All of only each or all of the above?
You should know that Qaddaffi was the dictator of Libya and was overthrown. Many people want to claim that what was behind his overthrow can be neatly packaged as opposed to a swirling mess manipulated by many minds with varying agendas, some that overlap each other and cross otherwise clear ideological lines. "Politics makes strange bedfellows" is the old and apt saying.
So, Arab Spring protests started in Benghazi, Libya. Qaddaffi reacted with the determination that under no circumstances would he be overthrown and that he would use all means at his disposal to prevent any change in Libyan government, whether that Arab Spring Movement in Libya would remain as peaceful demonstrations, as they started, or not.
The violence ratcheted up. Threats ratcheted up. Obama held back for whatever reason. Question: If he had done nothing and Qaddaffi had carried out his pledge to go house to house in Benghazi spilling blood, would Obama have faced the same criticism Clinton faced for not having intervened in the Rwandan Genocide? Yes.
Clarification: Did I call for US military intervention in Libya? No. I called for non-violent humanitarian action only. I also called for the protesters to not resort to violence! In fact, I thought those protests were at best grossly premature — that Qaddaffi could have been and should have been dealt with differently exactly to avoid the huge bloodshed that occurred while resulting in vastly better reforms than have occurred in Libya.
Nevertheless, Qaddaffi was, as I predicted, overthrown by US-backed forces.
The US set up shop in Benghazi. On September 11, 2012, the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, the US "shop" in Benghazi was attacked. John Christopher Stevens, the U.S. Ambassador to Libya at the time, and other Americans, were killed. See: J. Christopher Stevens.
What was the first reason for the attack that was offered up the the Western mainstream media? It was that Salafi Muslims were upset over the movie called "The Innocence of Muslims."
Well, it was certainly true that Salafis and others were "up in arms," so to speak, over that movie; however, there are those who would have us completely factor that out of the equation, as if that movie was not part of the whole picture of stirring up Salafi and other Islamic or Muslim sentiments against "Western" culture and imperialism and financial dominance, etc. They'd have us believe that the one and only thing going on was US covert imperialism. Everything is to be boiled down to that al Qaeda is absolutely nothing more than a US tool, as if all Arabs, all Muslims, are mindless sheep who don't want the downfall of the US, per al Qaeda. Please, the US uses al Qaeda, uses Muslims, uses Islam, but that doesn't make any of those things wholly under the power of the US. The US manipulates. It doesn't totally control.
Of course the US is engaged in Syria. The reasons for that are, as suggested above, a swirling mess. That is not to say that at any given moment there is not one person in the world who holds the most worldly power. There is always such a one. That one's position is always tentative, always fleeting, almost always subject to huge bouts of paranoia (justified in a twisted way).
The above two "reasons" for the attacks on the US Benghazi so-called Consulate are not the only reasons cited on the Internet. There's also the dismissed and rather hushed-up issue of homosexuality. Anti-Islamic forces bumped heads with pro-Obama forces on this. Check it out. Here's a hyper-Zionist, pro-homosexuality site saying that John Christopher Stevens (aka: J. Christopher Stevens; Christopher Stevens; Chris Stevens) was not only an out-homosexual but was sodomized by the Muslims who carried out the Benghazi attack. Not to be outdone though, here comes a pro-Obama site saying that the anti-homosexuality slant is delusional and that there is zero evidence that Stevens was sodomized by the anti-Sodomite, sodomizing Muslims.
"Not so fast," you might imagine hearing from some homosexual circles who are more interested in downing "conservative" Islam than upholding so-called "liberal" politics. According to this homosexual, there is no doubt whatsoever that Stevens was a known homosexual, had to have been known to be such by the Salafis in Libya, and that, that would certainly factor in and should, of course, be a rallying cry for all the homosexuals and pro-homosexuals out there to take precedence over covering for the Obama administration.
Let's not forget the Muslim's outrage in Pakistan over the Obama administration quite deliberately provoking Muslims over the question of homosexuality.
By the way, what makes anyone simply take the US government's medical report about Stevens being sodomized or not for granted? If Stevens had a history of engaging in homosexual sex, such sodomy by the Muslims, which could have been simply inserting foreign objects and not their own penises, would have to have been very violent to leave evidence over and above the tissue damage already present as a result of decades of Stevens receiving anal intercourse.
Also, if you think that homosexuality doesn't get all jumbled up in politics between left and right, etc., think again. Check out this article about how confused the whole thing is concerning Venezuela. Who's the left versus the right on the issue of homosexuality there? The answer is that homosexuality is not an issue of "left" or "right" but right or wrong.
My position is that homosexuality is a fundamental error.
You will see and hear the term homophobic tossed around. Well, let me ask you if you would sleep with black widow spiders? There are those who have done that for years, but would you? If not, does that make you arachnophobic? You may suffer from arachnophobia, but not wanting to sleep with black widow spiders does not automatically correctly define you as arachnophobic.
Not wanting to sleep with homosexuals, not agreeing that homosexuality is healthy, saying that it is not good, does not define you as phobic about homosexuality. It does not mean you have an irrational fear of homosexuals. It may mean you fear homosexuality, as you fear allowing black widow spiders to inhabit your bed with you (or anyone else) — very rational, not that you might escape black widow bites for years as you gamble. Why gamble with that? Why not be comfortable with a black-widow-free bed and black-widow-free house, etc.
The argument is whether homosexuality is benign. I say it is not. I say it is part of the slippery slope to Hell on Earth. Know this: it's much more important to avoid Hell than it is the worldly fleshly bite from a black widow spider, though they are both darkside.