Zeddicus: The annoying thing is, I know some really cool Muslims but it still doesn't overshadow the fact that the religion is one that is thoroughly entrenched in violence.
What stops them from taking their aggression to the movie producers We hear Jesus Christ, Christianity and Christians ridiculed on a daily basis and still no christian bats an eyelid!! On the other hand Muslims take up arms, no matter what it is. From cartoons to posters to mere words!!! I wonder how you expect to convert me to your religion if you expect me to carry bombs, guns etc for simply provoking you and your religious beliefs!
How does this issue concern this ambassador and others that may have been affected by this?? Nonsense.

Sagamite:

And your point is?

Who told you there is no outcry when Zionists kill Palestinians?

There is no outcry when KKK/IRA or whatever kill people?

What is your point? Why are you telling me this crap?

Katsumoto:

So who do you blame for the innocent Nigerians who died during the Danish cartoon and Miss World pageant events? Or better yet, how will you blame those who died in those events?

Since you want to use cause and effect to rationalize your argument.

shymexx:


We should learn to understand and respect people's belief system... It's not news that Muslims don't play with their prophet - why can't we let them be??

shymexx:

But Ghaddafi was planing to nationalise Libyan oil and he said that during an interview in 2009... The West had no access to the water reservoir/man made river under Ghaddafi and he also said NO to Africom base on Libyan soil..

Katsumoto:

My position is not to absolve the US and its agencies of blame. With regards to Libya, the facts don't support outside interference.

Katsumoto:
Whats the point you are making? Oil always belongs to the nation where it is found. You can call it whatever name you want to, the market remains the same.

With regards to Africom, are you going to quote the same conspiracy theory websites and authors that claim the US blamed Libya for the CIA bombing Pan-am air over Lockerbie?

Libya was a test case. The first war actually commanded by Africom, it proved remarkably successful – a significant regional power was destroyed without the loss of a single US or European soldier. But the significance of this war for Africom went much deeper than that for, in taking out Muammar Gaddafi, Africom had actually eliminated the project's fiercest adversary.

Gaddafi ended his political life as a dedicated pan-Africanist and, whatever one thought of the man, it is clear that his vision for African was very different from that of the subordinate supplier of cheap labour and raw materials that Africom was created to maintain. He was not only the driving force behind the creation of the African Union in 2002, but had also served as its elected head, and made Libya its biggest financial donor. To the dismay of some of his African colleagues, he used his time as leader to push for a "United States of Africa", with a single currency, single army and single passport. More concretely, Gaddafi's Libya had an estimated $150bn worth of investment in Africa – often in social infrastructure and development projects, and this largesse bought him many friends, particularly in the smaller nations. As long as Gaddafi retained this level of influence in Africa, Africom was going to founder..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/14/africom-imperial-agenda-marches-on

Please differentiate between the actions of state and individuals. I am referring to your comments about Saudi nationals.

gidiMonsta:

Actually the facts do!! The insurgency started in Benghazi after weapons were mysteriously smuggled in from Tunisia. The CIA fanned the ember of the flames burning in the heart of the anti-ghaddafi dissidents by providing logistics and weapons.

The Americans have succeeded in arming a very dangerous group the effect of which is already been felt in Mali (Azawad) and Northern Nigeria.

shymexx:

No, it doesn't mean the same thing... Nationalization eliminates the concession system - in which private international companies control oil resources within oil-producing countries—and allows oil-producing countries to regain control. Once these countries become the sole owners of their resources, they have to decide how to maximize the net present value of their known stock of oil in the ground.

This means the country would be able to dictate the sale of its oil on its own terms - and it can destroy any existing contract, or contracts if it wants to...

shymexx:


I don't do 'conspiracy theory', but I know Ghaddafi said NO to AFRICOM on Libyan soil - and Nigeria also said NO...

This is from The Guardian UK:

shymexx:

Sir, you and I know that these are not 'individuals' - the state is the one providing the funds but using individuals as cover up... Saudi Arabia is US ally, and won't do it overtly..

Ola one:
Thank you jare. We don't have to spin things here. Suddenly, the so-called rebels were in possession of expensive weapons. The same 'rebels', who, according to the West, had been repressed for decades without reprisals.

The so-called rebels are now being termed militants/Islamists. Who are they fooling?

Do you guys even know how much the British government alone spent in Libya? The beleaguered government in Libya intend to pay back with . . . err . . you know it - oil!

Katsumoto:

Had Blair not signed deals with Gadaffi for Libyan oil? Were BP and Shell not in Libya together with American and French companies? Why gamble with what they already had? If oil was the main motivation, why didn't they just stay on the sidelines? Afterall, Gadaffi could have crushed the rebels on his won.

Ola one:

The sort of deals the West like to term 'unfavourable.'


They wanted a deal similar to what they have in Nigeria. A system where they can steal with reckless abandon. I can dig up articles to let you know that the West weren't satisfied with the said deals. And, the said articles are not from 'conspiracy-theory' websites.

Katsumoto:

When you dig up those articles, also dig up the articles that point that they now have what they wanted.

The language has to be clear and unambiguous.

Katsumoto:
Gadaffi did what you are stating in 1974; see below

Five years ago, BP finally signed a Libyan deal worth $900m – its first in the country since Gaddafi nationalised all petroleum operations and threw out western businesses in 1974.

But the exploration explosion by BP, Shell and others who subsequently re-entered the country never properly got under way: the Arab spring brought operations in Libya to a chaotic standstill 18 months ago.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/aug/26/libya-sweet-crude-oil-bp-shell

You said that Gadaffi said no to Africom on Libyan soil. Thats not what the article you posted is indicating. The article is implying that Gadaffi said no to Africom. Please don't muddle the argument.

This is pure conjecture.

Katsumoto: The rest of the world is turning the tables on western nations and the afrocentric chaps are still looking to blame western nations.

When are you going to realize that the world doesn't give you anything on a platter of gold; you have to seize it.

In any case, conjecture about oil assets wont change the fact that people got killed after a religious demonstration.

I am out for now.

Katsumoto: The rest of the world is turning the tables on western nations and the afrocentric chaps are still looking to blame western nations.

When are you going to realize that the world doesn't give you anything on a platter of gold; you have to seize it.

In any case, conjecture about oil assets wont change the fact that people got killed after a religious demonstration.

I am out for now.

Ola one:
Well, by 'afrocentric', I actually meant the viewpoint of bystanders. Not deluded pursuit of some afrocentric values. My point is: the West must not be seen as angels with no capacity for bestial acts. Rather, they epitomise bestiality when it comes to international relations.






I am out, too. Let me go and chill with my lasses.

Sagamite:
He more than deserved it.
It was a beauty to watch his painful death.

Princek12:
How did the US abuse Libya or Libyans? The last time I checked the US stepped in to save them from being slaughtered by General Qaddafi.

mosh_musth:

Ur mad

dasparrow: @Post

It is quite sad that the American ambassador and his staff lost their lives in such a tragic way. However, America had it coming. They never mind their own business. They will do anything to protect their so-called interests in far away sovereign nations even if it means women, children and men losing their lives in the proccess. I remember the Americans were supplying the salafists with guns to overthrow Gaddafi. Now, the same salafists are now biting the Americans in the butt. Karma is a bytch they say.

My bible mentions severally in the book of Isaiah that the wicked will not go unpunished. All the wickedness Americans perpetrate around the world is catching up with them. Lastly, why should Americans make derogatory films about Islam? Can't Americans learn to respect other religions? Americans too dey look for trouble and their cup don dey full.

shymexx:

That was five years ago in 2007 when Libya/Ghaddafi was brought back into the fold - and when he denationalised Libyan oil. But Ghaddafi threatened to nationalise it again in 2009, and he said, the oil belongs to Libyans not foreign multinationals.

This is from the same article you posted: "The light "sweet" crude from Libya is not only very high quality, it can also easily be extracted from shallow wells in desert areas at a cost that some put as low as $2 a barrel – not bad if you can sell for $114 on the global market."

Who wouldn't want that?? $2 to make $114....

shymexx:




Sir, please read between the line..

Excerpt from NY times again: "Nearly a year ago, Khalid Mishaal, a senior leader of Hamas, the militant Palestinian organization, attended a charitable fund-raising conference here where he talked at length with Crown Prince Abdullah, the de facto Saudi ruler.

According to a summary of the meeting written by a Hamas official, Mr. Mishaal and other Hamas representatives thanked their Saudi hosts for continuing [b]''to send aid to the people through the civilian and popular channels, despite all the American pressures exerted on them.[/b]''

''This is indeed a brave posture deserving appreciation,'' the Hamas officials said, the document said."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/17/world/flow-of-saudis-cash-to-hamas-is-scrutinized.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm