Obama and Romney: Their exchange on Libya was perhaps the most

heated of the second presidential debate. Libyans know that pressure

from the campaign makes direct retaliation very likely - and soon.

Attack on U.S. Consulate and Citizens Must Never Be Repeated (Quryna, Libya)

"What occurred was a conspiracy, orchestrated at the behest of foreign agendas, that was has little or nothing to do with abuse of the Holy Prophet. ... The U.S. administration may be in a state of shock at the moment, reevaluating its situation, geopolitical calculations and relations with the political forces in the Arab region. ... This painful attack directed at the U.S. administration will not pass without retaliation, which will be far-reaching, and will be aimed at influencing political and military alliances in Libya and North Africa."

By Fadl Abd al-Taif

Translated By Casey Patrick Reilly

October 2, 2012

Libya - Quryna - Original Article (Arabic)

Libya President Mohamed El-Magariaf addresses world leaders at the 67th opening of the U.N. General Assembly, Sept. 27. President El-Magariaf praised slain U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stephens as a 'voice of reason and conscience' and a 'messenger of peace.' He also called for the defeat of 'schemes of retarded terrorists who don't represent Libya.' UNITED NATIONS VIDEO: Libya President Mohamed El-Magariaf at 67th Opening of U.N. General Assembly, Sept. 27, 00:29:56

The right to peaceful protest and organized demonstrations are guaranteed as a legitimate means of expression by the customs and constitutions of democratic systems. But to launch an armed attack and create chaos and insecurity under the cover of peaceful protest can only be called illegal behavior contrary to national and international law and norms. This is a form of aggression that will bring similar violence by the other party acting in self-defense, and will lead to a cycle of action and reaction with incalculable results. Assuming the goodwill of demonstration organizers and provided that protesters are a set of ordinary individuals, it is most unlikely that such a group would have set fire to a U.S. Consulate, gruesomely killing the U.S. ambassador and three other U.S. citizens - regardless of their degree of anger. Hence one can say that the explanation closest to reality is that what occurred was a conspiracy, orchestrated at the behest of foreign agendas, that was has little or nothing to do with abuse of the Holy Prophet.

What makes an orchestrated plot the most likely explanation is the timing and circumstances that accompanied and preceded the attack, and here it seems, the fingerprints of retaliation against U.S. interests are clear. More than one party had justifications for a revenge attack, such as the killing of Abu Yahya al-Libi and other [al-Qaeda] targets, America's abandonment of Qaddafi and support for the uprising of the Libyan people.

What happened is that one or the other of these parties exploited the issue of the film [the Innocence of Muslims] to carry out a retaliatory strike against the U.S. Consulate. Perhaps the presence of the U.S. Ambassador was a coincidence, or maybe the planners were aware of his presence. But this doesn't mean that all participants in the demonstration should be stigmatized and brought up on charges of premeditated plotting or participating in the attack, since the majority of people at the protest were ordinary people motivated by impulse who were taken advantage of.

The diplomatic reply of the U.S. president to the incident, which was the first official reaction, may not reflect the reality of the situation in the U.S. The United States has to contend with the medium- and long-term dimensions, especially when it comes to the issue of American prestige and national security, and while President Obama is locked in a campaign for a second term.

For our part, what matters is to draw lessons from an analysis of the political and security data related to the armed attack and its consequences and implications for U.S.-Libya relations. We must ask ourselves what purpose was served by a terrorist attack against America on this scale inside Libyan territory. Obviously, a partial answer is that it is not in the interests of Libya, nor can it be called a victory for the Holy Prophet, nor is there any other rational justification.

The spate of assaults and armed attacks against U.S. embassies, which began in Egypt and soon found more violent and barbaric resonance in Libya, and after that in Yemen and other Islamic countries, formed a comprehensive blow against U.S. foreign policy in North Africa. This is particularly true, as the attacks came alongside a change in U.S. foreign policy, which has exhibited an openness to new political systems in what is idiomatically known as the revolutions of the Arab Spring. The movement has received wide-ranging political and unprecedented logistical support from the United States, its European allies and others. These attacks may therefore constitute a dangerous turn in the direction of U.S. foreign policy in this region.

Posted by Worldmeets.US

Given all this, the U.S. administration may be in a state of shock at the moment, reevaluating its situation, geopolitical calculations and relations with the political forces in the Arab region. However, we cannot change the facts. First, this terrorist act has not and will not be in the interests of Libya. As far as the slogans motivating the protesters (related to defending the Holy Prophet and Islam), thanks to the consequences of this brutal act of aggression, the consequences will be 100 percent counterproductive.

YOUR DONATION MAKES OUR WORK AS

A NON-PROFIT POSSIBLE. THANK YOU.