Is the killing of a ambassador from any country ever justified
On 9 September the Consulate in Banghazi, Libya was attacked and overrun, killing Ambassador Chris Stevens, by Muslims that were offended by a film that allegedly ridiculed Islam's Prophet Muhammad. The last Ambassador killed was also American, Adolph Dubs after being kidnapped by Muslim insurgents in Kabul in 1979 demanding release of three captured Muslims. Yesterday the US embassy in Egypy was overrun and the flag tore down and replaced by a black flag. Again by Muslim supporters.
Historically diplomats have been considered peacemakers and not combatants as they work with other nation to resolve differences.
The diplomatic mission and the staff are invited into a nation to establish relations as the need for exchange has been recognized by both leaders. When religious leadership overrides the countries leaders decisions and wage religious wars where the only resolution is death to the infidels why continue the mission of diplomacy?
When incidents of extreme nature occur on embassy grounds and are contributed to a specific group is that an indicator that the diplomatic efforts to resolve differences is falling on deaf ears and that the countries should remove the diplomats.
That our foriegn policy is in the toliet is not a secret. However, that can change with new and strong leadership.
Therefore the debate is directed toward the effectiveness of the diplomatic mission in countries where the radical religious leaders who wish to wage war are the ultimate power. Should we continue diplomatic mission in such countries where US non-combatant citizens are put in harms way.