U.S. Ambassador and three others killed in Libya.

**Kralizec** · 09-26-2012, 12:33

Lol, no.

He's the president of the European Parliament.

**Fragony** · 09-26-2012, 12:39

Originally Posted by Kralizec

Lol, no.

He's the president of the European Parliament.

Oh yeah it's hard to keep track of all that, my bad

The elected president of the European Parliament that was elected by the Germans by the way?

Yep, quality media

**Kralizec** · 09-26-2012, 12:53

Splitting hairs. Our new chairman of the Tweede Kamer is was chosen by the other members. Same for the Speaker in the British commons. They're still elected representatives.

The only relevant difference is that Schulz is the leader of his fraction in the EP while presiding over procedure and whatnot; the only other place where they also do it that way which I can think of is the US house of representatives. I'd rather have that a low-key MEP became their president; being the head of one of the fractions could conflict with their duty to be impartial and fair. And Martin Schulz is a rather poor candidate for the post anyway, since he has a history of having a big mouth.

**Fragony** · 09-26-2012, 13:01

Originally Posted by Kralizec

Splitting hairs. Our new chairman of the Tweede Kamer is was chosen by the other members. Same for the Speaker in the British commons. They're still elected representatives.

Nice spin but the Netherlands is a nation-state and the EU isn't, they weren't asked to speak for the European community so they can't, your logic only aplies to people who wouldn't rather split skulls instead.

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 09-26-2012, 15:09

Originally Posted by Kralizec

Splitting hairs. Our new chairman of the Tweede Kamer is was chosen by the other members. Same for the Speaker in the British commons. They're still elected representatives.

The only relevant difference is that Schulz is the leader of his fraction in the EP while presiding over procedure and whatnot; the only other place where they also do it that way which I can think of is the US house of representatives. I'd rather have that a low-key MEP became their president; being the head of one of the fractions could conflict with their duty to be impartial and fair. And Martin Schulz is a rather poor candidate for the post anyway, since he has a history of having a big mouth.

Ah, more evidence of corruption and graft in the EU?

marvelous.

Back to the actual topic:

I think we should compare the reaction in Libya with that in Egypt, the death of the ambassador notwihtstanding Libya's reaction has been better all around.

**Vladimir** · 09-26-2012, 15:48

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Ah, more evidence of corruption and graft in the EU?

marvelous.

Back to the actual topic:

I think we should compare the reaction in Libya with that in Egypt, the death of the ambassador notwihtstanding Libya's reaction has been better all around.

Agreed. Egypt's trying to reassert itself as a regional power while Libya realizes it needs all the help it can get.

**Xiahou** · 09-26-2012, 16:10

This keeps getting weirder and weirder....

U.S. Officials Knew Libya Attacks Were Work of Al Qaeda Affiliates

Within 24 hours of the 9-11 anniversary attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi, U.S. intelligence agencies had strong indications al Qaeda–affiliated operatives were behind the attack, and had even pinpointed the location of one of those attackers. Three separate U.S. intelligence officials who spoke to The Daily Beast said the early information was enough to show that the attack was planned and the work of al Qaeda affiliates operating in Eastern Libya.

Seriously?? What were they thinking at the White House when they sent Susan Rice around to all the Sunday news shows saying it was a spontaneous attack that was an offshoot of the protests? They knew in the first 24 hours that it was a pre-planned assassination. Why the apparent coverup?

**Lemur** · 09-26-2012, 16:35

Originally Posted by Xiahou

This keeps getting weirder and weirder....

Hmm, reading that article it isn't immediately clear that there's anything more at work than uncertain intel on a complex situation, combined with ham-handed PR. The article does not actually support your assertion that "They knew in the first 24 hours that it was a pre-planned assassination." They had leads and locations, which is different from being 100% positive of anything.

The most telling line from the article, in my opinion: "[T]he U.S. intelligence community was studying an intercept between a Libyan politician and a member of the so-called February 17 militia, Libyans charged with providing security for the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. More intelligence has come in that shows members of Ansar al-Sharia, an al Qaeda–affiliated group operating in and around Benghazi, were attempting to coerce, threaten, cajole, and bribe members of the militia protecting the consulate."

Sounds like you have a situation with multiple militias, some of which we were buying off for protection, and the AQ-wannabes trying to drive a wedge between merc and employer. Makes sense; there's no way we could put enough assets on the ground to protect a consulate in a truly hostile environment (see Beirut under Reagan), so the best course is to buy some local muscle. It sounds as though something went wrong with the hired hands.

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 09-26-2012, 18:25

Originally Posted by Xiahou

This keeps getting weirder and weirder....

U.S. Officials Knew Libya Attacks Were Work of Al Qaeda Affiliates

Seriously?? What were they thinking at the White House when they sent Susan Rice around to all the Sunday news shows saying it was a spontaneous attack that was an offshoot of the protests? They knew in the first 24 hours that it was a pre-planned assassination. Why the apparent coverup?

The most interesting thing is - I heard that within 36 hours.

So maybe its your news outlets that are off, not your government spokespeople?

As a response to Fragony: I'm absolutely certain the US Ambassador knew his life was in danger without a large security detail and he took the same calculated risk Bobby Kennedy did.

Like Bobby Kennedy he's dead, but that doesn't mean he was wrong.

After all, the problem isn't with the ambassador, or the rioters, or the Libyan militia protecting the compound - the problem is with the people who decided to off him for minor political gain which, thankfully, appears not to have materialised.

No sanctions, no drone strikes, no loss of credibility for the elected government in the eyes of the average Libyan.

**Kralizec** · 09-26-2012, 18:33

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Ah, more evidence of corruption and graft in the EU?

No, while it's not a wise thing to allow, it does not fit the defintion of "corrupt". I don't see how you could view is at such unless you also think that the speaker of the American HoR is corrupt ex officio (obvious setup for a snarky remark about politicians, I know)

Originally Posted by Fragony

Nice spin but the Netherlands is a nation-state and the EU isn't, they weren't asked to speak for the European community so they can't, your logic only aplies to people who wouldn't rather split skulls instead.

That's like, your opinion. And not relevant for what we were discussing. Nice try though, finding a way out of admitting you're wrong.

This calls for a victory dance:

**Fragony** · 09-26-2012, 18:51

Originally Posted by Kralizec

That's like, your opinion. And not relevant for what we were discussing. Nice try though, finding a way out of admitting you're wrong.

This calls for a victory dance:

Enjoy it while it lasts. I have must have missed something, is a collection of states on equal levels politically as the nation-state in the same way they developed over 2000 years of bloodshed. It has been tried before in 1848, took a while before hey realised there is no common goal and alliances emerged. And all it needed was an incident in the Balkan to destroy it. Europe is not a state, never try to reign it as one.