The attack in Benghazi was war, not terror.

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

Because the Libyan people desired it.

There was more than one side in the conflict. Some of them wanted it; some of them got bombed by us.

@Little_Nemo

Who does the OP think we should be at war with? Libya? Libyan troops help defend the embassy during the attack. The government of Libya has condemned the attacks and has been cracking down on the groups that carried it out. In the days after the attack tens of thousands of Libyans were marching in the street in protest of the attacks and in support of the United States.

I’m not saying we need to broaden the conflict in Libya or declare war on anybody. I don’t support an invasion either. My point is that we took sides in a civil war/revolution that was ‘resolved’ only a short time ago. I’m not surprised that we would be attacked there, considering our role. We don’t have an army on the ground or much of a presence at all- besides the embassy, what is a pissed off Libyan supposed to attack?

I am simply getting annoyed at the way this story is being spun into some kind of terrorism dropped-ball accusation. We bombed the country to help oust the government, then people struck back. It looks like a war zone to me, even if the major fighting has been over for… a couple of months. Sort of. Did everyone expect every person in the country to just forget the whole thing once Khadaffi was gone?

Anyway, if you want a policy suggestion out of me, I would accept treating the attackers as combatants and going after them as we would in any other war, namely shooting them. Maybe they aren’t an army, but they do at least resemble a militia.

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

@XT

Who are we at war with in Libya? The (new/current) Libyan Government supported the US and condemned the attacks, and also has been quite vigorous in going after those who did this. Are we at war with the previous Libyan Government? The Colonel is dead and gone…eee’s a dead dictator…eeee’s shuffled off this mortal coil…eeee’s pushin’ up the daisies…eeee’s and EX-dictator.

The Colonel is dead all right. I just don’t think everyone is going to get the same memo in a situation like this. Weren’t there Japanese soldiers holding out for years after the formal surrender of Japan in WWII?

So, what you are saying is that though the current government doesn’t support the attacks, and even though a large percentage of Libyan’s weren’t involved or even support those attacks, if a few folks are still pissed off and strike back that this equates to ‘war’. In all cases?

I think bombing a country makes it a war zone. We helped overthrow the government, and shit continues to blow up- looks just like war, no? But if I am being rash or off track, well, that’s why I post here…

[XT]

Well, it’s a semantic-y sort of distinction. I suppose it’s all in how you look at it. I guess I can see what you and some others are saying about it being a civil-war/war zone, but seems like it was pretty much a classic terror attack from where I’m sitting. MMV and all that though.

But you have to admit (though I flubbed the last part with the ‘and EX-dictator’ :smack:…damned iPad), working that dead parrot sketch into the thread was pretty funny.

[Little_Nemo]

Oh. I thought you were talking about an Dex-dictator. And I was thinking, “Watch what you say, XT, you’ll get a warning for dissing a mod like that.”

[XT]

Never…would…I…speak…ill(sheesh)…of…a…Mod. The…Mods…are…our…friends.

Have…a…nice…day…

:eek:

[WillFarnaby]

The folks in Libya were attacking folks they thought were their enemies. They just happen to be a tiny group. If they were a larger group and could gain control of a government and military apparatus they could have the prestige of calling it war (as the neocons and Wilsonians have with the US gov’t).

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

@WillFarnaby

The folks in Libya were attacking folks they thought were their enemies. They just happen to be a tiny group. If they were a larger group and could gain control of a government and military apparatus they could have the prestige of calling it war (as the neocons and Wilsonians have with the US gov’t).

Well, before the war in Libya there was this guy who ruled as a dictator for 3 decades… anyway, there was a lot of criticism over this, not even counting the criticism about leading from behind. But even when the task was toppling a dictator it hardly got the prestige of war, but rather a half-hearted air assault. We left the bayonet in the bum stuff to the locals, but really, how else would you achieve that except by leading from behind?

Long story short, a government got overthrown, some people may still be fighting mad. I admit I don’t know much about the actual perpetrators of the attacks, but nonetheless the whole place I think could still be described as a ‘theater of war’. No?

[WillFarnaby]

@Try2B_Comprehensive

Well, before the war in Libya there was this guy who ruled as a dictator for 3 decades… anyway, there was a lot of criticism over this, not even counting the criticism about leading from behind. But even when the task was toppling a dictator it hardly got the prestige of war, but rather a half-hearted air assault. We left the bayonet in the bum stuff to the locals, but really, how else would you achieve that except by leading from behind?

While its true that he was a corrupt and malevolent dictator, the NATO intervention wasn’t supported by the majority of the Libyan public and the atrocities cited, by Clinton and others, were made up. it was a stereotypical case of the west attempting to support a rebellion to topple an unfriendly regime in hopes of influencing the incoming ruling class.

@Try2B_Comprehensive

Long story short, a government got overthrown, some people may still be fighting mad. I admit I don’t know much about the actual perpetrators of the attacks, but nonetheless the whole place I think could still be described as a ‘theater of war’. No?

Yeah, sure.

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

@XT

but seems like it was pretty much a classic terror attack from where I’m sitting. MMV and all that though.

You could say that about just about the whole Iraq war- our troops are marching or driving around, or just stationed in place, some guy sets off a bomb-> end of incident.

I can’t help thinking the context of violence is different in a country we were just bombing last season. To me, when I hear about terrorism I associate with it the nutjob fringe attitude that 'Muslims are all naturally violent and eeeviiiill." Whereas in a war zone, people fight back. That doesn’t make it ok, it just seems like a more realistic view to me, though people don’t seem very convinced…

[CoolHandCox]

@Try2B_Comprehensive

…I admit I don’t know much about the actual perpetrators of the attacks, but nonetheless the whole place I think could still be described as a ‘theater of war’. No?

Ansar al-Sharia. They are a conservative “security force” in Benghazi and elsewhere. They helped us defeat Gadhafi and his loyalists (just because they hated Gadhafi doesn’t mean they liked us). During the revolution they were known as the February 17 Brigade - some broke off and formed Ansar al-Sharia. You can google them for more info.

Here’s an Al Jazeera article about these militias in general: “Libyans rise up against militias’ dominance” written a few weeks after the attack.

Here’s a France24 article about them: “Who are Libya’s Ansar al-Sharia?”

The reason I say they are the group is based on what I’ve read they (1) claimed responsibility for the attack (they’ve also denied it), (2) they have the means (they would have RPG’s and mortars), and most importantly, (3) the remaining faction of the February 17 Brigade acts as the quick response security force to the US consulate and fought them during the Sep 11 attacks - they recognized their logos/emblems, ect.

oh, I wouldn’t describe Libya as a theatre of war, even if their actions were acts of war. It happened, but now it’s over.