by a well trained organization. They are still speculating on who carried out the attack, which included inside intelligence on the Ambassadors location and the strength of his security detail.
Lickitysplit · 70-79, M
I do not recall that I have placed blame on Iran for many things, so how can you say "why is it always 'Iran's fault'" are you an apologist for the Iranian regime? I read the reports, glean the facts available, and analyze the situation based on my understanding of the geopolitics. To me, this has the hallmarks of a Quds Force operation.
GnatFree
Who would most benefit from the libyan government falling to crap? Hmmm, I wonder...THE LIBYAN CHAPTER OF THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD! Iran doesn't give a damn about Libya. Also about it being a well planned organized attack I call BS, they just don't want to admit that they can't control the rioters, of course they'll say it was a well orchestrated attack, otherwise they'd have to admit that they missed a bunch of people with RPGs and assault rifles in the crowd. Also this part just made me laugh, "These events help Iran in many ways, not least by taking attention away from them and their nuclear program." So the fact that Israel has been saying Iran's months away from a nuke for YEARS now means what? Plus every other week Israel pledges to destroy iran's nuclear program that 75% of the world is convinced doesn't exist. SO I doubt it'll deflect much attention... Also "They are still speculating on who carried out the attack, which included inside intelligence on the Ambassadors location and the strength of his security detail." Did you ever consider that maybe a local guy who is friendly with the brotherhood in the area knows someone who works at the embassy or near it? What's an experienced criminal gonna do? Case the joint and get as much info before the attack as possible. Watch how they get in the compound, watch where they go when they leave, block escape routes, make notes of his entourage and staff...Christ, if I had half a mind me and four people could EASILY kill the mayor of the next town over, it doesn't mean I'm part of an international group of terrorists connected to Iran. It just means I had a strategy and planned the attack, was the DC sniper one of dozens of al queda sleeper agents ike the right wingers thought? No it was one whack job and a kid. Calm down, not everything is a conspiracy.
GnatFree
Don't you fucking DARE suggest I'm a terrorist sympathizer. I had to put with that shit for 8 years during the bush administration and it's not happening again. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I hate america, you fucking fascist. You're the one looking at the facts trying to find Iran's hand in it. You search for a conspiracy you'll find one. What I'm saying is it's far more likely it's a homegrown terorist organization acting on it's own than Iranian "revolutionary" forces" If it was coordinated I don't get why there were only two attacks. I would expect more, especially in a region that has had active anti-american groups and islamic based terrorism since the 70s. If you can coordinate acorss three continents why couldn't you schedule more than one attack?