US Ambassador to Libya,staff, killed by a mob

From FNC:

Fox News confirms US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three of his staff were killed last night in an attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, as anti-Islam film sparks attacks against US compounds in Libya and Egypt by armed Muslims outraged over anti-Islam film posted to YouTube.

Ambassador Stevens being dragged before his death.

Pray for the victims and their families.

Pray that world leaders will find a way to deal with violent religious extremism.

Pray that the Lord returns soon.

GO TO CONFESSION.

You don’t know the minute of the day when you will face your Lord in Judgment.

Sts. Nunilo and Alodia, pray for us!

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in GO TO CONFESSION, Religious Liberty, The future and our choices and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

121 Responses to US Ambassador to Libya,staff, killed by a mob

  1. Jon says:

    And pray for the Holy Father, who Friday leaves for Lebanon.

  2. acardnal says:

    Requiem Pace, Mr. Ambassador and his three colleagues who lost their life without cause.

    Please read the writings of Robert Spencer on this threat.

  3. Dan G. says:

    If other reports I am reading are correct, the photo you show is not of the ambassador being dragged to his death, but of the ambassador’s already-dead body being paraded.

  4. Lepidus says:

    Of course this is another fine example of the people our country chose to SUPPORT…and the reason I don’t think either side deserves our support in Syria. Two sides of the same coin.

  5. Massachusetts Catholic says:

    The reports I’ve read said that the ambassador was suffocated, and that the Marine were killed by gunshot. I don’t know what the proper response of the United States should be, but whatever it is, I hope it is not TWEETED.

    May their souls rest in peace.

  6. The other day I heard some idiot on TV repeatedly misuse our Lord’s Blessed Name and not in prayer. I wonder what would happen to him if he did the same with the founder of Islam! Try it fella and see what happens.

  7. Supertradmum says:

    http://supertradmum-etheldredasplace.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/the-presidents-response-is-disgraceful.html

    I wish Americans would understand how serious things are in the Middle East and northern Africa. I was talking with a young American this morning who said these things were not issues. I wonder how he would respond it there was a draft. We do not have enough men to protect our citizens abroad. And the admins’ reactions to date are horrible. I guess potus is about to make a statement. The voice of Saruman.

    Just pray, and I am closer to Libya than some of you are to each other in the States on this blog.

  8. Darren says:

    It makes me sick to think of work I did at a previous job of mine… …on one hand I was working on a project to design & build a certain kind of system for installation at a power plant in Misurata (aka Misrata), Lybia. On the other hand I was working on similar projects for small shipboard units to be installed on US Navy vessels. Something never felt right about that… part of the reason I left that job.

    I can only hope that what we built for them was destroyed in last years fighting in Misurata.

  9. Bryan Boyle says:

    Yah…the religion of peace.

    Where is the next Charles Martel when you need him?

    And they call us ‘infidels’.

  10. Supertradmum says:

    Of course, the real reason for the protest is the long memory of the Muslims regarding this the memorial feast of the victory over them in the siege of Vienna. The film reference is an excuse for vengeance.

  11. Supertradmum says:

    Brian, where are the men who will defend us? Where are the Catholics who see all of this for what it really is, an attack on the true religion of the West, and our civilization? I for one do not want sharia law. God bless this poor man and his family.

  12. dominic1955 says:

    A Youtube video is reason to kill people and destroy things? These people act like animals and yet where is the reaction?

  13. Bryan Boyle says:

    The men who will defend us are not the ones who have the power right now. They’re too busy apologizing on the anniversary of 9/11 for perceived slights (to a value system, as Michelle Malkin calls it, of the ‘Religion of Perpetual Outrage’), bypassing a meeting with the leader of our ONLY ally in the Middle East to schedule an appearance on a late night TV show…and hanging out with bikers in seedy restaurants.

    We’re through the looking glass here. In order to win a battle, you have to be fighting on the same level with the same rules. We’re assuming that the rules of civilized conflict apply, but the enemy ignores them, since they don’t recognize western civilization or thought as a valid value system.

    We’re in a gun fight…and all we’ve brought are butter knives. We preach forgiveness, acceptance, tolerance. They impose submission, subjugation, and inflexible mindless obedience. It is scary. We have no leadership to stick their hat on the tip of the sword, raise it and yell “follow me…”

  14. Supertradmum says:

    What a lie from both potus and Clinton to repeat over and over that this is not the government of Libya who murdered supposedly off-limits people, but a small minority. No way, there are one billion Muslims in the world and unless they are apostates or heretics, it is their duty to wage war on us.

    Americans are so brainwashed, and the apology, as I said on my blog, is disgusting and disingenuous. Where is potus and Clinton when our Lord, Jesus Christ is defamed on stage in Washington DC or New York or even Paris, as that horrible play went on and on last November there? This violence is not about the movie, folks, it is about establishing Islam as a world religion. The president is either terribly naive, stupid, or lying.

  15. Joseph-Mary says:

    And billions of US tax payer dollars have been sent to shore up these murderous regimes…

  16. VexillaRegis says:

    My deepest condolences to all Americans. God help the world.

    @Bryan Boyle: I happen to be a descendant in the direct line of Maior Domus Charles Martell! I tell my son about the great importance of the battle of Poitiers in 732 AD. Maybe one day he will be a priest.

  17. Darren says:

    The president is not naive, nor is he stupid. That leaves only one thing.

    Anyone see 2016: Obama’s America? (which is playng more theaters every week around me) Dinesh D’Souza’s image of the United States of Islam stretching from Morocco right across Asia is looking more and more like a coming reality. And yes, our government is supporting this while at the same time weakening us economically, socially, morally and militarily.

  18. Supertradmum says:

    Movie mentioned above is not shown here in Auld Blighty–but, if any of you have a chance to read this article, please do. History repeats itself unless we actively change the forces which cause it.

    http://www.azure.org.il/article.php?id=581

  19. PA mom says:

    Lord have mercy.

    Worse than the response is the idea that potus is aiding and abetting a sense that what happened is history, in the sense that it would be if, say, the buildings had collapsed due to structural failure. Remember in his address? There are not any actors referenced, instead it is transformed into a vanilla day of sadness and group hugs. He is making the essence of it disappear.
    My newspaper did not even have this on the cover page. Am I right in thinking that 15 years ago it would have been?

    I’m guessing even the teachers union strike was allowed based on distraction.

  20. jasoncpetty says:

    This is a travesty and would be an act of war if there were a real state involved, but if anyone wants to institute a draft of young men or for the United States to go to war in yet another Muslim country and introduce even more instability in that region, here is your personal ticket. But not everyone wants blood and retribution for our Church’s failure to evangelize and hold onto her own territories in Europe and elsewhere. If we are afraid of Islam (and it is both a spiritual and a physical threat, I agree), should our impulse be to force our governments to invade and kill or subjugate them? Let us not forget that we are the good guys. When the Roman Emperors killed us, we did not institute a draft in Cappadocia or have the government of Judea invade Rome–we sent evangelists and converted them. The same thing works today if we are bold enough for it.

    There is no shortcut to evangelization, and while Islam historically spread itself by the sword and is defending its gains by the sword now, that doesn’t give us, the good guys, the right to respond in kind.

  21. Geoffrey says:

    Is it me, or was Libya a safer place when Khadafi was there?

  22. Supertradmum says:

    I would never apologize for a crusade to save the lives of those who are weak and being forced to live under the black flag. Today is a day of celebration in the Catholic Church, not only because of Mary’s Holy Name, but because of her intercession in helping the West stop the onslaught of Islam. To deny that is to deny our history as Catholics and Westerners.

    That is part of our history. We should be proud of it. But, I am afraid there are few if any more Rolands, or Sobieskis or Prince Eugenes, not among Catholics. We are not a pacifist religion. We never have been. We have a right to defend ourselves. We have few Protector Men left. That is the tragedy of our civilization. That is the tragedy of Catholic women and children.

  23. SKAY says:

    We are constantly told that Islam is the “religion of peace”. Well-will we hear the muslims in the US loudly denouncing these attacks and murders?
    I am not as uninformed about Islam as I was on 9/11. I actually thought at that time that they would be as outraged as the rest of us were. I know better now.
    I will pary–expecially for our Pope who will be going into the lions den.

    ‘We’re in a gun fight…and all we’ve brought are butter knives. We preach forgiveness, acceptance, tolerance. They impose submission, subjugation, and inflexible mindless obedience.”
    Exactly Bryan B.
    We appear weak so they think they smell blood in the water. Another four years of Obama and they will be correct.

  24. Pingback: President Finally Condemns Assault on US Embassies, Killing of Ambassador, Guards | theraineyview

  25. mrsmontoya says:

    Eternal rest grant to him, O Lord, and may he be with You in eternity today.

  26. Sissy says:

    “the photo you show is not of the ambassador being dragged to his death, but of the ambassador’s already-dead body being paraded.”

    According to a Libyan physician who claims to have performed CPR on the Ambassador, he was dragged back to the consulate and left there, unconscious, as it burned. The doctor said he died of smoke inhalation. Of course, the doctor also said he had no wounds, when it is clear from the photo that the Ambassador suffered a blow to the head. We’re unlikely to get the facts from the crowd in charge.

  27. jflare says:

    YOWCH!
    For all that the death of the ambassador makes sense after a fashion–hard to attack the embassy without inflicting murders–I’d merely heard that the American flag had been taken down and al Quaeda’s raised.
    WE are APOLOGIZING for this?? For what??
    For holding a different point of view?????

    Being a former service-member (Air Force), I find this VERY offensive!
    This kind of thing did not not CAUSE my leaving the service..but DID contribute to my WILLINGNESS to leave.

    Supertradmum, you asked where the men who will defend us had gone. Well, if the nation wishes to insist that there are NOT any tigers in the world, we’ll not be allowed to make proper spears, nor keep an eye out for predators. “Minor” incidents like these will easily be swept aside as “unfortunate incidents” that don’t truthfully mean anything.

    Blindness that ensues from this sort of mindset may cripple our ability to accurately discern reality.
    We may wind up being pulled into a war there merely by our own ignorance.

  28. kat says:

    I have not checked the veracity, but I heard a little while ago on the radio that CBS is reporting that the Libyan government, as it is supposed to do when things like this happened, took our ambassador to a “safe” place for protection, AND THEN TOLD THE MOB WHERE TO FIND HIM.

    I weep not only for them, not only for “myself, but for my children” who better learn to suffer with less complaining than they do now for little things. I fear they and maybe I will be called to physical martyrdom. Will we have the strength?

  29. Alexis says:

    Requiescat in pace!

    It should be noted, Fr. Z, that it seems that this is not a photo of Ambassador Stevens “being dragged before his death,” but rather a photo of his already-dead body, the Ambassador having died from smoke inhalation. It should, in fairness, also be noted that Libyans did carry his body to the hospital (which is what we might be seeing in this picture). It pains me to agree with President Obama, but nevertheless in the interest of accuracy I think it should be stated.

    Alexis

  30. jflare says:

    As a post-script to that last comment I would add this:
    I suggest that as life becomes more dangerous all around, we’ll see the return of men (and women) who would defend the nation–and possibly much of the rest of the world too–from harm.
    Regrettably, because of various efforts to bring about “peace” at high cost, when the fighting starts in earnest, the toll will be all the more bloody, both because the enemy will be soundly entrenched, AND because it’ll take losing many lives before we reluctantly admit that the opposing side IS every bit as serious as they can be and we allow our own side to stiffen up.

    Sadly, it’s quite likely that numerous, numerous lives will be given or lost in the process.

  31. The reports I’ve read said that the ambassador was suffocated, and that the Marine were killed by gunshot. I don’t know what the proper response of the United States should be, but whatever it is, I hope it is not TWEETED.

    The murder of our ambassador is an act of war. The government of Lybia is responsible for not protecting him.

  32. Sissy says:

    “but rather a photo of his already-dead body”

    Alexis, hospital staff say that the Ambassador was not dead when he arrived at the hospital.

    Yesterday, embassy staffer Sean Smith, commented to an online gamer site he frequented that the compound “police” (quotes his) charged with guarding the consulate were photographing the buildings. He said to his online friend that he would be back to play later that night “unless we’re killed”. He was one of the men murdered. So Libyans were in charge of security, and they cooperated with the attack. CNN reports it was coordinated with the Muslim Brotherhood as a 9/11 revenge attack.

  33. Supertradmum says:

    European sources are stating that not only was he dead on arrival but suffocated in the car bombing. Here is France 24 “According to a Libyan official who spoke to Reuters, Ambassador Stevens and his colleagues had fled the consulate and were trying to reach a safer location when the car they were travelling in was hit by a rocket” They were trying to get away from the attack on the embassy.

    Here is RT:”Reports from various sources paint an unclear picture of the circumstances surrounding Ambassador John Christopher Steven’s death.
    A group of extremist militia members stormed Benghazi’s US consulate on Tuesday night. Stevens may not have been killed in the Tuesday night assault, however, but rather when a second mob attacked his motorcade as it was leaving Benghazi Wednesday morning, the Guardian said.
    Libyan officials alleged that Islamist militants fired rockets at Steven’s car, killing him and three other embassy staffers. Witnesses cited by local media claimed that members of the hardline Islamist group Ansar Al-Sharia were among the ranks of the attackers.”

    Here is Supertradmum: This is not revenge for anything but 1683. We have created generations of weakness and ignorance among our own. Some of us tried to stem the tied by teaching the real religion and real history. This is only one sign of things to come.

    Are these people dying in vain for men of America and Europe who have forgotten their epics, their history, their religion and themselves? Americans and Europeans have lost their Catholic identities and, therefore, their souls.

  34. Supertradmum says:

    Men, as Catholis, you are allowed to fight,you k.now. We can defend ourselves and should

  35. TNCath says:

    What a disgusting display. Notice the cellphone in the mouth of one of the murderers. They have certainly advanced in technology, but they are still barbarians.

  36. Sissy says:

    Supertradmum, the account that he died in the car bombing and then paraded through the streets actually makes much more sense to me. That was the initial report here, as well. After seeing the photos of the consulate fire, I didn’t see how he could have been “rescued” and carried to the hospital alive.

    You’re right about the date; 9/11/2001 was chosen for the same reason. There are now unconfirmed reports of embassy attacks in other Islamic countries (Sudan, Morocco, and Kuwait). I hope these will prove to be exaggerated or false, but we have to face the reality that our current administration has projected American weakness. Right now, only 50 Marines are being sent to the burned consulate. I hate to think of what Friday will bring in the ME.

  37. DisturbedMary says:

    Does anyone know where the empty chair is?

  38. Sissy says:

    “Does anyone know where the empty chair is?”

    He’s going to Vegas, Baby!

  39. wmeyer says:

    “Americans and Europeans have lost their Catholic identities and, therefore, their souls.”

    Not all of us have. But there is a reason wars are not fought by old men.

  40. wmeyer says:

    “He’s going to Vegas, Baby!”

    Never let a crisis get in the way of a vacation!

  41. Supertradmum says:

    sorry about the silly errors

  42. Supertradmum says:

    wmeyer, you are not old….

  43. Massachusetts Catholic says:

    @Miss Anita Moore,
    I understand your feelings. As someone with a close family who served at the State Department, I find what happened to the ambassador highly frightening. However, this was probably planned to draw the US into yet another unstable country for military action of unknown duration. The proper response depends on a lot of things. As I hinted with the “tweet” remark, I don’t think our current administration will handle this well.

    Pray for all Americans serving overseas. It’s open season.

  44. Darren says:

    @Geoffrey says: Is it me, or was Libya a safer place when Khadafi was there?

    Yes, Khadafi was nuts, but basically benign at this point. I did not like the man, but I felt nothing but sadness and pity for him when I saw the way he was treated when he was driven from power by this madness.

    Egypt was better off under Mubarek as well. He was actually our ally, and what did we do for him?

    Our own military is handcuffed by their commander-in-chief. Obama wants to weaken America, and he is accomplishing that goal. The election in November is not just critically important for the US, but for the entire world.

  45. Supertradmum says:

    What worries me is that Americans never vote in a new president in a war, but stick with the incumbent.

  46. wmeyer says:

    Supertradmum, I am old and achy. ;) Home repair may have something to do with it….

  47. Massachusetts Catholic says: @Miss Anita Moore, I understand your feelings. As someone with a close family who served at the State Department, I find what happened to the ambassador highly frightening. However, this was probably planned to draw the US into yet another unstable country for military action of unknown duration. The proper response depends on a lot of things. As I hinted with the “tweet” remark, I don’t think our current administration will handle this well.

    Well, it’s nothing to do with my feelings. The invasion of a consulate and the murder of the ambassador is a typical casus belli.

  48. Darren says:

    @Supertradmum says: What worries me is that Americans never vote in a new president in a war, but stick with the incumbent.

    I was thinking the same thing.

  49. wmeyer says:

    “What worries me is that Americans never vote in a new president in a war, but stick with the incumbent.”

    Not that the administration would use such a thing. Of course, it doesn’t hurt that there seem to be no men in DC who are able to voice the possibility of treason….

  50. chantgirl says:

    After seeing a video of what was done to Khadafi (himself a pretty violent man and professional rapist) I can only hope that the ambassador died from asphyxiation and not something worse. When, oh when will westerners realize that the Judeo-Christian ethic is what has civilized the western world to the degree that it is? After hearing horror stories from my Grandfather about the cheap price of human life in Asia during WWII and the stories from my brother coming back from war in Iraq and Afghanistan about the way that women and children (and anyone weak) are treated over there, I am convinced that without Judaism and Christianity, the whole world would be one big Lord of the Flies playground. The secular humanists in the west should think very carefully before ditching the moral code that gave people a fear of hell and the hope of heaven, and the idea that human life, including the weak, is precious. If we want peace in the Middle East, we’re going to have to be willing to send missionaries to evangelize and probably die for the faith. We could probably do with some evangelizing in the west too while we’re at it.

  51. Supertradmum says:

    chantgirl, I forced myself to watch the video of the sodomization of Gaddafi and I felt pity for him. Perhaps in those last terrible moments, he cried out to God, the real God. And, I cannot help but agree with you that such things happen and are possible on our own people and probably have happened. We are looking at the barbarians at the gates, again.

  52. chantgirl says:

    God have mercy on the Ambassador’s soul. The poor man- the blue lips show he suffered a severe lack of oxygen and his abdomen shows signs of internal bleeding. Lord have mercy!

  53. Geoffrey says:

    @Darren: Indeed!

    I know I will make many people angry by saying this, but it is just American arrogance which seeks to spread the “spirit of democracy” throughout the world… even where it turns out to be more dangerous than the tyranny it seeks to replace!

    Look at Iraq, Egypt, Libya… So long as you didn’t cross the tyrant in question, Christians were free to be Christian… and now? Tyrants who used Islam only when it suited them have been overthrown and are being replaced with regimes that seek to govern by Sharia law.

    I recall an incident in the newly “democratic” country of Afghanistan, where a Muslim man converted to Christianity and was at risk of being executed for apostasy, under the new Sharia-inspired constitution. It was Italy that eventually granted him asylum.

  54. chantgirl says:

    Actually, I’m not sure he was dead when they were dragging him.

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/09/islamists-drag-dead-body-of-us-ambassador-in-the-streets/

    If you look a couple of pics down, his one arm is definitely raised, defying gravity.

  55. Supertradmum says:

    Geoffrey, why are we arrogant and blameworthy? Because this is the tactic of the Muslim. Islam allows for making the followers look like victims and the other side a perpetrator of something.

    Now, I was never for the Arab Spring, as I knew in January of 2011 my history lessons. No home-grown democratic leaders were there to take over in all three countries involved. The only organized groups to take over, and the let us focus on the leading one, was the Muslim Brotherhood, which some of us knew about a long time ago.

    The American administration’s arrogance is not in overthrowing tyrants, who may have allowed some religious freedom, but in believing in either fairy tales told to us at twilight by liars, or having an agenda.

    Take your pick. Either way, arrogance is not part of the formula, unless it is the arrogance of the grossly stupid, and strategy and tactics are. As I said in another comment, in France, the Moslems voted in the far-left communist Hollande by 90%. Why? Because Marxists and Moslems want the Death of the West.

    Our present administration is letting the Death of the West happen. Do not kid yourself.

    What you call arrogance I call either stupidity or massive deceit. Take your pick.

  56. wmeyer says:

    Geoffrey, do you then also call evangelization arrogance?

  57. JuliB says:

    On another blog (Belmont Club), it was stated in the comments that approx. 1/7th of the population in Libya is Egyptian (brought in to do the low level jobs). This attack was tied to the Muslim Brotherhood’s ascendancy in Egypt and it was suggested that this was coordinated from there. Evidently many Libyans are pro-US, or at least not pro-MB.

  58. Matt R says:

    Those calling this an act of war: Are you nuts? We should have blown Iran into a glass parking lot if these actions constitute an act of war. Iran was worse, because it is clear that Ayatollah Khomeini supported the students, even though he didn’t organize them, and deliberately let the situation escalate from a simple trespassing to a hostage situation as he failed to protect the embassy as is the host nation’s responsibility (still not an act of war though). The Libyan government did not do this. People in the government probably were involved, but not acting as agents of their government, and they are working against their government for Islamist groups (or just for good money!) if that is the case.
    @Supertradmum, I understand the coincidence re: today being the feast of the Holy Name of Mary, but if Catholics don’t know its significance, I have a feeling Islamists don’t either, and that the attack was staged purely to coincide with 9/11 and no other reason. Also, so many Libyans are secular, even atheists, because extremist Islam wasn’t tolerated under Gaddafi; Islamists were radicalized only because they hated Gaddafi, and now those groups are there to fill a power vacuum.
    On the photos: the American and European press is so sanitized, and so cluttered because of 24-hr cable/satellite capabilities, we have no clue what happened…I would go to my Middle Eastern friends who have access to more photos for answers.
    I’d like those who say that Libya and Egypt were better off under tyrants to actually stand up and say they lived there, or have friends who lived there. Yes, I know the situation for Christians is not good in Egypt, but for Pete’s sake, Mubarak could have turned against them if he wanted-and he did on occasion.

  59. Sissy says:

    It is being reported that the attack on the embassy in Cairo was organized and led by the brother of
    Dr. Ayman Zawahiri, member of Muslim Brotherhood, co-founder of Al Quaeda and planner of the attacks on 9/11/2001:

    “The younger Zawahiri has been on a media tour since he was released from an Egyptian prison this past March. And some press outlets have portrayed him as a reformed moderate. In its coverage of the embassy storming, The Wall Street Journal said that Mohammed al Zawahiri “has renounced violence and has stylized himself as an intermediary between Islamists and the West.”

  60. Johnno says:

    Ah the Arab Spring… Christians are being killed non stop and the media celebrating the Gospel of Democracy has ignored them. Now this is news because it’s a direct attack on a Sacred Government Building of America.

    With regards to the ‘film’, there is some dishonesty involved with it:
    http://gawker.com/5942748/it-makes-me-sick-actress-in-muhammed-movie-says-she-was-deceived-had-no-idea-it-was-about-islam?

    But anyway, as terrible as this is, it oftentimes makes me wish that Catholics and Christians would also put up some kind of offensive with regards to how our religion is being treated. I hear teh Holy Name of Jesus Christ mocked and abused and used in vain daily all over the media. What do we do? Nothing!

    I’m not saying we need to kill and pillage. But we need some show of suitable hostility. The Church of ‘Nice’ is useless. The Muslims get what they want because they are at least willing to display outrage. Catholics need to do likewise in a more suitable manner. You can start by making things incredibly difficult for the secularists and apostates by Canon 915 and other forms of civil disobedience against laws they want to force us to have. Treating them and referring to them as outcasts also helps. Heck, burn symbolic effegies of them in protest on the streets. just like the Muslims burn American flags. Maybe it’ll remind them that hell exists and that could very well be them. And absolutely refuse them any political and monetary support in elections etc. No compromises. No deals. Our way or the highway.

  61. wmeyer says:

    Matt R: You’re all over the map on this. You say it was not an act of war, then say we don’t have a clue what happened. One of those statements may be correct.

  62. Jason Keener says:

    It’s hard to believe that in a post 9/11 world our embassies in Libya and Cairo were left so unprotected. What an absolute senseless failure of the United States Government. May Ambassador Stevens rest in peace.

  63. Frances M says:

    See this tragic picture I was reminded of nothing less than the Deposition of Christ From the Cross.

  64. Jack Hughes says:

    There is an old saying which the origins of which are unclear “Forgiving or punishing the terrorists is left to God. But, fixing their appointment with God is our responsibility”, now forgive me if I’m wrong but I’m sure you guys have more than a few secretaries which with to deliver the appointment.

    Yes we should pray for their souls, but that doesn’t absolve your National Command Authority of the responsibility to make sure that terrorists get the message that if you target any US citizen then the entire might of the US Military will be brought to bear on you so fast that you’ll mistake it for the wrath of God himself.

  65. jflare says:

    Oh dear! I’m reading a lot of comments here that, well, I think we need to think this through a little bit.

    – Yes, killing the American ambassador can be taken as an act of war. Having said that, I do NOT recommend declaring war against Libya–or anyone else in the Middle East. Not right now. I do not see anything worth doing that could be accomplished by waging war. Even if seeking revenge for the ambassador’s death would be moral–it wouldn’t–we have no particular person against which to seek such vengeance.
    – We’ve known for decades that various Mid-Eastern groups of people pose a real problem for us. It’s tough to tell if they hate us for our Christian faith vs their Islam, or maybe they despise us for being “Westerners”, not Arabs of some vintage like them, or maybe they despise our existence because we’re rich, they’re poor, or perhaps they despise our allowing their “leaders” to live large–the family of Saud, for example–while the populace struggles to exist, or it could be any combination of all of the above. Seeking to change any of those will be immensely difficult, at best!
    – Regimes run by Mubarak, Gaddafi, or others have long been..troublesome matters. We rightly despise their contempt for morals and their status as dictators. We find the attitude that they could rule unhindered gravely offensive to our sensibilities, tuned as we are to our status as democratic republics. Even so, we must remember that our current democratic republics effectively developed over centuries, often by bloodshed and civil strife. We can’t expect nations who’ve been effectively the subjects of ample tyranny for (likely) thousands of years to change overnight. If we don’t like how these tyrants behave, we must remember that their nations do not see the world the same ay we do.
    – Current circumstances would seem to require a great deal of caution. If we didn’t like Mubarak or Gaddafi, they most likely didn’t pose immediate, daily threats to the existence of Christian communities.
    Keep in mind, our President lauded the “Arab Spring”; I’m afraid he may have allowed for the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood throughout the region. Trying to fight one place may cause us to be embroiled in a regional war.
    It may, in fact, be another Vietnam, only spread out over a large part of Northern Africa AND the recognized Mid-East.

    Hopefully this situation will not devolve into a worse state. If it does, we could wind up on the the brink of an effective third world war.

    God help us all!

  66. jflare says:

    Jack,
    You said:
    “… if you target any US citizen then the entire might of the US Military will be brought to bear on you so fast that you’ll mistake it for the wrath of God himself.”

    If we could prove the ambassador, himself, was the target, which we can’t yet, this comment raises a question:
    What would you have us DO?

  67. SteelBiretta says:

    Perhaps this is a good time to seek the intercession of St. George of Cordoba, whose story I have always wished was more widely known. A monk from Palestine, he was arrested with Sts. Aurelius, Natalia, Felix, and Liliosa. While the others were condemned to die for apostasy, St. George was offered to be spared because he was a foreigner. He rejected the offer, choosing instead to denounce Islam again to the Emir (I had read somewhere that he insulted Mohammed, but I can’t find a source for that presently).

    How saw we will need more men and women with the fortitude of St. George. And how sad that the attitudes of many Muslims toward freedom of religion and freedom of speech have changed so little since A.D. 851.

  68. Sissy says:

    jflare, here is what one man, American on his mother’s side, had to say in similar times:

    “[our people] should know that there has been gross neglect and deficiency in our defences; they should know that we have sustained a defeat without a war, the consequences of which will travel far with us along our road; they should know that we have passed an awful milestone in our history, when the whole equilibrium of Europe has been deranged, and that the terrible words have for the time being been pronounced against the Western democracies:’Thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting.’ And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.”

  69. Matt R says:

    @jflare, I agree that it’s unwise to go into Libya. But, I’m still not convinced this particular instance is an act of war, unless it was a Libyan army regiment under Libya’s lawful command i.e. with full approval of their president, that killed the ambassador, or a Libyan intelligence officer under the same conditions.
    I think the reasons for hating the West are a giant Venn diagram listing all those reasons you listed and then some.
    Agreed on Mubarak towards Christians. But, I find it hypocritical and immoral that the CIA passed off prisoners to his regime for torture, even though we knew it was unnecessary, and would make them more likely to be exposed to radical Islam, and we eventually learned that they would be more likely to join al-Qaeda.

  70. Prof. Basto says:

    My position is this:

    FIRST, I wish to express my profound solidarity with the people of the United States, and my sorrow for the victims of this disgraceful attack. As Catholics, we of course must pray for the repose of the souls of the victims;

    SECONDLY, I must say that I am ASHAMED OF THE HOLY SEE, for issuing a communiqué in its Press Office Bulletin that in my view condones, at least implicitly, the acts of violence that took place. You will not believe this. This is what the Holy See Press Office director had to say in his official declaration:

    “Profound respect for the beliefs, texts, outstanding figures and symbols of the various religions is an essential precondition for the peaceful coexistence of peoples. The serious consequences of unjustified offence and provocations against the sensibilities of Muslim believers are once again evident in these days, as we see the reactions they arouse, sometimes with tragic results, which in their turn nourish tension and hatred, unleashing unacceptable violence.

    The message of dialogue and respect for all believers of different religions, which the Holy Father is preparing to carry with him on his forthcoming trip to Lebanon, indicate the path that everyone should follow in order to construct shared and peaceful coexistence of religions and peoples.”

    This is a DISGRACEFUL declaration. Blame is placed not on the perpetrators of the attacks, described mildly as “reactions (…) sometimes with tragic results” but on the “unjustified offence and provocations against the sensibilities of Muslim believers”. Instead of condemning a FATAL MOB ATTACK against DIPLOMATIC PERSONNEL, the Holy See is preocupied with “dialogue and respect for all believers of different religions”. SHAME ON THE HOLY SEE!!!! IF THE POPE APPROVES THIS MESSAGE, THEN SHAME ON HIM! SHAME ON HIS ROMAN CURIA!

    The fact is that the “insulting” film was an OBSCURE production, and it is UNACCEPTABLE that because some obsure guy somewhere made a movie offending one religion, BARBARIC consequences such as the mob attack on the U.S. Embassy would ensue.

    WE MUST NOT CONDONE THE BARBARIC ELEMENTS OF ISLAMIC CULTURE, a culture that actually PROMOTES AS JUSTIFYED desproportionate vindictive acts of violence of the sort that took place in Lybia. THIS IS PURE EVIL, not religion worthy of respect.

    The Holy See’s present fixation with ecumenism SHOULD NOT LEAD IT TO INVOLVE THE SACRED NAME OF THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH IN CONDONING THE BARBARIC ATTITUDES OF THE ISLAMIC CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT.

    Furthermore, it is my opinion that this attack, coming as it came on the 11th anniversary of 9/11, was a terrorist attack against the United States, coordinated with similar acts of violence in Cairo and elsewhere against America and Americans, and it is this terrorism that the Holy See, as a responsible sovereign member of the international community, should be strongly condemning.

    The invasion of an Embassy is always a grotesque act of aggression that goes against the most basic practices and customs of civilization (the respect for diplomatic immunity being essential for the co-existance of Nations in peace), and, in this case, the Head of Mission was killed, an Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the your Nation, personifying, as he personified in his diplomatic role as Head of Mission, the very sovereignty of the United States of America. This was a very grave and very serious disruption of international Peace, that cannot be condoned in the least, under any pretext whatever. Screw the muslim sensitivities!

  71. Sissy says:

    Prof. Basto, this statement of the Holy See is doubly painful because there is growing evidence that the “film” is a false flag incident concocted by Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood. How likely is it that a “rich Jewish LA real estate developer” with financial backing of “over 100 rich Jews” produced this ridiculous “film” and then had it dubbed in Arabic?. It’s very possible the amateurish youtube video was created by Islamist themselves as a pretext for the embassy attacks.

  72. Matt R says:

    @Wmeyer, by ‘we don’t have a clue…” I was referring to the endless speculation on the photograph, and what happened to the ambassador after he was first injured when the militants gained access to the main part of the building. I have only seen one photo-the one on the blog-and can’t draw any conclusion from it that’s valid.
    It’s still confusing, but a clearer understanding has emerged on the chronology of the assault, so yes the US does have a better view of what happened, and enough to determine that it wasn’t an act of war.

  73. Matt R says:

    Sissy, it’s the Holy See Press Office. They are not known for getting the wording right the first time.
    Now that’s out of the way…I just think they don’t want to get involved beyond calling for peace. That’s their job. Also, he is going to Lebanon, and will be warmly welcomed by Christians and the leadership of the country. But, it’s a heavy security risk; let’s not invite martyrdom on him.

  74. Sissy says:

    “let’s not invite martyrdom on him.”

    Who on earth did that???? We all need to be praying fervently, fasting, for the safety of our Holy Father. He is entering a the lion’s den.

  75. Geoffrey says:

    @Supertradmum & wmeyer:

    “American arrogance” was in reference to the American policy of wanting democracy everywhere in the world (which I believe has its origins with Woodrow Wilson and the First World War) and seeing it as the only legitimate political system, with little regard or respect for anything different.

    The political system of democracy / republicanism is no way equal to the Gospel, which is implied in your question: “do you then also call evangelization arrogance?” Truth is truth. Democracy is not the Gospel.

    Pope Pius XI said that “the Catholic Church is never bound to one form of government more than to another, provided the Divine rights of God and of Christian consciences are safe. She does not find any difficulty in adapting herself to various civil institutions, be they monarchic or republican, aristocratic, or democratic” (Dilectissima nobis, 3 June 1933).

    It is arrogance to believe that democracy will work everywhere and anywhere, as recent events in the Middle East illustrate. Tyrants are selfish cowards that you can generally work with; you cannot work with suicidal extremists.

  76. Sissy says:

    Geoffrey, I agree with your general point. But instead of “arrogance”, I would describe it as naivete. I think the policy makers pushing “democracy” have no idea what sort of preconditions have to be present in order for a republican form of government to succeed. Without a stable, reliable system of justice, LEOs who aren’t corrupt, and a well-established business class, it’s doomed. Voting alone is not “democracy”, but that seems to have been the only benchmark recent administrations have stressed. I think it was well-intentioned, for the most part.

  77. Matt R says:

    @Sissy, I only meant that Catholics shouldn’t make statements re: Libya that have no other purpose than to provoke Islamists (even if they are correct in words re: Islam, evil, and heresy) and would incite them to attack the Pope. I’ve seen a lot of comments-here and elsewhere-which get the theology and spritual warfare aspects of the battle right, but a radical Islamist won’t care about that, because the rest is uncharitable (hateful even, in some cases). Bl John Paul II’s visit really helped bring some peace after the war. I hope Pope Benedict’s visit does the same.
    God’s will be done, of course.

  78. StJude says:

    My prayers for the victims. God have mercy on us.

  79. jflare says:

    Matt R,
    I think your assessment has two flaws:
    1. I understand your technical point about acts of war vs terrorism. Technically, by Geneva Conventions or other recognized law, warlike acts can’t be referred to except as “terrorism” unless a competent body issues a declaration of war. Even so, I’d remind you that we have such terms as “Cold War”, “Vietnam War”, “Gulf War”, or “War in Iraq” for a reason: Even if Congress never issued a formal declaration of “war” after 1941, we’ve still been engaged, often for over a decade, in one place or another using military force. Someone fired bullets, someone dropped bombs, buildings or property were destroyed, people died.
    Even if the events in Libya don’t precisely qualify as “war”, if we pretend that the mobs didn’t have definitively hostile intent, there’ll be serious consequences.

    2. I don’t believe there’s much of anything that anyone CAN say that’s legitimately critical of Islam that WON’T provoke people in the Mid-East. Not right now anyway, assuming we ever could.
    If a radical Muslim will be provoked to brutality by a movie that I’d never heard of prior to yesterday, I think we’re unlikely to be capable of saying anything they’ll actually like, unless we’re surrendering.

    I DO hope we won’t be forced to take more serious action than beefing up security at the embassies and consulates.

  80. Leonius says:

    “wars are not fought by old men.”

    Grand Master de Valette was 70 during the Great Siege, age is no barrier, wars of survival must be fought by all who can fight.

  81. Jael says:

    Good idea, as someone has posted above, to read Robert Spencer about this issue (Jihad Watch). And I think Spencer and Geller are correct when they insist this sort of behavior is not extremism. It’s the Islam of the Koran.

  82. Prof. Basto says:

    Ah! A change of tone on the part of the Holy See, and a proper communiqué at last. The following is the second declaration by the Holy See Press Office director, made public in today’s Bollettino:

    “The very serious attack organised against the United States diplomatic mission in Libya, which led to the death of the ambassador and of other functionaries, calls for the firmest possible condemnation on the part of the Holy See. Nothing, in fact, can justify the activity of terrorist organisations and homicidal violence. Along with our sadness, mourning and prayers for the victims, we again express the hope that, despite this latest tragedy, the international community may discover the most favourable ways to continue its commitment in favour of peace in Libya and the entire Middle East.”

  83. Sissy says:

    “let’s not invite martyrdom on him.”

    “@Sissy, I only meant that Catholics shouldn’t make statements re: Libya that have no other purpose than to provoke Islamists (even if they are correct in words re: Islam, evil, and heresy) and would incite them to attack the Pope.”

    Matt R, do you not see that this outrageous mindset is nothing more than an attempt to force Sharia on Christians and other Westerners? You are suggesting that we are all subject to the blasphemy laws of Islam. This like blaming the victim of a car jacking because she owns a fine car. We have the inalienable right of free speech, and we are not responsible when savages use our words to do unspeakable acts. No human is required by justice to remain silent out of fear of how a barbaric horde will react. This is a very insulting notion, and plays into the hands of Al Quaeda. We will not submit to the demands of this satanic ideology.

  84. Philippus says:

    May God have mercy on us who praise US imperialism and think the US is blameless in the affairs of the middle east. Does anybody doubt that it was wrong to go into Libya to disrupt their government by force? Does anybody doubt it was wrong to go into Egypt? Does anybody understand that it will be many times worse if the same thing is started in Syria and then Iran?

    The more we entangle ourselves in foreign politics for no reason other than ‘gain’, the more we risk lives of our civilian representatives.

    It seems easy to say, let’s get rid of the Muslims, but our own house in not in order. Our government (our ruling class–because we actually have one) is not concerned with morality, and so, we cannot see that we have to moralize our country in order to be justified in our actions. Every war we fight at this point, will be ineffectual, because there are no real enemies. There are just people you pay to do your bidding, and when they refuse, you send guns and armies over, to disrupt the land.

  85. Sissy says:

    “It seems easy to say, let’s get rid of the Muslims”

    I haven’t heard anyone say that, ever. And I don’t think you could call what Ambassador Stevens was attempting to do in Libya “imperialism”. He was trying to help the Libyans build a decent, civil society. He loved Libya and her people very much. He was in Benghazi to open a cultural center. And Libyan sources are reporting that, for his loving efforts on their behalf, he was raped before he was murdered by his attackers. So, yes, he did have some “real enemies” as it turns out.

  86. wmeyer says:

    May God have mercy on us who praise US imperialism and think the US is blameless in the affairs of the middle east.

    May God have mercy, also, on those who rationalize all violence done to Americans, blaming America first. We make mistakes. We do not knowingly murder diplomats and innocents.

  87. Sissy says:

    wmeyer: “May God have mercy, also, on those who rationalize all violence done to Americans, blaming America first.”

    Amen. I’m constantly amazed by people who can never see the immense amount of good our country has done around the world.

  88. anna 6 says:

    The Vatican has updated it’s statement since the killings in Libya. Pray for the Pope and the Lebanese Christians during his trip.
    http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/vatican-issues-strong-condemnation-of-libya-terrorist-attack

  89. jflare says:

    “May God have mercy on us who praise US imperialism and think the US is blameless in the affairs of the middle east.”

    Seems to me that, assuming we had a desire to impose an empire an anyone, we’ve done a very poor job. I see no evidence that we’ve forced anyone to change their language, religion, money, or culture to suit us very much. We haven’t even installed any particular number of puppet dictators, Presidents, or other “command authorities”. Some empire.

    However, we HAVE bought oil from many, profits of which have arguably been used to improve basic infrastructure, we HAVE sent money overseas to pay for various concerns, education for one, and we HAVE rhetorically or financially jabbed many a foreign leader with regard to civil rights abuses. I won’t say we’ve been perfect by any stretch, but we’ve done much better than many would insist.

    I find it very odd that people insist on blaming the US for the troubles in the world. Many of those troubles don’t precisely come about because WE did something, rather they occur because someone else DIDN’T do something. If we’ve made deals with dictators, keep in mind that those deals still gave someone an opportunity to do something besides rot; if we’ve aided and abetted people with comparatively nasty attitudes, keep in mind that we literally couldn’t find someone else to speak with.

    It’s very easy to howl that we’ve been nasty to this group or that. It’s not so easy to deal with someone who believes in a different set of morals from yours.

    If you’re peeved that we have influence in the world, perhaps you’d be willing to donate to a charity of choice who’ll offer greater opportunities for education or other means? Improve someone else’s chances of success that way? Or perhaps you’d be willing to send more tax money to Uncle Sam, let him do it for you?

    It’s easy to criticize from the sidelines. It’s not so easy to make something worthwhile happen.

  90. Matt R says:

    No, Sissy. We do better than them. All these crowds can do is shout, rob, and kill, for the thief comes to seek, kill, and destroy. Words aren’t always the best tool. Pope Pius XII would have become a martyr had he spoken more during the 2nd World War but what he did say was enough to show that the Church was against the Nazis, Soviet propaganda aside (and he backed all these words up with definitive action). That’s something we should learn from in my opinion.
    I’m frustrated that since dialogue doesn’t apparently work, then the next step in the media is to drop gratuitous insults about each and every Muslim. That video played right into the hands of al-Qaeda. Change the references to Christ, and I’d be insulted. Now, Christians don’t typically react violently to these things. Clearly, there’s an element to Islam where Satan is heavily active, and violence is the only tool for them. Don’t make it easy for them!
    Even Christ himself stayed silent during the events of the Passion narrative. Fight using the weapons that will push Satan back: the Sacraments, the Rosary, etc.
    The 2nd declaration from the Holy See is exactly what’s needed. Nothing less, and probably not much more.
    @jflare Of course the militants had a hostile intent. But it was terrorism. Let’s respond at the head of the snake (planners, operators, supporters…) without creating more turmoil in yet another country.

  91. Sissy says:

    “the next step in the media is to drop gratuitous insults about each and every Muslim. That video played right into the hands of al-Qaeda. ”

    Can you link us to a media outlet that insults “each and every Muslim”? That would be news, indeed. If you’ll investigate what has been learned about the “video” which as far as we know, no one in the ME has even seen, it was apparently made by an Egyptian, probably for this very purpose…to provide a pretext and a diversion for the 9/11 anniversary revenge attack. Countries have a right to self-defense, Matt. The CCC confirms this, so it isn’t just a secular notion. We are not required to limit our response to attacks on our country and countrymen to saying the Rosary (although that is always a good idea).

  92. Matt R says:

    Sissy, Michele Bachmann called Keith Ellison, another Congressman from MN, a terrorist. That attitude shows up among many Americans who hide on Youtube and Facebook…
    Actually, I’m sure Middle Easterners did see it, because Google just blocked it in Egypt and Libya on Youtube. Also, it has been shown that it was made by Egyptian Christians in the US, seemingly for the purpose of provoking Muslims and pushing the US government and other governments to work against Muslims…not the MB and Iran.
    I know countries have right to self-defense, but this battle will not be won by a country such as ours, with arms. It might be possible to win if Christendom had not broken up. But it did. I think, it would be easier for me to support this if the shell of evil was all political (like fighting World War 2, Korea, and Vietnam).

  93. Sissy says:

    Since when is Michelle Bachman “the media” and when did Ellison become “each and every Muslim”? Your are generalizing.

    “Also, it has been shown that it was made by Egyptian Christians in the US, seemingly for the purpose of provoking Muslims and pushing the US government and other governments to work against Muslims…not the MB and Iran.”

    No such thing has been shown at all. First, “Isreali Jews” were blamed. Now, Coptic Christians are in the crosshairs. The man the Obama administration has just exposed to grave danger denies being the producer. Maybe he was and maybe he wasn’t. But there is no proof whatsoever that this current claim is any more accurate than the first one was. And what possible difference could it make? People are allowed to express opinions, even insulting opinions. Those being insulted are not allowed to commit rape and murder and mayhem because their religion gets spoofed or mocked (if that’s even what happened). Civilized, mature adults do not act like deranged savages over such trivia. There is no excuse, none. Not ever. What Islam needs is a great deal more ridicule, until Muslims begin to doubt it’s more extreme tenets and begin to reform it.

  94. Matt R says:

    Sissy (and Supertradmum), you are refusing to believe an explanation that is much more credible than your explanation-which is based solely on hysteria and rumors. They found the film’s manager, Nakoula Bassely Nakoula, an Egyptian Christian living in LA, who was tracked back to the fictional ‘Sam Bacile.’ The video is on Youtube in the US by the way.
    No they shouldn’t react violently. But this group who created the video weren’t charitable at all. I hold them as Christians to a higher standard, and it was stupid. Yes, there’s standing up to them, but this isn’t it.

  95. Sissy says:

    Who is this “they” that did the tracing of this person, Matt? There is no proof of any kind, not that it matters. It may yet prove to be uncharitable, but so far, there is no proof of that. But suppose it turns out to be an American Christian? What business is it of the federal government to regulate what sort of silly videos Americans put on youtube? Since when does the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs call a private citizen to take him to task for his constitutionally-protected views? This is the leading edge of Sharia….the idea that Americans have to follow Islam”s blasphemy laws. Regardless of who made the youtube video or why, it was always just a pretext for violence. The Libyan leader said so himself, and this attack was planned for months…long before the Arabic version of this silly film was posted. It’s a distraction, and it has worked, because you seem to think we’re supposed to excuse the violence that was supposedly “provoked” by it.

  96. BobP says:

    >What business is it of the federal government to regulate what sort of silly videos Americans put on youtube?

    It shouldn’t as long as only Americans are privvy to the video. It must be remembered that most foreigners don’t know what First Amendment rights are, and until everyone in the world becomes educated, some care must be taken as to what’s put out there for all to see. At least their governments should put out warnings.

  97. Girgadis says:

    Phillipus
    I am interested in what you have to say. Do you think the United States was wrong to go into Iraq?

  98. Sissy says:

    BobP said: “At least their governments should put out warnings.”

    So, it is your opinion that government should monitor all speech of it’s citizens? Does any country have the resources to monitor the billions (trillions?) of internet comments that go out continually? That wouldn’t exactly be free speech, would it? More importantly, why is it the responsibility of free people to police their speech so as to avoid hurting the delicate sensibilities of people who sodomize and murder ambassadors? What matters most: free speech or hurt feelings? Should women also cover their faces, since this is also viewed as a provocation in some countries?

  99. Mike says:

    I think publishing such photos of the deceased profoundly indecorous and inappropriate. Homer, never mind the light of the Gospels, would disapprove.

  100. Matt R says:

    Sorry I was unclear. The major newspapers, Time, the AP, and other news groups have been working to figure out the source of the video, and it was discovered to be the work of expatriate Middle Eastern Christians, most prominently Egyptians. I just watched it, and sure, Muhammad and his followers have shown themselves to be pretty nasty and evil…but it doesn’t make any sense to attack Islam in the fashion the video did-which is over the top and hysterical. It will just re-ignite the seeds of violence and anger. Critique Muhammad, fine. Explain what he did and who he really was, yes. (Caution: It’s wildly inappropriate.) The way to critique Islam is the way the Holy Father did at Regensburg; a reasonable person can have a discussion with the Pope and not feel upset of attacking him (Two things: the protesters in 2006 were unreasonable and never actually listened to him…) The Coptic diaspora is not interested in doing that, it seems. They are much more aggressive in criticizing Islam, perhaps because free speech is available to them. They don’t seem to care about the cost. Speaking the Truth should not bring others randomly to their deaths if we have an option to do it another way. (That’s why Ven Pius XII was careful during WW2. It was necessary to criticize the Nazis, but not at the cost of accelerating the deaths of the Jews.)

    Well, the protests in Cairo and elsewhere were sparked by the video, and the immediate protest which surrounded the attack was sparked by it. The video being a ‘pretext for violence’ seems to prove my point that it should never have been made, because it gave the attackers a cover.
    Of course we shouldn’t excuse the violence, but provoking violence would be a sin also, wouldn’t it?
    Of course the US govt shouldn’t regulate the video.
    Also, be careful with your First Amendment argument. It goes both ways.

  101. wmeyer says:

    Matt, you are projecting now. Sissy and Supertradmum have been calm and rational; you have been making statements which are emotional and unsupported by evidence. They have a solid understanding of history as relates to the region; you do not. They support what they say with fact; you do not.

  102. Indulgentiam says:

    Mat R: “Also, be careful with your First Amendment argument. It goes both ways.”

    What do you mean by this please?

  103. Matt R says:

    @wmeyer I have to disagree.

    It’s going to be a back-and-forth on why each one of us doesn’t have the understanding of history we think we have. I can only say that I apparently disagree with many people on this blog when it comes to history and politics in the Middle East.

    No one is immune from gaps in logic in normal discussion and writing…we’re all guilty of this. (I’m particularly guilty of not recognizing someone’s flaws when I support them…I think most people are this way.)
    The notion that it was the Mus. Brotherhood and Iran that made the video (but blamed it on Jews), without any investigative proof beyond that isn’t rational. To then deny the links to Coptic Christians in California, by saying I don’t have proof-ignoring the research done by journalists-is also not rational. I’ve been trying to keep up with the news, and it was only on this blog that it was asserted, beyond any shadow of doubt, that it was a false-flag op by Iran and the MB, and it continued to be stated as such even after the media began to show that Copts were behind it. That doesn’t make sense. I could have accepted it as a valid proposal-in the first twelve to twenty-four hours after the attack-but not today because the origins of the video have been shown to be otherwise.

    Their opinions are legitimate, when it comes to how we should deal with Islam, but I disagree. There’s not much more to it.

    It hurts the cause and credibility of Middle Eastern Christians to resort to the tactics of propaganda that Islamists use. It’s violence and hate born from violence and hate. Believing in the Catholic Church doesn’t give us an unfettered right to use weapons, or an uncontrolled tongue.
    Let’s preach the Truth in charity and bear the cross of that. But it is not a cross when these videos which lead to the death of others are made and released.

  104. Girgadis says:

    What purpose does incendiary behavior serve? We need no further proof than the events of 9/11 to know that there are diabolical Muslims who will stop at nothing to further their violent agenda. There is no justification whatsoever for their evil, so why give them any more excuses, like burning a Koran or producing a film that insults Mohammed? Such reckless false bravado is easy to exercise when it imperils someone else’s life.

  105. Sissy says:

    Matt R said: “it was only on this blog that it was asserted, beyond any shadow of doubt, that it was a false-flag op by Iran and the MB”

    Good evening, all. Below you will find my comment on the speculation (and that’s all it is) about the creator of the video. Please note that there was no assertion beyond a shadow of a doubt made by me or anyone else:

    “Early on, there was suspicion that the film was a “false flag” incident cooked up by Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood (who have been in talks recently). That is the best explanation for the film, in my opinion. ”

    You might notice that I qualified my statement by using the phrases “early on” “suspicion” and “in my opinion”. These phrases were not assertions beyond a shadow of a doubt. You generalize a great deal, Matt. Regardless of what is reported right now, the identity of the producer has not yet been proven. And when the producer is found and outed by our government, what then? Someone else who has to live under an assumed name because the “religion of peace” is upset again?

  106. Matt R says:

    @Indulgentiam, the First Amendment is for everyone, and since these people can make a video mocking Islam, then Muslims can mock Christianity, and so on. I have never, ever seen a Christian react in such a violent manner, and don’t think I will. But, it’s not impossible. I think Catholics would be far less inclined to violence of this sorts anyways, but I’m not as confident about our Protestant brethren. That’s all. Maybe I’m off-kilter and out in left-field, but I just find that free speech is often something that suits us when we agree with the controversial item of speech, but not when it’s disagreeable.
    @Girgadis, agreed.

  107. Sissy says:

    Matt R & Girgadis: who is to define “incendiary behavior”, that fearsome thing we are to avoid at all costs in order to placate the “religion of peace”? For instance, there are some in the ROP who object to women’s faces. Some men in this country don’t think it’s incendiary at all that I don’t cover mine. What to do? There are Muslim cab drivers in Minneapolis who object to fares carrying wine bottles. There are Muslim grocery clerks who object to checking-out sealed packages of bacon. There are numerous members of this happy faith who object to pencil drawings of Muhammad. There are some who find it incendiary that I just wrote “Muhammad” without calling him “The Prophet”. Is there a guidebook somewhere that will help us dhimmis figure out how to exercise our civil rights and still not give offense to these touchy folks? “Incendiary” is in the eye of the beholder. Do we really want to let the Islamists dictate to us what is and is not acceptable to them?

  108. Nan says:

    @Matt R, Muslims hate us as Islam teaches them to hate. They’re taught that we’re worth nothing and taught to lie to us to obscure their true beliefs.

    Note that Michelle Bachman’s commentary on Keith Ellison is due to his demonstrated ties to the Muslim Brotherhood who paid for his trip to Mecca which if I recall correctly wasn’t immediately disclosed. I believe he considered it to be personal rather than related to his campaign. He did, however, quickly condemn the violence and murder. Please pray for this man’s conversion, he was raised Catholic.

    Muslims will find an excuse, no matter what it is to do what they want to do which is kill Americans. Their real reasoning is to pressure the US to release the Blind Sheikh. I say put him in solitary confinement if he isn’t there already and withhold aid from the countries attacking our Embassy. If it were up to me, I’d close the embassies, pull out and tell Americans to leave because it isn’t safe.

  109. Matt R says:

    I don’t like the outcome for the movie creators either. But the media did their job in telling the public the truth to the best of their ability.
    I’m not sure which post the comment was on-it’s pretty cluttered- but at least one other person shared your initial opinion, making it sound much more like a fact than it was; I’m sorry I threw you into that grouping; it wasn’t fair.

  110. Matt R says:

    Refusing to follow the demands of Islamic law isn’t incendiary. It’s standing up for our beliefs.
    Well, let’s eliminate the offensive vocab, like rag-head and carpet-kisser, and work against it when we hear it or read it. I’ve seen plenty of those words online today. That’s a start. Then, take apart the Quran and Islamic theology piece by piece. Use moral theology to show why Muhammad was wrong with his behavor. The video depicted him as offensive (not immoral) because he did things that offended our sensibilities on sexuality, but didn’t connect the dots between his behavior, Islam’s teachings, and the contradiction-and truth- presented by the natural law and the Bible.

    I know you’re making a rhetorical point, but don’t use the term dhimmis b/c it legitimizes their views.

  111. Girgadis says:

    Sissy, I provided two examples of stupid, reckless, unnecessary and incendiary behavior. If you think letting the media know you’re going to burn the Koran is a good way to defend Christianity, suffice it to say I disagree. It’s very easy to talk about standing up to Islamic thugs from the safety of a keyboard. We’re not in peril posting comments on a blog. The same could not be said for Ambassador Smith.

  112. Matt R says:

    @Girgadis, agreed again.

  113. jflare says:

    Matt R, Girgadis,
    While I think I understand the points you make, I agree with Sissy more. ..I think….

    It IS immensely imprudent–and may be sinful–to produce a video that needlessly taunts a faith tradition or refers to people using intentionally disgusting terminology. Such media should not be produced, and when it is, should be dismissed as, as you comment, over-the-top and despicable. Unfortunately, making an effort to police up abusive video on the internet..literally can’t happen. Any competent policing organization literally lacks the resources. Only way would be simply shutting down the entire internet, which would be a REALLY bad idea.

    I hate to have to say this, but it seems plausible to me that the Obama Administration didn’t do very well with this situation. Whatever the President wishes to propose regarding peaceful peoples and efforts to encourage them, the Defense and Intelligence portions of his Administration must surely have some alert people amongst them. Someone should surely have realized that the anniversary of 9/11 might well be a “valid” excuse for someone to act. I’ve heard that every embassy, base, and installation overseas has since tightened security. I’d love to know why they didn’t do so BEFORE, say on Sept 10th.

    Trying to make a potentially enemy happy by agreeing that we won’t allow this sort of statement or that type of movie to be made simply won’t work. The more we try to make them happy, the more they’re encouraged to force us into conceding much of our way of life.
    Sooner or later, we either must accept the fact that we aren’t universally loved and take appropriate precautions, or we must allow them to dictate what we may do and what we may not. Or, we go to war to decide the point.

    None of those options really works well, but USUALLY taking appropriate precautions helps to minimize damage, disallow any incident from occurring in the first place, or else make clear that any untoward incidents will incite..unpleasant..consequences.

    If we simply bully our citizenry into changing our tune to make someone else happy, we lose automatically. Our Constitution ceases to have any authority, elections mean nothing, and our Supremes convene a kangaroo court.

    Not something I”m willing to tolerate.

  114. jflare says:

    Matt R said:
    “Well, let’s eliminate the offensive vocab, like rag-head and carpet-kisser, and work against it when we hear it or read it. I’ve seen plenty of those words online today. That’s a start. Then, take apart the Quran and Islamic theology piece by piece. Use moral theology to show why Muhammad was wrong with his behavor. …”

    Great idea. So when and where shall I look–and direct the Middle East–to see you begin?

  115. Matt R says:

    @jflare: “It IS immensely imprudent–and may be sinful–to produce…” Agreed.
    Well, yes. Policing the Internet is next to impossible.
    It’s a bit nutty to think the US govt had no idea something could happen on 9/11 (are we really that stupid to think it was a total surprise?); just look at the date, and the intel folks follow world media, so someone at the Egyptian desk in CIA, State, DIA, etc picked up the talk on al-Nas in Egypt about the video on Sept 8.
    Taking approrpiate precautions, after realizing there are people who will never like America, is what should have happened (and needs to happen now). Also, I don’t think it’s the govt’s job to prevent these kinds of videos. Fraternal correction from each of us is the way to go.

  116. Sissy says:

    Matt R, I don’t know if you saw the articles about the man who dubbed the film, but his name is Morris Sadek. He lives near Washington, D.C. I’m not going to post the links, because all of them (so far) go to sites I don’t necessarily think need any traffic. But if you goggle him, you’ll see what I mean. Some in the Coptic community think this man is the who who actually dubbed in the Arabic and made the film more “over the top” and insulting than the original script. Who knows? But I saw some video of this man, and it appears to me that he may be suffering from a pretty serious mental illness. I thought you’d be interested, if you hadn’t seen it already.

  117. wmeyer says:

    Sissy, further to a question you raised, albeit rhetorically. If we visit a Muslim country, we should expect to honor local customs while there. That would include women covering their faces. Muslims living in Western countries should expect to honor local customs, as well, though we would not force a woman to uncover her face, nor to remove a scarf. On the other hand, being here, either to visit, or as an immigrant, is a privilege, not a right, and we have every right to require enforcement of local standards for photos on formal documents, and for security inspections, among other things. Sadly, as we have seen repeatedly, Muslims demand exemption from those local standards–and at the same time, are unwilling to grant exceptions for visitors to their country. This sort of irrational disagreement is at the core of problems where the two cultures interact.

  118. Sissy says:

    wmeyer: I agree with you; I think Christians should respect local customs and when visiting a foreign country. I would never visit any country that expects women to cover their faces, because it offends my dignity as a human being. Likewise, those who don’t like American customs and freedoms, can stay home. They have no right to ask us to change our customs and practices to accommodate them.

    What really frightens me is an administration that seems to think it’s reasonable to police and even curtail our freedoms, playing right into the hands of Muslims who are pushing for Sharia law around the world. It’s outrageous that any person living within our borders should be admonished about Muslim blasphemy laws. It’s a very dangerous precedent that this administration is setting: attack our embassies, kill our ambassadors, no problem. We’ll apologize and harass American residents about their silly “unhelpful” videos. This equivalence between a ludicrous bad movie and the violence going on, supposedly in response, is sickening. It’s as if some Fishwrap editor shot me for having a “Follow me to the TLM” bumper sticker, and everyone said “Well, you asked for it. You were provocative. ” It is unjust for the film maker to be deliberately insulting; it is far more unjust for anyone to try to justify or excuse what Islamists have done by continually pointing to the silly film as if the mayhem is reasonable. It’s as if we have already surrendered to this madness.

  119. wmeyer says:

    Likewise, those who don’t like American customs and freedoms, can stay home. They have no right to ask us to change our customs and practices to accommodate them.

    Precisely. No one is forced to come here, for a visit, or to live. If your country of origin is a paradise, by all means, stay where you are!

    And yes, our country has surrendered, some time ago, to the madness which claims all cultures are equally good.

  120. Sissy says:

    “the madness which claims all cultures are equally good.”

    You’ve put your finger on it; relativism again. We’re not allowed to point out that some cultures are worse than others. Not the people in them – all individuals are all endowed with their Creator with dignity and entitled to respect. But some places on earth really do have better values than others.

  121. Girgadis says:

    My apologies for getting the late ambassador’s surname wrong – it was Stevens. May his soul and all the souls of the departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace.