Little-Acorn
Gold Member
- Jun 20, 2006
- 10,025
- 2,410
Something I wrote the day after the attacks on our consulates in Egypt and Benghazi, Libya:
------------------------------------------
Yesterday, on the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks against the United States, the U.S. Embassies and consulates in both Egypt and Libya were attacked. And now comes the news that the U.S. Ambassdor to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens, was killed by the armed invaders.
This wasn't "just another American" who was killed, though that would certainly be bad enough.
These people killed the U.S. Ambassador to Libya. Among others.
Am I the only one who finds this to be a monstrous act, worse even than the armed invasion of U.S. sovereign territory (the embassies in Egypt and Libya)? (An invasion which, as I have pointed out elsewhere, is worse in turn than an armed invasion of a U.S. coastal city.)
Any invasion of U.S. territory is, as is agreed by all civilized countries, an act of war. An invasion of a U.S. Embassy is even worse - embassies are to be held inviolate, so that even the warring powers can continue diplomatic relations in hopes of stopping the war. Without intact, functioning embassies and consulates, there can be no negotiations, no terms, and no surrender - there literally would be no channels for communication, nobody to surrender to, with no possible end to the war except the complete destruction, capture, and annihilation to the last man, of one (or both) sides.
Deliberately damaging or destroying the embassy, means that those doing the destroying have descended into barbarism, having no interest in stopping the killing, no desire to negotiate, no interest in redressing grievances, EVER. And the killing of the Ambassador, is worst of all, for obvious reasons: They are systematically breaking the chain of negotiation. And only persons higher in the chain, is SecState and the President himself.
Invading an embassy and killing the Ambassador, means that the invaders aren't making war for the usual purpose a nation makes war (collecting loot and/or forcing their victim to change national policy). The invaders are simply bent on complete, unending destruction.
To put it mildly, they should be careful what they wish for.
------------------------------------------
Yesterday, on the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks against the United States, the U.S. Embassies and consulates in both Egypt and Libya were attacked. And now comes the news that the U.S. Ambassdor to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens, was killed by the armed invaders.
This wasn't "just another American" who was killed, though that would certainly be bad enough.
These people killed the U.S. Ambassador to Libya. Among others.
Am I the only one who finds this to be a monstrous act, worse even than the armed invasion of U.S. sovereign territory (the embassies in Egypt and Libya)? (An invasion which, as I have pointed out elsewhere, is worse in turn than an armed invasion of a U.S. coastal city.)
Any invasion of U.S. territory is, as is agreed by all civilized countries, an act of war. An invasion of a U.S. Embassy is even worse - embassies are to be held inviolate, so that even the warring powers can continue diplomatic relations in hopes of stopping the war. Without intact, functioning embassies and consulates, there can be no negotiations, no terms, and no surrender - there literally would be no channels for communication, nobody to surrender to, with no possible end to the war except the complete destruction, capture, and annihilation to the last man, of one (or both) sides.
Deliberately damaging or destroying the embassy, means that those doing the destroying have descended into barbarism, having no interest in stopping the killing, no desire to negotiate, no interest in redressing grievances, EVER. And the killing of the Ambassador, is worst of all, for obvious reasons: They are systematically breaking the chain of negotiation. And only persons higher in the chain, is SecState and the President himself.
Invading an embassy and killing the Ambassador, means that the invaders aren't making war for the usual purpose a nation makes war (collecting loot and/or forcing their victim to change national policy). The invaders are simply bent on complete, unending destruction.
To put it mildly, they should be careful what they wish for.
