Posted on 09/16/2012 11:55:51 AM PDT by yoe
The Marine Corps has issued a statement regarding its involvement in the recent actions in Egypt and Libya. ..
In Libya, the Corps says that no Marines are stationed at the Embassy in Tripoli or the Consulate in Benghazi. Security in Libya, such as it existed, apparently was provided by contractors. The Rules of Engagement under which they operated are unclear.
Decisions regarding whether to have Marines at particular U.S. embassies and consulates fall to the State Department, according to the Marine Corps statement. In the case of Tripoli, the Corps says there were discussions with the State Department about establishing a detachment at the embasssy in Tripoli, a new embassy, some time in the next five years. That may seem like a long time, but for bureaucrats it is often considered ASAP.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
The thing we keep forgetting is the same thing Clint Eastwood said. Hillary Clinton works for me and you. She’s not some kind of privileged queen. I pay her salary. She’s proven herself to be a negligent incompetent and she needs to be dismissed. This kind of incompetence is dangerous. We have four dead Americans including a United States Ambassador who represented us. How many more Americans are going to have to die before this Queen of Incompetence is dismissed?
That “identified and separated “ part is something I’ve been saying for years. It’s the reason we need the “Big List” wherein all the traitors to our constitution are plainly listed for all to see. If they get heavy handed they can be dealt with poste haste.
It does indeed seem to me that we’ve endured more than enough “sneak attacks” as with Pearl Harbor, to justify a declaration of war on the countries harboring the hoodlums-——then let fly with the brick makers. They like the 12th century so much let’s keep them in it permanently.
You realize that the 50% of American voters who are sold on Obama could not care less about Libya or the Middle East or American diplomacy generally. They do not want war because they don’t want to go. Besides, spending money on war means less for handouts. And they do want handouts. Plenty of them.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/09/16/BREAKING-Video-Purports-To-Show-Ambassador-In-Libya
Before WWII the muslim brotherhood, circa 1920’s, there was no significant active caliphate restoration planning.
There was no danger of muslims moving into Britain in the 1800’s and subverting the entire nation to submit to islam.
Christianity was still too prevalent; as an example, note the popularity of Charles Spurgeon during that time.
There also was no technology so advanced during the 1800’s that whole cities could be destroyed by a small band of marauders. There was obviously no jet airline travel, so dealing with islamic countries was akin to dealing with barberic natives that had no hope of attacking the home country.
The British militarily in their colonies during the 1800’s simply “carried on”, this management style you speak of was simple and effective during that time in those places, as there was no massive homeland threat as there is today to Western nations.
I agree that the British control of colonies was quite effective in it’s day. IMHO, India benefits from this today in at least one way, as it’s citizens, paired with an excellent educational system, produce great results.
In the post WWI negotiations, the European nations and America made the colossal mistake of even giving muslim leaders a seat at the table. Most of the ruling intelligentsia types who were the brainiacs behind the negotiations for the victorious powers reasoned that rolling off their colonies into new “nations” would allow the transacting of commerce with little puppet leaders put in place. The empires, one can only surmise, thought that they could have the benefit of commerce without the cost, complexity, aggravation and general unsavoriness of having this colonial domination.
The post WWI negotiations, in their birthing of new nations, were way off in their thinking that “people are basically the same all over the world”, and the vastly underestimated the complexity of international relations that would be realized with such enormous political changes happening so quickly. Not to mention that German agents had also used the same tactic they did in WWII, of generating anti-British sentiment in the middle east as a way of diverting British war resources to the colonies. In the post WWI era of the 1920’s the muslim brotherhood sprang up, and anti-Western sentiment has been growing ever since.
No Muslim states got much of a say at all in the Versailles negotiations. That was a huge disappointment to people like Lawrence.
There was no significant decolonization post-WWI, other than in Europe. The non-European possessions of the losers were absorbed by the winners, through direct or indirect rule.
Post-WWI British management was just as effective as before. People like J.B. Glubb and Gertrude Bell kept semi-independent states in order and reasonably quiet. They even managed to suppress the original Al Quaeda, the Ikhwan.
The real problem with WWI was not in the details of colonial administration or colonial breakup, but in the loss of faith by Europeans in God, in their culture, and in their institutions. This cancer took a while to have an effect in the colonial empires. You can also blame this loss of faith for the dreadful post-WWII European immigration and assimilation policies.
The NYT is spinning it as a Libyan rescue mission with the searchers delighted that the Ambassador is still “alive” and praising Allah. Then they call for a car to take him to the ambulance. Do we have an independent source for the Arabic translation?
Media says “yawn,” and continues it’s non-stop investigation into Romney’s press release.
The video. I herd them scream “Allah(u) Akbar!” repeatedly. It is on Breitbart TV.
That means Allah is Great and is the Muslim equivalent of “God is Great” for Christians. I heard the same thing, but there are two interpretations of this phrase in the video:
1. They were our allies and were searching for survivors and shouted for joy when they found the Ambassador alive. That’s what the Obama State Department is saying.
2. They’re our enemies and are delighted at having a trophy body. That was my first suspicion.
We need to be wary, skeptical and on the side of truth here. So I’m hopeful that someone will find a good translation of all the background chatter.
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.