The inflammatory movie against Prophet Muhammad is still on YouTube and the US Embassies around the world are feeling the tensions. The US citizens are also feeling the heat and situation is becoming graver because of the tensions between the US and Iran and other countries of Middle East.
The main issue against an American is to contemplate about the current situation in which they have had an ambassador (Chris Stevens) killed on foreign soil. Many Americans believe in the ideal of non-aggression principle. However, they also question about the authenticity of American presence in those countries. Yet, the instantaneous question that arises in front of them is, is the violent killing of American ambassador in Libya and other violent incidences cause for compensatory violence? Having been attacked, are the Americans justified in retaliating?
The very nature of this question is nationalistic and often people fail to analyze such situations in a rational way; rather they react emotionally.
Was it an Act of Initiation of Aggression?
It should be noted that the protesters against that movie clip which is against Prophet Muhammad are only active in certain countries including Libya, Yemen, and other such countries that have suffered the ill-effects of incessant war on terror being fought by the US government. Last year, these same countries were going through the Arab Spring and Army of the United States took an active role in the Arab Spring. Before analyzing the issue of violence against the US embassies and before trying to find a rational answer to the question whether the US army should retaliate or not, it is necessary to examine the whole episode properly.
While it is true that Qaddafi wasn’t a good ruler, and he was dictator, the government of the United States participated in the overthrow of the recognized government of Qaddafi in Libya. The truth is that every overthrow the American CIA has participated in these Arab Spring campaigns has empowered Muslims and it wasn’t a mistake, or coincidence. They act predictably as stooges to feed the fear-based promotions for constant war. The press eats it up, they love nothing more than a good religious war. However, it is not just a religious war for the US government, nor it is just a religious war for those Middle Easter countries 1 .
Yet, the mainstream media and the government is presenting this whole episode as if the mob that killed the US ambassador Chris Stevens was fired up because some guy in the US nobody ever heard of made a video/documentary that did not show Prophet Muhammad in a nice way. It is true that the mob was enraged because of that movie but was the anger enough to attack the embassy and kill the US Ambassador? The Muslims in other countries, such as Pakistan or India aren’t behaving in the similar violent fashion because of that movie, so why only in Libya, or Yemen and other countries that actually went through the Arab Spring last year?
Obvious Reasons behind Violence Against the U.S. Ambassy
One should also not forget that the whole intent of the US and other west countries in the Arab Spring was not just about bringing the democracy. The US government itself helped Qaddafi to control Libya. Yet, when Qaddafi started trying to have ways to sell the Libyan oil in exchange of gold or other currency other than Dollar, he became an enemy of the United States government. It was just a repetition as the same thing happened with Saddam Hussein. It was a well known fact that Saddam Hussein had no role in 9/11/2001 attacks. Some people mention that Saddam did sponsor the terror cell Fatah Revolutionary Council which carried out the 1993 Truck bombing attack on the same WTC and hence, the US government had some clue to attack on Iraq. However, it should be noted that the whole episode of Fatah Revolutionary Council was well supported by the Intelligence operatives of the US (F.B.I) who infiltrated that group and assisted the whole operation, and when the opportunity arose to switch out the explosives with harmless powder, they refused. Later on, it was said that the F.B.I “messed it up.2 ” So, it can be said that all the evidences against Saddam Hussein were planned.
The new Libyan government again is not very happy about the control of American companies over the Libyan oil and the continuous drone attacks in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen and other Muslim countries is further infuriating the mob anger since long. The movie clip against Prophet Muhammad just became the last nail in the coffin of peace yet, it wasn’t the major reason for the violence. The Independent has clearly reported that the whole issue of violence in Libya and other Muslim countries against American Embassies and the killing of Chris Stevens might just have been a retaliatory action of al-Qaida for the killing in a drone strike in Pakistan of Mohammed Hassan Qaeda, an al-Qa’ida operative who was, as his nom-de-guerre Abu Yahya al-Libi suggests, from Libya, and timed for the anniversary of the 11 September attacks3 . In addition, right before the Democratic National Convention earlier this month, the United States reportedly killed 10 civilians in Yemen in a drone strike4 .
What Could be the Other Reasons
It should be clear now that the violence wasn’t initiated by the Libyans in this case and it was a preplanned act of retaliation against initiation of violence. Furthermore, one cannot ignore the issue of Petro Dollars too. After Qaddafi’s demise, the Libyan oil is in hands of Western countries and they also have control over Syrian oil. Now, the only state with audacity to do petro business without being dependent on the US and other western countries is Iran and Iran is being noticed as a target since many years. Some conspiracy theorists are also skeptic about the whole issue of the retaliation by al-Qaida. They question about the authenticity of the whole episode and ask question like what makes one think this attack wasn’t somehow staged by Israel or the US as a way to justify another war or to prepare grounds for it?
While such accusations seem to be preposterous, however, skepticism suggests that nothing should be ignored. Saudi Arabians were blamed for September 11, 2001 attacks and this was used as justification to attack Iraq, what if now the US government and NATO uses Libyan attack as a justification to attack Iran? Iraq didn’t have any Weapon of Mass Destruction, but Iran is continuing its nuclear researches and while the Iranian government claims that its nuclear programs are just meant for civilian usage of nuclear energy, the US, Israel, and other Western countries do not buy that argument.
One may question whether the US government can plan for killing of its own Ambassador to instigate a war? It is a difficult question to answer and I feel that it is unlikely. But we should also notice that the US government exactly knows that the new regime of Libya is certainly not US friendly and nor the US government sent its Ambassador to promote friendly relations with Libya. The US Embassy in Libya is to confirm its share of profits of oil of that region. The US government knew that the new Libyan government is pro-Islamic and anti-West. Considering all these facts, one may feel that the US ambassadors in all such countries where the Muslim Brotherhood is strong are just throw-away. In reality, if you put people in places where the people hate us with implacable malice, and you don’t have the means to really protect them, then there is no other way to view it.
Conclusion
It is beyond any doubt that the killing of the U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevenson wasn’t the initiation of aggression; rather, it was an act of retaliation of those who are continuously being attacked since long. Thus, the U.S. government now has no moral right to act against the Libyan government or the Libyan mob that killed the ambassador as it won’t be an act of self-defense.
While I am no cynic, but I also realize that the US economy is in deep troubles and it never recovered against the economic turmoil of 2008 and hence, another war and further militarism may prove to be an excuse for the government to drag the minds of people from their economic difficulties towards something nationalistic. Military Keynesianism and Militarism are certainly dangerous threats and most of the Keynesians do believe that the US recovered against the Great Depression because of the World War II. Anything is possible, but one thing is certain that while Muslims are relatively less tolerant about the issue of their religion and Prophet Muhammad, they are certainly not as intolerant and insane that they will start attacking embassies and killing ambassadors of the United States just because of a ridiculously fraudulent movie against Prophet Muhammad.
Update: NATO Killed Eight Afghan Women again who were Unarmed and Innocent. This is continual initiation of aggression and it will create further violence and hatred. But Military Keynesians care less for Human Life and Moral responsibility.
- Google Please Pull Down the Obnoxious Film, Sanjeev Sabhlok [↩]
- 1993 WTC Terror Attack and Intelleigence Failure, the suspicious role of F.B.I. [↩]
- Inside story of US envoy’s assassination in Libya, The Independent [↩]
- White House Can’t Conceive That Embassy Attack Might be Mote Than A Movie, Reason.com [↩]
