Was the Embassy Attack “Workplace Violence?”

Posted: September 17, 2012 in Current Events, News, Politics
English: Middle East

English: Middle East (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The recent wave of protests in the Middle East and Europe is at the forefront of news talk at the moment.  A discerning reader or listener will notice that there are two explanations being offered.

One explanation states, that a YouTube video, 14 minutes in length, was randomly found on the morning of September 11th (9/11) which was the 11th year anniversary (9th month 11th year) of the  single greatest terror attack in US history.  This happenstance stumbling upon an inflammatory video (which was also translated into Arabic) caused a grassroots convergence around American Embassies (not military bases, economic interests, etc..) in Egypt, and Libya, which soon spread to Sudan, Morocco, Tunisia, Britain, Australia, Iraq, Yemen, Indonesia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Israel.

This explanation fails to explain why guards were not allowed to carry live ammunition in a country which within the last year had seen a civil war and the overthrow of the government.  Nor does it explain the lack of defense from the White House on the American Constitution’s 1st Amendment guarantee of free speech.  It also raises a simple question.  If videos that are unfavorable towards Muslims are acts close to hate crimes then why is the administration pushing the new Bin Laden movie so adamantly?

The second explanation, which our UN ambassador, Susan Rice, and our press secretary, Jay Carney, both assure us is ridiculously wrongheaded, ignorant and false is that this was a contrived terrorist response to avenge a recent al qaeda deputy’s death.  Some of the “loonies” that believe this may be about jihad over YouTube are Arizona senator John McCain, Libyan president Mohammed el-Megarif, and former UN ambassador John Bolton.  The evidence to support this explanation is overwhelming. compared to the one piece of evidence to support the other claim (yes there was a movie).  Embassy officials warned the United States State Department prior to the protests that security was unraveling, despite White House statements denying the report.

Of these two explanations, which of these is about clamping down on free speech and which is an acknowledgement that the war against al qaeda is far from over?

There is precedent from this administration, remember Nidal Hassan?  He murdered 13 people at Fort Hood (while yelling allahu ackbar), and the Obama administration labeled it workplace violence and not terrorism.


Fox News http://video.foxnews.com/v/1841620273001/mideast-protests-not-directed-at-america-us-policy-obama/

Fox News http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/17/obama-administration-libyan-president-clash-over-explanation-on-consulate/

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s