The US state department has apologised for comments made about Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's call for jihad against Switzerland.

Department spokesman PJ Crowley, who made the dismissive comments, said they did not reflect US policy and were not intended to offend.

Col Gaddafi had criticised a Swiss vote against the building of minarets and urged Muslims to boycott the country.

Mr Crowley described it as "lots of words, not necessarily a lot of sense."

Libya and Switzerland are embroiled in a long-running diplomatic row.

Clarification

"I regret that my comments have become an obstacle to further progress in our bilateral relationship," Mr Crowley said.

Last week, Libya's National Oil Corporation warned US oil firms of possible "repercussions" over Mr Crowley's reaction.

The Libyan ambassador to the US sought to clarify Col Gaddafi's remarks saying the Libyan leader meant an economic boycott not "an armed attack".

"I should have focused solely on our concern about the term jihad, which has since been clarified by the Libyan government," Mr Crowley added.

"I understand my personal comments were perceived as a personal attack on the president," he said.

"These comments do not reflect US policy and were not intended to offend. I apologise if they were taken that way."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8558764.stm

It was rumoured that the Lybian Locker bomber, a convicted Terrorist was released to strengthen the Bil etarial relationship between the UK and Libyan government. Once again Almighty US is swallowing their pride in an apology to maintain the progress in their bilateral relationship with Libya.
Common South Africa humiliated us in an Oscar nominated movie without an apology. when shall Nigeria start co manding such respect with the amount of Natural resources deposited in that country?

It was a single person who made an apology, not the US. I am not sure how that is the US. Didn't the article state the views of the person making the apology was never that of the US in the first place?

I saw this in the news this morning, and quite frankly, the report is misleading.

For example Jeremy Clarkson called the British Prime Minster a "One eyed scottish idiot" while this presenter in question is one of the top presenters at BBC, the view was a personal one and nothing to do with the BBC. How is this case different?

It was a single person who made an apology, not the US. I am not sure how that is the US. Didn't the article state the views of the person making the apology was never that of the US in the first place?

.
Well am not the writer, and i don't know what u understand by the word US or what makes up US government.
The article said The US state department has apologised for comments made about Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's call for jihad against Switzerland.
We know is a single person who made the comment, not for his personal interest but that of US state department, which is part of US government and the consequencies of his comment as state by the article was not gonna be personal but to US as a country. So i wonder how u think the apology was personal and not from the US. Not jst an ordinary person on the street made comment/apology, but someone with a US government Authority to comment on such issue. So i don't understand the fault of the BBC for their choice of words. unless you expect that the apology must come from Obama b4 u believe is the US.

I am not sure how that is the US. Didn't the article state the views of the person making the apology was never that of the US in the first place?

.
Oh C'mon that is a denial comment any one could make, becoz his comment sent a wrong signal out there, which might cost US a lot, he quickly put it off US policy. How would a US department of State spokesman individauly make a comment that does not reflect US policy?

People who work in a government or represent a government do have personal opinions too. That should not be mixed with the official stance of the government.

Here is the quote from the person who made the apology:



Department spokesman PJ Crowley, who made the dismissive comments, said they did not reflect US policy and were not intended to offend.


""I understand my personal comments were perceived as a personal attack on the president," he said.

"These comments do not reflect US policy and were not intended to offend. I apologise if they were taken that way."



And this was his original statement:

"".    .     .lots of words, not necessarily a lot of sense."


At no point was this the stance of the US government even though he works for them. So I am of the belief that it was him making an apology and not the US, hence why I said the article is misleading.


Quotes taken from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8558764.stm