If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   Benghazi consulate had no Marine protection - but c'mon, it's Libya. Who could have predicted things might go pear-shaped in a place like that?   (politico.com) divider line 307
    More: Followup, Benghazi, Libya, Ambassadors of the United States, protections, u.s. consulate, surveillance aircraft, Libyan rebels, Defense Secretary Robert Gates  
•       •       •

5743 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Sep 2012 at 8:02 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



307 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-09-13 08:07:18 AM
I blame Obama repealing DADT.
 
2012-09-13 08:07:19 AM
We sent dignitaries THEN security personnel instead of the other way around?

We really are the overconfident assholes the rest of the countries accuse us of being.
 
2012-09-13 08:07:33 AM
Maybe Obama would have if he attended his intelligence reviews instead of requesting bear hugs from pizza shop owners for campaign fodder.
 
2012-09-13 08:10:23 AM

tereklusec: WeDemocrats sent dignitaries THEN security personnel instead of the other way around?

WeDemocrats really are the overconfident assholes the rest of the countries accuse us of being.


FTFY
 
2012-09-13 08:10:38 AM

1nsanilicious: Maybe Obama would have if he attended his intelligence reviews instead of requesting bear hugs from pizza shop owners for campaign fodder.


That told him.
 
2012-09-13 08:11:34 AM
This is proof that people shouldn't be carrying guns in America if I ever saw it.
 
2012-09-13 08:11:54 AM
Marines? All the way over there by Tripoli? Unlikely.
 
2012-09-13 08:13:15 AM
Well, the latest trend is outsourcing. The government can save taxpayers' money by paying employees of Blackwater/Xe/What-ever-those-criminals-currently-call-themselves many times more what an active duty member of the military would earn. It's all part of the important cost-cutting drive to run government more like a business.
 
2012-09-13 08:13:18 AM

1nsanilicious: tereklusec: WeDemocrats sent dignitaries THEN security personnel instead of the other way around?

WeDemocrats really are the overconfident assholes the rest of the countries accuse us of being.

FTFY


I'm as remorseful as you are that Democrats are also Americans, but sadly it's a truth we cannot change. So I stand, regretfully, correct in my original statement.
 
2012-09-13 08:13:55 AM

I_Can't_Believe_it's_not_Boutros: Marines? All the way over there by Tripoli? Unlikely.


Thread over
 
2012-09-13 08:15:19 AM
So the right wingers shiatting all over the marines have been incorrect? This is a shocking development.
 
2012-09-13 08:15:25 AM
It is hard to predict what will set off Muslim nations, this time its about a movie that no one has ever heard of and these douchebags whipped themselves into a frenzy, created by asinine coonts for political gain.

One thing for sure is the leadership in Egypt doesn't have the cojones to quell the Islamists, it is going to be fun to see that country slowly rot in the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood.

I have always thought the Middle East is a rotten part of the world that should be shunned from the International community, that includes Israel.

These backward, feckless people deserve to be left to rot...
 
2012-09-13 08:15:50 AM

I_Can't_Believe_it's_not_Boutros: Marines? All the way over there by Tripoli? Unlikely.


Well, maybe up to the shore. But inland?
 
2012-09-13 08:16:16 AM
There are many missions that have no Marine presence and Marines, when present, protect information not personnel. Embassy and consulate protection is the responsibility of the host government.
 
2012-09-13 08:17:19 AM

Lunaville: Well, the latest trend is outsourcing. The government can save taxpayers' money by paying employees of Blackwater/Xe/What-ever-those-criminals-currently-call-themselves many times more what an active duty member of the military would earn. It's all part of the important cost-cutting drive to run government more like a business.


We already do that. Take a look at the Worldwide Personnel Protective Services contract.
 
2012-09-13 08:17:27 AM

oeneus: There are many missions that have no Marine presence and Marines, when present, protect information not personnel. Embassy and consulate protection is the responsibility of the host government.


Marines, like all armed forces, protect whatever you tell them to. And they protect it well, with violence if necessary.
 
2012-09-13 08:18:05 AM

1nsanilicious: Maybe Obama would have if he attended his intelligence reviews instead of requesting bear hugs from pizza shop owners for campaign fodder.


lolz. 6/10
 
2012-09-13 08:18:10 AM
1nsanilicious
2012-09-13 08:10:23 AM

tereklusec: WeDemocrats sent dignitaries THEN security personnel instead of the other way around?

WeDemocrats really are the overconfident assholes the rest of the countries accuse us of being.

FTFY

-1/10 not serious

No Moniclinton mention?
-2
Back to troll school, tool.
 
2012-09-13 08:18:12 AM

oeneus: There are many missions that have no Marine presence and Marines, when present, protect information not personnel. Embassy and consulate protection is the responsibility of the host government.


BUT HOW COME OBAMA DIDN'T HAVE AN ARMORED DIVISION THERE TO KILL THE PROTESTORS?!
 
2012-09-13 08:18:14 AM

I_Can't_Believe_it's_not_Boutros: Marines? All the way over there by Tripoli? Unlikely.


They were back in the halls with Montezuma's revenge.
 
2012-09-13 08:18:19 AM

Cork on Fork: I_Can't_Believe_it's_not_Boutros: Marines? All the way over there by Tripoli? Unlikely.

Well, maybe up to the shore. But inland?


Maybe they were busy looking for the halls of Montezuma.
 
2012-09-13 08:18:45 AM
Yeah, I'm sure that we left an embassy completely unguarded.
 
2012-09-13 08:18:48 AM

tereklusec: I'm as remorseful as you are that Democrats are also Americans, but sadly it's a truth we cannot change. So I stand, regretfully, correct in my original statement


You're about as funny as end stage syphilis
 
2012-09-13 08:19:03 AM

Lunaville: Well, the latest trend is outsourcing. The government can save taxpayers' money by paying employees of Blackwater/Xe/What-ever-those-criminals-currently-call-themselves many times more what an active duty member of the military would earn. It's all part of the important cost-cutting drive to run government more like a business.


.
.
You would be surprised how cheap you can get Fijians to guard a US consulate.
 
2012-09-13 08:20:13 AM

oeneus: There are many missions that have no Marine presence and Marines, when present, protect information not personnel. Embassy and consulate protection is the responsibility of the host government.


exactly. the host country determines security. these dignitaries know their job can be dangerous. but something is fishy with all this and that video. this whole thing just feels weird. like we're being played. and yes I do watch shows like Rubicon,Jericho and Homeland. Why do you ask?
 
2012-09-13 08:22:18 AM
There was some security with the ambassador. From reading all the accounts, you can deduce that there was a small handful of non-uniformed types that were in charge of security. It sounds like they got to a more secure area and were eventually able to hold out until the militants dispersed, but two of those guys got killed in the gun battle. I don't suspect we'll find out their identities.
 
2012-09-13 08:22:37 AM

HotWingConspiracy: oeneus: There are many missions that have no Marine presence and Marines, when present, protect information not personnel. Embassy and consulate protection is the responsibility of the host government.

BUT HOW COME OBAMA DIDN'T HAVE AN ARMORED DIVISION THERE TO KILL THE PROTESTORS?!


Troll or not, I find it necessary to iterate at least for the public viewers that people can protest without firing RPGs at other people, and that once a protest becomes so inherently violent it becomes a crime. A crime which can be defended against, and if necessary, interceded upon with violence in order to protect the innocent. Were there to be a unit assigned, and were they to have slain these individuals instead of neutralizing or detaining them with some other manner, they would have been killing murderers not protestors. I think that distinction is important.

If they had raped a single white female your outrage would be changing teams, I think, and you would be calling them rapists instead of protestors.
 
2012-09-13 08:23:21 AM

david_gaithersburg: Lunaville: Well, the latest trend is outsourcing. The government can save taxpayers' money by paying employees of Blackwater/Xe/What-ever-those-criminals-currently-call-themselves many times more what an active duty member of the military would earn. It's all part of the important cost-cutting drive to run government more like a business.

.
.
You would be surprised how cheap you can get Fijians to guard a US consulate.


Not if they are working for URG or Garda. We had two Fijians PSDs in Karrada and they were making pretty good coin working for URG, and several of their friends were working for Garda in the Green Zone.

For some odd reasons, Fijians are considered Australians when hired by US companies overseas. The Fijians found this amusing.
 
2012-09-13 08:24:39 AM

X-boxershorts: tereklusec: I'm as remorseful as you are that Democrats are also Americans, but sadly it's a truth we cannot change. So I stand, regretfully, correct in my original statement

You're about as funny as end stage syphilis


Have you seen end-stage syphillis? Did you know it eats cartilage? They have these goofy deflated noses, so hilario-...wait..you were joking, right? That was a joke?
 
2012-09-13 08:24:51 AM
Maybe they were off being brave, courageous heroes elsewhere.
 
2012-09-13 08:24:59 AM
If you've ever been to a US Embassy or consulate, those things are basically fortresses with multiple blast-proof doors. Remember how we spent $2 billion on the one in Baghdad? And it's not even just the ones in recent war zones. Visit the US embassies and consulates in countries that are friendly to the US and have no history of political violence and you'll see the same thing.

To think that we'd have consular staff in basically an office park in what was up until a few months ago a war zone is concerning and makes you realize how brave the people were who worked there. To claim that it was "interim facility" and hence had no serious protection would seem to have things completely backward. If it was interim and difficult to secure, you'd think that would be a case for going overboard on protection, and that's not even mentioning the 9/11 anniversary connection. I hope a thorough investigation is conducted so we can find out what really happened, although that probably won't be the case.
 
2012-09-13 08:25:22 AM

tereklusec: HotWingConspiracy: oeneus: There are many missions that have no Marine presence and Marines, when present, protect information not personnel. Embassy and consulate protection is the responsibility of the host government.

BUT HOW COME OBAMA DIDN'T HAVE AN ARMORED DIVISION THERE TO KILL THE PROTESTORS?!

Troll or not, I find it necessary to iterate at least for the public viewers that people can protest without firing RPGs at other people, and that once a protest becomes so inherently violent it becomes a crime. A crime which can be defended against, and if necessary, interceded upon with violence in order to protect the innocent. Were there to be a unit assigned, and were they to have slain these individuals instead of neutralizing or detaining them with some other manner, they would have been killing murderers not protestors. I think that distinction is important.


Perhaps you missed the part where the host country handles security for consulates?

If they had raped a single white female your outrage would be changing teams, I think, and you would be calling them rapists instead of protestors.

I don't even know what the fark to say to this. Why do people like you bring race in to everything?
 
2012-09-13 08:25:32 AM

SeismicJizzer: It is hard to predict what will set off Muslim nations, this time its about a movie that no one has ever heard of and these douchebags whipped themselves into a frenzy, created by asinine coonts for political gain.

One thing for sure is the leadership in Egypt doesn't have the cojones to quell the Islamists, it is going to be fun to see that country slowly rot in the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood.

I have always thought the Middle East is a rotten part of the world that should be shunned from the International community, that includes Israel.

These backward, feckless people deserve to be left to rot...


You have a 'thing' for rotting.
 
2012-09-13 08:26:18 AM
Seriously people

it's easier for the US gub'mint to have dead americans than to have to apologize to these (continuously) outraged places for soldiers killing in order to stay alive.
Been happening for years in the desert.
 
2012-09-13 08:27:10 AM

tereklusec: If they had raped a single white female your outrage would be changing teams, I think, and you would be calling them rapists instead of protestors.


It would depend on whether it was a Republican or Democrat who did the raping.

/Because this is Fark.
 
2012-09-13 08:27:42 AM

beefoe: If you've ever been to a US Embassy or consulate, those things are basically fortresses with multiple blast-proof doors. Remember how we spent $2 billion on the one in Baghdad? And it's not even just the ones in recent war zones. Visit the US embassies and consulates in countries that are friendly to the US and have no history of political violence and you'll see the same thing.

To think that we'd have consular staff in basically an office park in what was up until a few months ago a war zone is concerning and makes you realize how brave the people were who worked there. To claim that it was "interim facility" and hence had no serious protection would seem to have things completely backward. If it was interim and difficult to secure, you'd think that would be a case for going overboard on protection, and that's not even mentioning the 9/11 anniversary connection. I hope a thorough investigation is conducted so we can find out what really happened, although that probably won't be the case.


Said better than I was able to.
 
2012-09-13 08:28:39 AM

I_Can't_Believe_it's_not_Boutros: Marines? All the way over there by Tripoli? Unlikely.


To be fair, Benghazi is 150 miles east of Tripoli and the song does say "to the shores of Tripoli", so basically outside thier coverage area.
 
2012-09-13 08:29:27 AM
Well sure, all the shooting between the defenders and the attackers didn't contain marines...

though there were 2 marines and a communications officer killed as the "3 staffers" the U.S. articles talk about, or the "3 others" Obama mentioned.

It seems all the articles outside the U.S. seem to think marine uniforms and weapons on dead "staffers" tend to indicate something.
 
2012-09-13 08:30:05 AM

HotWingConspiracy: BUT HOW COME OBAMA DIDN'T HAVE AN ARMORED DIVISION THERE TO KILL THE PROTESTORS?!


Are morons like you still calling them protestors? So far we know that they had heavy machine guns, rocket propelled grenades and also launched a coordinated mortar attack.
 
2012-09-13 08:30:17 AM

HotWingConspiracy: tereklusec: HotWingConspiracy: oeneus: There are many missions that have no Marine presence and Marines, when present, protect information not personnel. Embassy and consulate protection is the responsibility of the host government.

BUT HOW COME OBAMA DIDN'T HAVE AN ARMORED DIVISION THERE TO KILL THE PROTESTORS?!

Troll or not, I find it necessary to iterate at least for the public viewers that people can protest without firing RPGs at other people, and that once a protest becomes so inherently violent it becomes a crime. A crime which can be defended against, and if necessary, interceded upon with violence in order to protect the innocent. Were there to be a unit assigned, and were they to have slain these individuals instead of neutralizing or detaining them with some other manner, they would have been killing murderers not protestors. I think that distinction is important.

Perhaps you missed the part where the host country handles security for consulates?

If they had raped a single white female your outrage would be changing teams, I think, and you would be calling them rapists instead of protestors.

I don't even know what the fark to say to this. Why do people like you bring race in to everything?


I did not miss anything. I think that what beefoe wrote better explains my thoughts on this. Read his post. Again, if necessary.

As for forcing the race issue I think you trying to force anti-Obamaism and overzealous lust for violence into the equation is as equally nonsensical, and so I retaliated in like fashion for shock value so that you might understand the nature of your error.
 
2012-09-13 08:31:05 AM
What was the Ambassador to Libya doing in an unfortified consulate (unlike the US Embassy in Tripoli) without Marine protection? The situation seems very strange to me.
 
2012-09-13 08:31:16 AM
The Marines didn't stop the Iranian capture of our embassy.

They are no protection against a major foreign policy failure.
 
2012-09-13 08:31:16 AM

beefoe: If you've ever been to a US Embassy or consulate, those things are basically fortresses with multiple blast-proof doors.


I was working for a structural engineer here in DC back in the early 90's. I was pretty junior but right after I started there was some talk about how they had recently been approached to work on a new embassy over there, thinking back I swear now I think it might have been in Libya. I can't recall for sure where but it was in that general region that made everybody's eyes light up. The engineers were all excited and just throwing around shop talk about the enormous amount of concrete design they would have to do. They were stoked, but I think they passed on the job.
 
2012-09-13 08:33:30 AM

xtragrind: HotWingConspiracy: BUT HOW COME OBAMA DIDN'T HAVE AN ARMORED DIVISION THERE TO KILL THE PROTESTORS?!

Are morons like you still calling them protestors?


Yes.

So far we know that they had heavy machine guns, rocket propelled grenades and also launched a coordinated mortar attack.

Right. Those people would not be labeled protestors. Though if you can show me that everyone there was armed and stormed the consulate, I'll stop calling the unarmed protestors protestors.
 
2012-09-13 08:34:17 AM
The intelligence source contrasted it with the American embassy in Cairo, Egypt - "a permanent facility, which is a lot easier to defend."

You mean the facility where protesters easily climbed over the wall, tore down the US flag, ripped it to shreds, then hung up an Islamic flag....on 9/11?
Yeah, that place sounds real secure.
 
2012-09-13 08:34:20 AM
Look, all you need to understand (are you listening, press?) is that this was a coordinated attack by Al Qaida in retribution for the killing of one of their leaders in late August. The Libyan ambassador was targeted where he was because of the lack of security.

Countries that host embassies also have a repsonsibility to keep mobs clear from the surrounding areas through crowd control. It's possible, in this case, that not only did that not happen, but government personnel were actually involved in the attack.

It's getting a bit sickening that the red herring of "that bad bad film thoise racists are making" is continually being floated as the reason for these attacks. These were not "protestors" - they were attackers.

This was a terrorist attack.

It's very likely the attack on the Egyptian embassy was part of that. The Yemeni embassy attacks might also be a part of that (or it's just momentum).

Who is to blame? How about we blame radical Islamists for being what they are? No more reason is needed beyond that. There are several ways to stop these attacks, but appeasement isn't a practical choice.
 
2012-09-13 08:36:04 AM
This is what happens when you stop at the shores of Tripoli.
 
2012-09-13 08:36:19 AM

tereklusec: HotWingConspiracy: tereklusec: HotWingConspiracy: oeneus: There are many missions that have no Marine presence and Marines, when present, protect information not personnel. Embassy and consulate protection is the responsibility of the host government.

BUT HOW COME OBAMA DIDN'T HAVE AN ARMORED DIVISION THERE TO KILL THE PROTESTORS?!

Troll or not, I find it necessary to iterate at least for the public viewers that people can protest without firing RPGs at other people, and that once a protest becomes so inherently violent it becomes a crime. A crime which can be defended against, and if necessary, interceded upon with violence in order to protect the innocent. Were there to be a unit assigned, and were they to have slain these individuals instead of neutralizing or detaining them with some other manner, they would have been killing murderers not protestors. I think that distinction is important.

Perhaps you missed the part where the host country handles security for consulates?

If they had raped a single white female your outrage would be changing teams, I think, and you would be calling them rapists instead of protestors.

I don't even know what the fark to say to this. Why do people like you bring race in to everything?

I did not miss anything. I think that what beefoe wrote better explains my thoughts on this. Read his post. Again, if necessary.


That still completely ignores that the host country provides security for consulates.

As for forcing the race issue I think you trying to force anti-Obamaism and overzealous lust for violence into the equation is as equally nonsensical, and so I retaliated in like fashion for shock value so that you might understand the nature of your error.

Yeah, nobody believes that.
 
2012-09-13 08:37:04 AM
To be fair, America had just liberated Libya.
 
2012-09-13 08:37:19 AM
I don't believe there is a conspiracy here, but the Internet is already going the crazy-lunatic route on this one, for some pretty good reasons.

//It would appear to be a no-brainer that some serious defense should have been provided, but I guess this is all hindsight fodder.
 
2012-09-13 08:38:14 AM

lunchinlewis: There was some security with the ambassador. From reading all the accounts, you can deduce that there was a small handful of non-uniformed types that were in charge of security. It sounds like they got to a more secure area and were eventually able to hold out until the militants dispersed, but two of those guys got killed in the gun battle. I don't suspect we'll find out their identities.


I don't know that this has been touched on on Fark (It must have), but I know there is a lot of overlap on the two sites. One of the Americans killed in Libya on September 11th was a SomethingAwful forums Debate and Discussion forums moderator.

Link
 
2012-09-13 08:38:21 AM
I work near a handful of embassies here in Tokyo and none have the security that the American embassy has.

That we need that kind of security is indicative of a bigger problem than just losing a few diplomats sometimes. We have too many enemies, fight too many wars, and tread too heavily in foreign affairs. This isn't a good long term position.
 
2012-09-13 08:38:31 AM

SeismicJizzer: I have always thought the Middle East is a rotten part of the world


Can't can't have always thought that. You probably weren't even born fifty years ago. How could you have thought it then?
 
2012-09-13 08:38:44 AM
What's that? Temporary consulates don't have the same protection as permanent embassies?

More at 11
 
2012-09-13 08:38:45 AM
The reason things go wrong is because the US sticks its nose in places where it doesn't belong. The place was safe under Ghaddafi and the US (knowingly) messed it up. Don't be surprised when it goes bad (like they fully expected it to).
 
2012-09-13 08:39:32 AM

Cobblestone Flag: lunchinlewis: There was some security with the ambassador. From reading all the accounts, you can deduce that there was a small handful of non-uniformed types that were in charge of security. It sounds like they got to a more secure area and were eventually able to hold out until the militants dispersed, but two of those guys got killed in the gun battle. I don't suspect we'll find out their identities.

I don't know that this has been touched on on Fark (It must have), but I know there is a lot of overlap on the two sites. One of the Americans killed in Libya on September 11th was a SomethingAwful forums Debate and Discussion forums moderator.

Link


Vile Rat was also an EVE player who was well-known for his diplomatic skills that prevented many in-game wars.
 
2012-09-13 08:42:04 AM
Is it too much of a fact load to point out that the Embassy is in Tripoli. The facility in Benghazi is a consulate. Kind of like a field office.
 
2012-09-13 08:43:43 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Right. Those people would not be labeled protestors. Though if you can show me that everyone there was armed and stormed the consulate, I'll stop calling the unarmed protestors protestors.


How about calling them "willing human shields for terrorists?" Is that a term you'd accept?

/actually, I don't really care
//it's only going to get crazier, at least to the people who have willingly blinded themselves to how the real world works
 
2012-09-13 08:44:33 AM
I blame Mitt Romney
 
2012-09-13 08:45:03 AM

advex101: Is it too much of a fact load to point out that the Embassy is in Tripoli. The facility in Benghazi is a consulate. Kind of like a field office.


Americans don't really understand that kind of stuff. Most never leave their home county.
 
2012-09-13 08:45:03 AM
Hey, none of those protesters had more than 2 ounces of shampoo with them. Or nailfiles.
You can't explain that.
 
2012-09-13 08:46:14 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: advex101: Is it too much of a fact load to point out that the Embassy is in Tripoli. The facility in Benghazi is a consulate. Kind of like a field office.

Americans don't really understand that kind of stuff. Most never leave their home county.


Nonsense. There's 50k+ in Afghanistan this very minute.
 
2012-09-13 08:46:27 AM

Cobblestone Flag: lunchinlewis: There was some security with the ambassador. From reading all the accounts, you can deduce that there was a small handful of non-uniformed types that were in charge of security. It sounds like they got to a more secure area and were eventually able to hold out until the militants dispersed, but two of those guys got killed in the gun battle. I don't suspect we'll find out their identities.

I don't know that this has been touched on on Fark (It must have), but I know there is a lot of overlap on the two sites. One of the Americans killed in Libya on September 11th was a SomethingAwful forums Debate and Discussion forums moderator.

Link


Yeah, I knew that, but just was wondering about the two other they have not identified. I'm wondering if they were security that might have been fighting back after they were all surrounded in the more secure annex. There was a 2-hour gun battle. Somebody was able to hold out until the militants pulled out.
 
2012-09-13 08:47:11 AM

OldManDownDRoad: AverageAmericanGuy: advex101: Is it too much of a fact load to point out that the Embassy is in Tripoli. The facility in Benghazi is a consulate. Kind of like a field office.

Americans don't really understand that kind of stuff. Most never leave their home county.

Nonsense. There's 50k+ in Afghanistan this very minute.


You have a funny definition of 'most'
 
2012-09-13 08:47:13 AM

JonnyG: The reason things go wrong is because the US sticks its nose in places where it doesn't belong. The place was safe under Ghaddafi and the US (knowingly) messed it up. Don't be surprised when it goes bad (like they fully expected it to).


Russia was pretty safe under Stalin and China was pretty safe under Mao as well. I remember when Reagan visited Gorbachev in Moscow and the whole group took a stroll through Red Square. One of the commentators said that this would be impossible in the US. I guess the real question is why everyone doesn't want to live under a totalitarian dictator? I weep for the human race.
 
2012-09-13 08:47:27 AM

dervish16108: What was the Ambassador to Libya doing in an unfortified consulate (unlike the US Embassy in Tripoli) without Marine protection? The situation seems very strange to me


He was doing his job. Which probably is a foreign concept to you.
 
2012-09-13 08:48:15 AM

Billy Bathsalt: Hey, none of those protesters had more than 2 ounces of shampoo with them. Or nailfiles.
You can't explain that.


I laughed at this more than I should have.
 
2012-09-13 08:48:24 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: OldManDownDRoad: AverageAmericanGuy: advex101: Is it too much of a fact load to point out that the Embassy is in Tripoli. The facility in Benghazi is a consulate. Kind of like a field office.

Americans don't really understand that kind of stuff. Most never leave their home county.

Nonsense. There's 50k+ in Afghanistan this very minute.

You have a funny definition of 'most'


Oh, sorry, didn't know you were humor-impaired.

The "politics" tab is down the hall, second door on the left.
 
2012-09-13 08:51:12 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: OldManDownDRoad: AverageAmericanGuy: advex101: Is it too much of a fact load to point out that the Embassy is in Tripoli. The facility in Benghazi is a consulate. Kind of like a field office.

Americans don't really understand that kind of stuff. Most never leave their home county.

Nonsense. There's 50k+ in Afghanistan this very minute.

You have a funny definition of 'most'


Off the cuff speculation or not, I wonder what the real numbers on that statistic is. What percentage of Americans have traveled to a country outside of the US? Outside the Western Hemisphere?
 
2012-09-13 08:54:11 AM

maddogdelta: dervish16108: What was the Ambassador to Libya doing in an unfortified consulate (unlike the US Embassy in Tripoli) without Marine protection? The situation seems very strange to me

He was doing his job. Which probably is a foreign concept to you.


It was a most unnecessary risk. Responsibility is apparently an alien concept to you.
 
2012-09-13 08:54:14 AM

dervish16108: What was the Ambassador to Libya doing in an unfortified consulate (unlike the US Embassy in Tripoli) without Marine protection? The situation seems very strange to me.


An Ambassador is not like a king on a chess board that just sits behind walls like a monument. Our Syrian Ambassador was all over the place, sometimes being attacked on the streets. They're diplomats and they may...you know....do diplomacy with the public too. Especially this guy who loved Libya and its people and was very well known and popular. So State kept its local rock star out shaking hands and making friends...which sounds like exactly what they ought to be doing.

The center of power in Libya is still in flux. Benghazi was an ignored backwater under Qaddafi but it was the first city to rise up against him and the capitol of the revolution until Tripoli was taken. So the diplomatic corps is very active in both places.

beefoe: If you've ever been to a US Embassy or consulate, those things are basically fortresses with multiple blast-proof doors. Remember how we spent $2 billion on the one in Baghdad? And it's not even just the ones in recent war zones. Visit the US embassies and consulates in countries that are friendly to the US and have no history of political violence and you'll see the same thing.


Taken a tour of all our consular facilities in the world, have you? Because this is wrong. They haven't made them all bunkers at all.

After the bombings of our African Embassies in 1998, they did studies of the vulnerabilities of our facilities and started bunkerizing those that were considered at risk for terrorist attack. THAT is a different analysis from whether the country is an enemy or not.

Bunkers in Qaddafi's police state Libya would not protect it from the government and Benghazi was not the center of power -- and locally it was far friendlier to the US all along (as it still is). So it was not likely upgraded. A consulate somewhere in France might get a bunker redesign not because we think the French govt will attack us but because it is higher profile and potentially an easier terror target. It's just a completely different way of looking at the facility.
 
2012-09-13 08:54:41 AM

1nsanilicious: tereklusec: WeDemocrats sent dignitaries THEN security personnel instead of the other way around?

WeDemocrats really are the overconfident assholes the rest of the countries accuse us of being.

FTFY


PALATR
 
2012-09-13 08:54:55 AM

Tatterdemalian: HotWingConspiracy: Right. Those people would not be labeled protestors. Though if you can show me that everyone there was armed and stormed the consulate, I'll stop calling the unarmed protestors protestors.

How about calling them "willing human shields for terrorists?" Is that a term you'd accept?


No, that's really dumb.

/actually, I don't really care
//it's only going to get crazier, at least to the people who have willingly blinded themselves to how the real world works


Thank goodness you see so clearly. You work for the state department or something?
 
2012-09-13 08:59:15 AM

tereklusec: AverageAmericanGuy: OldManDownDRoad: AverageAmericanGuy: advex101: Is it too much of a fact load to point out that the Embassy is in Tripoli. The facility in Benghazi is a consulate. Kind of like a field office.

Americans don't really understand that kind of stuff. Most never leave their home county.

Nonsense. There's 50k+ in Afghanistan this very minute.

You have a funny definition of 'most'

Off the cuff speculation or not, I wonder what the real numbers on that statistic is. What percentage of Americans have traveled to a country outside of the US? Outside the Western Hemisphere?


According to this article at CNN, about 30% of Americans have passports. There may be some who traveled to Canada prior to the passport requirements, but as far as eligibility to travel, only a third can today.

Link
 
2012-09-13 09:00:37 AM

Walker: The intelligence source contrasted it with the American embassy in Cairo, Egypt - "a permanent facility, which is a lot easier to defend."

You mean the facility where protesters easily climbed over the wall, tore down the US flag, ripped it to shreds, then hung up an Islamic flag....on 9/11?
Yeah, that place sounds real secure.


I'd imagine that the real security involves the building itself.
 
2012-09-13 09:00:51 AM

tereklusec: AverageAmericanGuy: OldManDownDRoad: AverageAmericanGuy: advex101: Is it too much of a fact load to point out that the Embassy is in Tripoli. The facility in Benghazi is a consulate. Kind of like a field office.

Americans don't really understand that kind of stuff. Most never leave their home county.

Nonsense. There's 50k+ in Afghanistan this very minute.

You have a funny definition of 'most'

Off the cuff speculation or not, I wonder what the real numbers on that statistic is. What percentage of Americans have traveled to a country outside of the US? Outside the Western Hemisphere?


Less than one third have a U.S. passport, per CNN.
 
2012-09-13 09:02:52 AM
As someone who is sitting in an Embassy right now working...I hae a few comments....

Not all Embassies or consulates have Marine Security Guard Detachments. I am sitting in one that doesnt, Georgetown Guyana.

I have been permanently assigned to places with MSG Dets ranging in size from 6 to 24 Marines- (San Jose, Brussels NATO, Kabul, and Baghdad). I am not based in the US where two regional MSG offices are based out of. I have been to multiple consulates and Embassies that do not/not have MSGs...

Georgetown, Hamilton Bermuda, Curacao, Monterrey, Guadalajara, and more.

I know there are multiple places in Africa that do not have MSGs.

The mandate for the MSGs are to protect Classified information, then property, and then US personnel. If you have ever seen the commercial on AFN about this then you might remember the long pause between property and personnel. It is a running joke in the Department.

Personal security of the US Diplomats and Staff falls to Diplomatic Security agents and contractors (Triple Canopy and others).

I don't blame the MSGs for their mandate and I know that they would do what they could to help me in a pinch. Trust me, I respect them and get along great with them. I just understand their duties.

MSGs are not there for mobile security, no matter what Robert Ludlum says in his books. They are not our drivers either. That stupid show on Fox was also wrong, they do not guard our hallways or our residences.

For some reason, the IRM offices (my skill code and Sean Smith's also) frequently hang out with the Marines. You might find pol/econ/consular types at their parties but you usually find Marines at the houses of IRM and DS personnel when we have our own parties.

/son of a Marine
 
2012-09-13 09:03:11 AM

oeneus: There are many missions that have no Marine presence and Marines, when present, protect information not personnel. Embassy and consulate protection is the responsibility of the host government.



Yup.
Unless one believes that the US would allow the presence of numerous armed Chinese & Russian Marine-equivalent detachments located in every major US city with the legal right to fire on US citizens they consider "threatening".
 
2012-09-13 09:03:29 AM

LesserEvil: Look, all you need to understand (are you listening, press?) is that this was a coordinated attack by Al Qaida in retribution for the killing of one of their leaders in late August. The Libyan ambassador was targeted where he was because of the lack of security.

Countries that host embassies also have a repsonsibility to keep mobs clear from the surrounding areas through crowd control. It's possible, in this case, that not only did that not happen, but government personnel were actually involved in the attack.

It's getting a bit sickening that the red herring of "that bad bad film thoise racists are making" is continually being floated as the reason for these attacks. These were not "protestors" - they were attackers.

This was a terrorist attack.

It's very likely the attack on the Egyptian embassy was part of that. The Yemeni embassy attacks might also be a part of that (or it's just momentum).

Who is to blame? How about we blame radical Islamists for being what they are? No more reason is needed beyond that. There are several ways to stop these attacks, but appeasement isn't a practical choice.


So you're in favor of no longer giving Muslim countries like Pakistan and Egypt billions of dollars, like Democratic AND Republican presidents have been doing for decades?

Just curious what your proposal actually is...it's easy to say "no more appeasement", but much harder to actually come up with a practical alternative.

Personally, I say cut off all the aid. Screw 'em.
 
2012-09-13 09:04:06 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: I work near a handful of embassies here in Tokyo and none have the security that the American embassy has.

That we need that kind of security is indicative of a bigger problem than just losing a few diplomats sometimes. We have too many enemies, fight too many wars, and tread too heavily in foreign affairs. This isn't a good long term position.


That.

When the new US embassy in London needs a MOAT to protect it, you've got to wonder whether the US has been playing nicely with the rest of the world in recent years...

/ unless it's an ironic moat, to echo William the Conqueror's Tower just down the river. How the architects must be chortling.
 
2012-09-13 09:05:08 AM

SeismicJizzer: It is hard to predict what will set off Muslim nations, this time its about a movie that no one has ever heard of and these douchebags whipped themselves into a frenzy, created by asinine coonts for political gain.

One thing for sure is the leadership in Egypt doesn't have the cojones to quell the Islamists, it is going to be fun to see that country slowly rot in the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood.

I have always thought the Middle East is a rotten part of the world that should be shunned from the International community, that includes Israel.

These backward, feckless people deserve to be left to rot...


Eh, Egypt was rotting for decades before the MB came to power. The real question is, do they even WANT to quell the hard-line Islamists?
 
2012-09-13 09:06:33 AM
But Republicans told us that "boots on the ground" in Libya was a bad thing.
 
2012-09-13 09:08:38 AM
There is more to learn about this story, for sure, but a large part of the issue is also lack of money for the Department of State (especially compared to DoD). You can't have proper security without proper security personnel and management, and not without funds to ensure physical security and hiring and training of local guards.

Yes, host nations are responsible for security of diplomats, although we try to never rely on them--which is why State has an entire bureau dedicated to security. Each nation (or in some cases, region) has an assigned RSO (Regional Security Officer), who is a Foreign Service Specialist and federal law enforcement officer, who manages all aspects of security for diplomatic staff and facilities. They are in charge of the Marine Security Guards, they manage any foreign nationals hired for external security, as well as overseeing physical security.

Budgets are always tight, and security often suffers because of it--at least away from newsworthy locations like AIP.

tereklusec: Off the cuff speculation or not, I wonder what the real numbers on that statistic is. What percentage of Americans have traveled to a country outside of the US? Outside the Western Hemisphere?


About 28%. Here's a map that breaks it down roughly by state. And at least in 2000, about 90% of Congress traveled.
 
2012-09-13 09:09:57 AM
I wonder if that is an ever applied for or currently active number. Passports expire. Also, you don't need to have a passport to travel in certain circumstances(age, military service, etc.)

I am guessing that some people have passports and haven't used them so those numbers might be interchangeable, but you're right, at best I'm guessing the discrepancy would at best bring the number up to a solid third.

Interesting. Learn something new every day, even on Fark.
 
2012-09-13 09:14:04 AM
Welcome to your October surprise, folks.
 
2012-09-13 09:15:43 AM

PunGent: SeismicJizzer: It is hard to predict what will set off Muslim nations, this time its about a movie that no one has ever heard of and these douchebags whipped themselves into a frenzy, created by asinine coonts for political gain.

One thing for sure is the leadership in Egypt doesn't have the cojones to quell the Islamists, it is going to be fun to see that country slowly rot in the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood.

I have always thought the Middle East is a rotten part of the world that should be shunned from the International community, that includes Israel.

These backward, feckless people deserve to be left to rot...

Eh, Egypt was rotting for decades before the MB came to power. The real question is, do they even WANT to quell the hard-line Islamists?


I would say yes, they're really bad for business.
 
2012-09-13 09:16:20 AM
Welcome to Obama's brave new world where we all sing kumbaya while our enemies burn the house down around us.
 
2012-09-13 09:16:33 AM

1nsanilicious: Maybe Obama would have if he attended his intelligence reviews instead of requesting bear hugs from pizza shop owners for campaign fodder.


"Wait, you sell pizza? Not the tomato casserole I put up with, but real pizza? C'mere, give me a hug."
 
2012-09-13 09:19:05 AM

I_Can't_Believe_it's_not_Boutros: Marines? All the way over there by Tripoli? Unlikely.


They were too busy repainting the Halls of Montezuma.

/stupid job jar.
 
2012-09-13 09:19:08 AM

Gumaraid: Welcome to Obama's brave new world where we all sing kumbaya while our enemies burn the house down around us.


Tomorrow you'll be calling him a monster again for having a kill list.
 
2012-09-13 09:20:36 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Gumaraid: Welcome to Obama's brave new world where we all sing kumbaya while our enemies burn the house down around us.

Tomorrow you'll be calling him a monster again for having a kill list.


I bet he'll slaughter them all apologetically.
 
2012-09-13 09:20:50 AM

Hobodeluxe: oeneus: There are many missions that have no Marine presence and Marines, when present, protect information not personnel. Embassy and consulate protection is the responsibility of the host government.

exactly. the host country determines security. these dignitaries know their job can be dangerous. but something is fishy with all this and that video. this whole thing just feels weird. like we're being played. and yes I do watch shows like Rubicon,Jericho and Homeland. Why do you ask?


I put on my tinfoil and ask, "who benefits most from this action." And I keep coming back to Israel, Neocons, and Republicans.
 
2012-09-13 09:23:04 AM
Sometime in the last few months a terrorist walked by that consulate and said "Wow, I bet a fairly small group of armed men could destroy that building and kill lots of Americans". It will be interesting to find out if any of our people also walked by and said "Wow, I bet a fairly small group of armed men could destroy that building and kill lots of Americans". If our people did notice, who did they tell and what did the people who were told do about it.

Also the rescue team that was sent out by the embassy was only 8 men, not even a full squad of Marines. The consulate was in flames, the entire staff on the run and they could only spare 8 marines? Sounds like the embassy is under protected too. Especially for an embassy in a country where there was a recent rebellion, known groups of armed islamic radicals and a weak central government.
 
2012-09-13 09:25:46 AM
Mohamed Magariaf doesn't care about white people.
 
2012-09-13 09:27:16 AM
There's also much less of a need for passports for certain activities, considering the massive size and climactic diversity available in the United States. Want to go to a tropical island? Book a trip to Hawaii, no passport necessary. Want great skiing? Colorado. The list goes on and on. It's really quite different than Europe, as most of their countries are relatively small and don't have the varied climates within any single country that the US has.

Of course if you want to see specific cultural sites (like the Eiffel Tower or the Sydney Opera House), you're going to have to travel internationally for them.

Also, you have to consider that a simple train ride or automobile trip won't do much good for international travel in the US as compared to Europe. In terms of tourism, Canada is essentially America Jr. but colder, and Mexico is currently a 3rd-world hellhole with endemic low-level warfare. Even their resort areas aren't satisfactorily secure at this point.
 
2012-09-13 09:28:32 AM

PunGent: LesserEvil: Look, all you need to understand (are you listening, press?) is that this was a coordinated attack by Al Qaida in retribution for the killing of one of their leaders in late August. The Libyan ambassador was targeted where he was because of the lack of security.

Countries that host embassies also have a repsonsibility to keep mobs clear from the surrounding areas through crowd control. It's possible, in this case, that not only did that not happen, but government personnel were actually involved in the attack.

It's getting a bit sickening that the red herring of "that bad bad film thoise racists are making" is continually being floated as the reason for these attacks. These were not "protestors" - they were attackers.

This was a terrorist attack.

It's very likely the attack on the Egyptian embassy was part of that. The Yemeni embassy attacks might also be a part of that (or it's just momentum).

Who is to blame? How about we blame radical Islamists for being what they are? No more reason is needed beyond that. There are several ways to stop these attacks, but appeasement isn't a practical choice.

So you're in favor of no longer giving Muslim countries like Pakistan and Egypt billions of dollars, like Democratic AND Republican presidents have been doing for decades?

Just curious what your proposal actually is...it's easy to say "no more appeasement", but much harder to actually come up with a practical alternative.

Personally, I say cut off all the aid. Screw 'em.


I somewhat disagree. I firmly believe we should end all military aid to all nations. Humanitarian aid, however should be continued and, possibly, increased.
 
2012-09-13 09:30:13 AM

HK-MP5-SD: Sometime in the last few months a terrorist walked by that consulate and said "Wow, I bet a fairly small group of armed men could destroy that building and kill lots of Americans". It will be interesting to find out if any of our people also walked by and said "Wow, I bet a fairly small group of armed men could destroy that building and kill lots of Americans".




UK closed their consulate in Benghazi in June.
 
2012-09-13 09:30:44 AM

I_Can't_Believe_it's_not_Boutros: Marines? All the way over there by Tripoli? Unlikely.


They were busy dealing with montezuma's revenge.

/love the marines
 
2012-09-13 09:30:49 AM

Generation_D: Hobodeluxe: oeneus: There are many missions that have no Marine presence and Marines, when present, protect information not personnel. Embassy and consulate protection is the responsibility of the host government.

exactly. the host country determines security. these dignitaries know their job can be dangerous. but something is fishy with all this and that video. this whole thing just feels weird. like we're being played. and yes I do watch shows like Rubicon,Jericho and Homeland. Why do you ask?

I put on my tinfoil and ask, "who benefits most from this action." And I keep coming back to Israel, Neocons, and Republicans.


I think the Israel rumor is rather clever. If you told the Muslim world that Israel didn't want people to punch themselves in the face, everyone from Morocco to Pakistan would have two black eyes the next morning.

/Oh, Israel wants us to attack American embassies? We'll show them!
 
2012-09-13 09:32:22 AM

Generation_D: Hobodeluxe: oeneus: There are many missions that have no Marine presence and Marines, when present, protect information not personnel. Embassy and consulate protection is the responsibility of the host government.

exactly. the host country determines security. these dignitaries know their job can be dangerous. but something is fishy with all this and that video. this whole thing just feels weird. like we're being played. and yes I do watch shows like Rubicon,Jericho and Homeland. Why do you ask?

I put on my tinfoil and ask, "who benefits most from this action." And I keep coming back to Israel, Neocons, and Republicans.


Does Israel really benefit? I suppose an argument could be made that the Likud party may benefit, but Israel as a whole? I'm not seeing it.
 
2012-09-13 09:35:49 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: According to this article at CNN, about 30% of Americans have passports. There may be some who traveled to Canada prior to the passport requirements, but as far as eligibility to travel, only a third can today.


How many Europeans have been to Asia or Africa?

Because I've been far enough from home and still within the US, that had I lived in Europe, I would have had to have left the continent.
 
2012-09-13 09:37:09 AM

iaazathot: Welcome to your October surprise, folks.


i16.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-13 09:38:47 AM
Don't know which is worse these days, the US foreign policy or the US energy policy. Common denominator is that we're farked by both.
 
2012-09-13 09:39:35 AM
I'd like to point out that while it did not have marines, it did have a Libyan security force. From the reports I've read they all stood their ground despite being outnumbered and outgunned, and ten of them laid down their lives to defend the US staff and the international diplomatic system. They aren't being mentioned very often in western media, but I think it's important to recognize their sacrifice. Without them, our death toll would almost certainly have been higher.

// It's also important to recognize that as agents of the democratically elected government, they have more claim to represent Libya than the random group of nutjob militants who stormed our embassy.
 
2012-09-13 09:42:10 AM
Maybe there would have been military personnel there in Libya if the Republicans did throw a shiat fit when we sent a few to help with reconstructing the damn place.
 
2012-09-13 09:42:17 AM
C'mon - the administration just wanted that map of "US Bases around the world" to look a little better by not having another imperialist outpost.
 
2012-09-13 09:43:45 AM

SandMann: The Marines didn't stop the Iranian capture of our embassy.

They are no protection against a major foreign policy failure.


I'm curious as to what you think Carter should have done that would have prevented it.
 
2012-09-13 09:44:58 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Gumaraid: Welcome to Obama's brave new world where we all sing kumbaya while our enemies burn the house down around us.

Tomorrow you'll be calling him a monster again for having a kill list.


No. I've already said that. He is a murderer for authorizing the execution of Americans without trial by jury. Unlike you I don't let my politics interfere with my sense of right and wrong.
 
2012-09-13 09:46:51 AM
Obama is incompetent and Americans are dead because of it.
 
2012-09-13 09:47:20 AM

Gumaraid: HotWingConspiracy: Gumaraid: Welcome to Obama's brave new world where we all sing kumbaya while our enemies burn the house down around us.

Tomorrow you'll be calling him a monster again for having a kill list.

No. I've already said that. He is a murderer for authorizing the execution of Americans without trial by jury. Unlike you I don't let my politics interfere with my sense of right and wrong.


So he's a murderous kumbaya singing peacenik. Ok.
 
2012-09-13 09:48:16 AM

xtragrind: HotWingConspiracy: BUT HOW COME OBAMA DIDN'T HAVE AN ARMORED DIVISION THERE TO KILL THE PROTESTORS?!

Are morons like you still calling them protestors? So far we know that they had heavy machine guns, rocket propelled grenades and also launched a coordinated mortar attack.


Good point. That's why you wait until the facts are in before shooting your mouth off.

"It's disgraceful that the Obama administration's Weeners was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks."
- Mitt Romney.

If Mitt hadn't tried to score a cheap political point by saying the president sympathized those who attacked the consulate (on 9/11, no less), then he wouldn't have fallen below Sarah Palin in the foreign policy category.
 
2012-09-13 09:48:52 AM

Ricardo Klement: SandMann: The Marines didn't stop the Iranian capture of our embassy.

They are no protection against a major foreign policy failure.

I'm curious as to what you think Carter should have done that would have prevented it.


Only thing he could've done would have been to call Miss Cleo and evacuate the embassy under the cover of darkness, then boobytrap the place to greet the stormers.

Either that, or become omniscient...
 
2012-09-13 09:48:56 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: According to this article at CNN, about 30% of Americans have passports. There may be some who traveled to Canada prior to the passport requirements, but as far as eligibility to travel, only a third can today.


Europeans don't quite understand how frakkning BIG the US is. Baltimore to LA is 48 hours of straight driving, per google maps. If we needed passports to travel from DC to Ohio, more of us would have them. And if I had to speak German when I got there, I'd probably speak a few more languages.
 
2012-09-13 09:48:58 AM

Stefanwulf: I'd like to point out that while it did not have marines, it did have a Libyan security force. From the reports I've read they all stood their ground despite being outnumbered and outgunned, and ten of them laid down their lives to defend the US staff and the international diplomatic system. They aren't being mentioned very often in western media, but I think it's important to recognize their sacrifice. Without them, our death toll would almost certainly have been higher.

// It's also important to recognize that as agents of the democratically elected government, they have more claim to represent Libya than the random group of nutjob militants who stormed our embassy.


Seconded. I hadn't heard about this aspect of it until your post. I hate how people generalize enitre countries based on the actions of a tiny group of crazies.
 
2012-09-13 09:49:07 AM

PunGent: LesserEvil: Look, all you need to understand (are you listening, press?) is that this was a coordinated attack by Al Qaida in retribution for the killing of one of their leaders in late August. The Libyan ambassador was targeted where he was because of the lack of security.

Countries that host embassies also have a repsonsibility to keep mobs clear from the surrounding areas through crowd control. It's possible, in this case, that not only did that not happen, but government personnel were actually involved in the attack.

It's getting a bit sickening that the red herring of "that bad bad film thoise racists are making" is continually being floated as the reason for these attacks. These were not "protestors" - they were attackers.

This was a terrorist attack.

It's very likely the attack on the Egyptian embassy was part of that. The Yemeni embassy attacks might also be a part of that (or it's just momentum).

Who is to blame? How about we blame radical Islamists for being what they are? No more reason is needed beyond that. There are several ways to stop these attacks, but appeasement isn't a practical choice.

So you're in favor of no longer giving Muslim countries like Pakistan and Egypt billions of dollars, like Democratic AND Republican presidents have been doing for decades?

Just curious what your proposal actually is...it's easy to say "no more appeasement", but much harder to actually come up with a practical alternative.

Personally, I say cut off all the aid. Screw 'em.


I hate that we pay off governments (which is basically what aid is), and there is definitely a failure of their obligations here. Cutting off aid is one step... I'm not a fan of the idiot in the Egyptian embassy who has continually posted the nonsense about the film, either. It certainly doesn't make the administration, our government, and particularly the state department look like anything but fools.

I'm sure there are options on the table; some not as palatable as others. What's the right choice? It depends a lot on doing something that won't keep digging the hole deeper. Getting Bush out of office was supposed to help our prestige. Supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in their efforts to oust more secular, but more totalitarian regimes out of power was supposed to earn us some credit in the middle east. Distancing ourselves from Israel was supposed to gain us some respect.

It's done none of that. Respect for the US has continued to erode, perhaps worse in the past year, than during the Bush administration, in the middle east.

Until people in the middle east stop volunteering to be slaves to their mythical sky lord and learn that words do not EVER cause mortal offense. It would help if the tribal mentality of that culture was eradicated, as well. Unfortunately, that won't happen any time soon; so the US' response has to take their culture into consideration, as well as what hasn't worked so far (putting radical Islamists into power), and what has (supporting moderates, which we seem to be currently NOT doing in Syria).
 
2012-09-13 09:50:30 AM

Gumaraid: HotWingConspiracy: Gumaraid: Welcome to Obama's brave new world where we all sing kumbaya while our enemies burn the house down around us.

Tomorrow you'll be calling him a monster again for having a kill list.

No. I've already said that. He is a murderer for authorizing the execution of Americans without trial by jury. Unlike you I don't let my politics interfere with my sense of right and wrong.


So, he's doing too much while he does nothing.

Cognitive dissonance isn't treated as a preexisting condition anymore. Please get help.
 
2012-09-13 09:50:49 AM

svenge: There's also much less of a need for passports for certain activities, considering the massive size and climactic diversity available in the United States. Want to go to a tropical island? Book a trip to Hawaii, no passport necessary. Want great skiing? Colorado. The list goes on and on. It's really quite different than Europe, as most of their countries are relatively small and don't have the varied climates within any single country that the US has.


You do realize that you don't need a passport to travel between most European countries, right? If you live in Berlin and want to go to a beach in southern Italy, it takes the same amount of effort that it would take someone from NYC flying to Florida.
 
2012-09-13 09:51:34 AM

fireclown: AverageAmericanGuy: According to this article at CNN, about 30% of Americans have passports. There may be some who traveled to Canada prior to the passport requirements, but as far as eligibility to travel, only a third can today.

Europeans don't quite understand how frakkning BIG the US is. Baltimore to LA is 48 hours of straight driving, per google maps. If we needed passports to travel from DC to Ohio, more of us would have them. And if I had to speak German when I got there, I'd probably speak a few more languages.


Which goes back to the original point that most Americans don't really understand consulates or getting visas to travel.
 
2012-09-13 09:53:12 AM

Gumaraid: HotWingConspiracy: Gumaraid: Welcome to Obama's brave new world where we all sing kumbaya while our enemies burn the house down around us.

Tomorrow you'll be calling him a monster again for having a kill list.

No. I've already said that. He is a murderer for authorizing the execution of Americans without trial by jury. Unlike you I don't let my politics interfere with my sense of right and wrong.


I generally believe once an american sides with the enemy during a time of war and acts in allegiance with an enemy combatant or group, they cease to be civilian criminals and become enemy combatants under the rules of war.

Also, do some research on the Folstoiche (sp?) During WW II. These were americans who left to go to nazi germany and fight for the Reich. They were generally captured and executed without trial, etc.

If you commit a crime by, say, blowing up a building or shooting up a movie theater, it is a civilian criminal act. If you openly support and join with declared enemy combatants, you're an enemy combatant. Period.
 
2012-09-13 09:53:17 AM

This text is now purple: AverageAmericanGuy: According to this article at CNN, about 30% of Americans have passports. There may be some who traveled to Canada prior to the passport requirements, but as far as eligibility to travel, only a third can today.

How many Europeans have been to Asia or Africa?

Because I've been far enough from home and still within the US, that had I lived in Europe, I would have had to have left the continent.


But that's not really the point if we are discussing exposure to different cultures. Because as much as someone in San Angelo wants to say they are different than someone in Boston, it really isn't that different.
 
2012-09-13 09:53:50 AM
I don't understand. The Arab Spring that for which we bombed Libya was supposed to make them like us.
 
2012-09-13 09:54:47 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: I work near a handful of embassies here in Tokyo and none have the security that the American embassy has.


Indeed, I've seen the same thing. I live in Bern, Switzerland. The US embassy is an ugly office tower just outside downtown with a bunch of antennas on the roof. It has a ~8ft high fence around it, a few security cameras on posts, and a guard booth but otherwise does not seem to have any significant fortifications. Pretty low-key as far as US embassies go -- the one in Jordan was basically a fortified structure with Jordanian troops stationed in pickup trucks with mounted machine guns outside the walls.

Other embassies in town are much more laid back: those from relatively small countries rent some offices downtown and put their sign outside the door. The French embassy, for example, is a low-rise office building outside of the downtown area that doesn't have any visible external security.

The US is a (the?) major world power and, for legitimate reasons, there's a lot of people who disagree with what the US has done and how its acted. Protests are not uncommon, even in friendly countries, so putting up a fence and some other basic means of security (the US embassy in Paris has a similar fence to the one in Bern and some anti-vehicle bollards around it) seems pretty reasonable.
 
2012-09-13 09:54:50 AM

beefoe: If you've ever been to a US Embassy or consulate, those things are basically fortresses with multiple blast-proof doors. Remember how we spent $2 billion on the one in Baghdad? And it's not even just the ones in recent war zones. Visit the US embassies and consulates in countries that are friendly to the US and have no history of political violence and you'll see the same thing.

To think that we'd have consular staff in basically an office park in what was up until a few months ago a war zone is concerning and makes you realize how brave the people were who worked there. To claim that it was "interim facility" and hence had no serious protection would seem to have things completely backward. If it was interim and difficult to secure, you'd think that would be a case for going overboard on protection, and that's not even mentioning the 9/11 anniversary connection. I hope a thorough investigation is conducted so we can find out what really happened, although that probably won't be the case.


I can tell you what happened: officials at State just decided it was easier to risk it.

I was deployed for a joint exercise in a Persian Gulf state, and rather than use our security, we decided to use theirs. It was horrible. We exposed ourselves to attack in all kinds of ways and, frankly, I think we would have been safer with no security at all - not because we could shoot straighter or that they were likely to betray us, but because their bumbling incompetence was done with police lights screaming out to everyone: Hey! There's someone important right here! A government official or maybe Americans!

At least our hotel was heavily armed. You know those pickup trucks with the heavy weaponry? Yeah - it was that kind of place.
 
2012-09-13 09:56:05 AM

Kit Fister: Gumaraid: HotWingConspiracy: Gumaraid: Welcome to Obama's brave new world where we all sing kumbaya while our enemies burn the house down around us.

Tomorrow you'll be calling him a monster again for having a kill list.

No. I've already said that. He is a murderer for authorizing the execution of Americans without trial by jury. Unlike you I don't let my politics interfere with my sense of right and wrong.

I generally believe once an american sides with the enemy during a time of war and acts in allegiance with an enemy combatant or group, they cease to be civilian criminals and become enemy combatants under the rules of war.

Also, do some research on the Folstoiche (sp?) During WW II. These were americans who left to go to nazi germany and fight for the Reich. They were generally captured and executed without trial, etc.

If you commit a crime by, say, blowing up a building or shooting up a movie theater, it is a civilian criminal act. If you openly support and join with declared enemy combatants, you're an enemy combatant. Period.


Under our constitution, the word "War" means something.
 
2012-09-13 09:57:00 AM

dervish16108: maddogdelta: dervish16108: What was the Ambassador to Libya doing in an unfortified consulate (unlike the US Embassy in Tripoli) without Marine protection? The situation seems very strange to me

He was doing his job. Which probably is a foreign concept to you.

It was a most unnecessary risk. Responsibility is apparently an alien concept to you.


Says a guy who has no experience with international diplomacy, but still knows better than the State Department and the ambassador on the ground.
 
2012-09-13 09:57:11 AM

LesserEvil: PunGent: LesserEvil: Look, all you need to understand (are you listening, press?) is that this was a coordinated attack by Al Qaida in retribution for the killing of one of their leaders in late August. The Libyan ambassador was targeted where he was because of the lack of security.

Countries that host embassies also have a repsonsibility to keep mobs clear from the surrounding areas through crowd control. It's possible, in this case, that not only did that not happen, but government personnel were actually involved in the attack.

It's getting a bit sickening that the red herring of "that bad bad film thoise racists are making" is continually being floated as the reason for these attacks. These were not "protestors" - they were attackers.

This was a terrorist attack.

It's very likely the attack on the Egyptian embassy was part of that. The Yemeni embassy attacks might also be a part of that (or it's just momentum).

Who is to blame? How about we blame radical Islamists for being what they are? No more reason is needed beyond that. There are several ways to stop these attacks, but appeasement isn't a practical choice.

So you're in favor of no longer giving Muslim countries like Pakistan and Egypt billions of dollars, like Democratic AND Republican presidents have been doing for decades?

Just curious what your proposal actually is...it's easy to say "no more appeasement", but much harder to actually come up with a practical alternative.

Personally, I say cut off all the aid. Screw 'em.

I hate that we pay off governments (which is basically what aid is), and there is definitely a failure of their obligations here. Cutting off aid is one step... I'm not a fan of the idiot in the Egyptian embassy who has continually posted the nonsense about the film, either. It certainly doesn't make the administration, our government, and particularly the state department look like anything but fools.

I'm sure there are options on the table; some not as palatable as others. What's the right choice? It depends a lot on doing something that won't keep digging the hole deeper. Getting Bush out of office was supposed to help our prestige. Supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in their efforts to oust more secular, but more totalitarian regimes out of power was supposed to earn us some credit in the middle east. Distancing ourselves from Israel was supposed to gain us some respect.

It's done none of that. Respect for the US has continued to erode, perhaps worse in the past year, than during the Bush administration, in the middle east.

Until people in the middle east stop volunteering to be slaves to their mythical sky lord and learn that words do not EVER cause mortal offense. It would help if the tribal mentality of that culture was eradicated, as well. Unfortunately, that won't happen any time soon; so the US' response has to take their culture into consideration, as well as what hasn't worked so far (putting radical Islamists into power), and what has (supporting moderates, which we seem to be currently NOT doing in Syria).


So if I run up to a black man and yell "nig---" or up to an italian and call him a wop or a daygo or whatever, this doesn't cause moral offense? Jeeze, that beatdown I got in jr. High for telling a black guy not to get is knickers in a twist must not have happened then...
 
2012-09-13 09:57:36 AM

wejash: dervish16108: What was the Ambassador to Libya doing in an unfortified consulate (unlike the US Embassy in Tripoli) without Marine protection? The situation seems very strange to me.

An Ambassador is not like a king on a chess board that just sits behind walls like a monument. Our Syrian Ambassador was all over the place, sometimes being attacked on the streets. They're diplomats and they may...you know....do diplomacy with the public too. Especially this guy who loved Libya and its people and was very well known and popular. So State kept its local rock star out shaking hands and making friends...which sounds like exactly what they ought to be doing.

The center of power in Libya is still in flux. Benghazi was an ignored backwater under Qaddafi but it was the first city to rise up against him and the capitol of the revolution until Tripoli was taken. So the diplomatic corps is very active in both places.

beefoe: If you've ever been to a US Embassy or consulate, those things are basically fortresses with multiple blast-proof doors. Remember how we spent $2 billion on the one in Baghdad? And it's not even just the ones in recent war zones. Visit the US embassies and consulates in countries that are friendly to the US and have no history of political violence and you'll see the same thing.

Taken a tour of all our consular facilities in the world, have you? Because this is wrong. They haven't made them all bunkers at all.

After the bombings of our African Embassies in 1998, they did studies of the vulnerabilities of our facilities and started bunkerizing those that were considered at risk for terrorist attack. THAT is a different analysis from whether the country is an enemy or not.

Bunkers in Qaddafi's police state Libya would not protect it from the government and Benghazi was not the center of power -- and locally it was far friendlier to the US all along (as it still is). So it was not likely upgraded. A consulate somewhere in France might get a b ...




Have visited at least a dozen US embassies and consulates and a couple dozen foreign consulates. In countries with not threat of terrorism like Singapore, China and friendly former soviet block (Poland, Bulgaria, etc) we have bunkers and if we don't have a bunker somewhere, we're in the process of building one.

If you really knew what you were talking about you'd understand that embassies and consulates are not built to be protected from attack by the host nation as this is something that is impossible to defend against and doesn't ever happen anyway. Attacking an embassy is perhaps the only thing that will get you universal comdemnation and I'm not sure there's a single instance where the existing government of a country has attacked an embassy.

Regardless, whether it's an embassy or consulate, it's an outpost of the US and having a basically unsecured location is bad enough, but in a country without a functioning government is disgraceful.
 
2012-09-13 09:58:49 AM

tereklusec: oeneus: There are many missions that have no Marine presence and Marines, when present, protect information not personnel. Embassy and consulate protection is the responsibility of the host government.

Marines, like all armed forces, protect whatever you tell them to. And they protect it well, with violence if necessary.


I'm a former MSG and what oeneus said is more or less correct. The top of our list is "Destroy the following shiat in the event of an embassy breach". Moving beyond that our goal is to support the State Department in their goals long term diplomatic goals, not mow down crowds with .50 caliber fire. Mass killings tend to put a chill a diplomacy and create long term problems. Had Marine Security Guards been there they likely would have been busy destroying stuff, fighting fires, and moving staff to safe rooms. There really isn't an "empty the armory and kill hundreds of people" page in the security guard book. The State Department is pissed about the dead staff, they'd be even more pissed had the locals been massacred. Sometimes your the unit that gets to be the first ashore (read: 90% causality rate) and sometimes your the State Department worker who buys the farm for being in a hostile environment. No one likes to admit it, but sometimes a platoon or two of dead Americans are better than the alternative in the long run.

For that matter the 50 person team that is getting dropped off is likely laden down with LRADs, Tear Gas, and all kinds of fun non lethal toys. They'll likely sandbag in some weapons like 40mm grenade launchers or the like as kind of a visible do not fark with us symbol (and you can fire all kinds of fun nonlethal shiat from the 40mm). However the real security will be the Libyan military, paramilitary, or riot police units that get are setting up camp around an embassy. If the locals heads have to be cracked, you want locals doing the cracking, much less of a backlash that way. 10 Libyan security guards died defending the embassy. The real difference is today there are a shiatload more Libyan security guards out front. In general the Marines tend to lie low in hostile environments as American troops tend to upset the already hostile locals. It's much harder to incite the locals to kill a bunch of their neighbors who happen to guard the embassy gates for a job than it is to incite the locals some evil infidel Americans at the gates.

If say Saturday the Libyans come over the all, the Marines orders likely are to use nonlethal methods to buy time and either move everyone to safe rooms or evac them via APCs/helicopters/etc.

Honestly the Egyptian embassy was handled perfectly. People saw it coming and got the fark out of the way. The protesters tore down a flag, chanted a bit, and got it out of their system. No one died and al-Qaeda had no martyrs. All the staff were either in secure areas of the compound or out of there completely. Libya wasn't handled badly considering what a shiatty they hand were dealt. Reports are suggesting the ambassador suffocated to death and for that matter a second group of Libyans came in and tried to carry him to the hospital. It wasn't like security was so bad someone walked into his office and shot him in the head. Dead people is never good, but as far as bad situations go it wasn't made worse by American actions (based on reports so far). Had MSGs been there then maybe one of them might have dragged the Ambassador to safety, a medic might have saved him, but that's all just speculation. Basically the Libyan Embassy did have functional security in that the local security guards stood their ground and died for their loyalty. They didn't just bail and leave the doors open. Nothing short of parking a massive military force would have broken up that mob and if we'd done that from Day 1 it would have created bad blood and increased the odds of confrontation. You don't always want your embassy to be the massively secure compound that showcases American military might, that just tends to increase the odds someone tries to fark with you in an effort to create martyrs.
 
2012-09-13 09:59:53 AM

Cubicle Jockey: oeneus: There are many missions that have no Marine presence and Marines, when present, protect information not personnel. Embassy and consulate protection is the responsibility of the host government.


Yup.
Unless one believes that the US would allow the presence of numerous armed Chinese & Russian Marine-equivalent detachments located in every major US city with the legal right to fire on US citizens they consider "threatening".


We actually do allow an awful lot of that. As far as firing on US citizens, they have as much right to as we do. If a bunch of protesters started climbing their fence to get into the consulate, trust me, some countries would have fired upon us and gotten away with it. But the US is smart enough not to let that happen to begin with, and policed every protest, no matter how small.
 
2012-09-13 09:59:57 AM

my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food: Seconded. I hadn't heard about this aspect of it until your post. I hate how people generalize enitre countries based on the actions of a tiny group of crazies.


seriously. That mob acted based on a crap video clip made in the basement of three guys out of a nation of 300,000,000 people. Assholes.
 
2012-09-13 10:00:19 AM

fireclown: AverageAmericanGuy: According to this article at CNN, about 30% of Americans have passports. There may be some who traveled to Canada prior to the passport requirements, but as far as eligibility to travel, only a third can today.

Europeans don't quite understand how frakkning BIG the US is. Baltimore to LA is 48 hours of straight driving, per google maps. If we needed passports to travel from DC to Ohio, more of us would have them. And if I had to speak German when I got there, I'd probably speak a few more languages.


Exactly, You could probably pass through every country in Europe with 48 hours of straight driving.
 
2012-09-13 10:00:53 AM

Moopy Mac: Kit Fister: Gumaraid: HotWingConspiracy: Gumaraid: Welcome to Obama's brave new world where we all sing kumbaya while our enemies burn the house down around us.

Tomorrow you'll be calling him a monster again for having a kill list.

No. I've already said that. He is a murderer for authorizing the execution of Americans without trial by jury. Unlike you I don't let my politics interfere with my sense of right and wrong.

I generally believe once an american sides with the enemy during a time of war and acts in allegiance with an enemy combatant or group, they cease to be civilian criminals and become enemy combatants under the rules of war.

Also, do some research on the Folstoiche (sp?) During WW II. These were americans who left to go to nazi germany and fight for the Reich. They were generally captured and executed without trial, etc.

If you commit a crime by, say, blowing up a building or shooting up a movie theater, it is a civilian criminal act. If you openly support and join with declared enemy combatants, you're an enemy combatant. Period.

Under our constitution, the word "War" means something.


It does, and congress authorized a state of war in 2001.

Just because it was declared against radical organizations and not a nation doesn't change that.
 
2012-09-13 10:00:54 AM
See, Romney- this is a legitimate criticism. Now, had you not shot yourself in the foot yesterday, you could be all over the airwaves asking about this today.

But it's too late now. You just had to rush in and make a fool out of yourself, so you anything you say about this situation now will be accompanied by the picture of your shiat eating grin when talking about dead Americans.
 
2012-09-13 10:01:05 AM
I blame Bush Romney
 
2012-09-13 10:03:16 AM

Tanukis_Parachute: As someone who is sitting in an Embassy right now working...I hae a few comments....

Not all Embassies or consulates have Marine Security Guard Detachments. I am sitting in one that doesnt, Georgetown Guyana.

I have been permanently assigned to places with MSG Dets ranging in size from 6 to 24 Marines- (San Jose, Brussels NATO, Kabul, and Baghdad). I am not based in the US where two regional MSG offices are based out of. I have been to multiple consulates and Embassies that do not/not have MSGs...

Georgetown, Hamilton Bermuda, Curacao, Monterrey, Guadalajara, and more.

I know there are multiple places in Africa that do not have MSGs.

The mandate for the MSGs are to protect Classified information, then property, and then US personnel. If you have ever seen the commercial on AFN about this then you might remember the long pause between property and personnel. It is a running joke in the Department.

Personal security of the US Diplomats and Staff falls to Diplomatic Security agents and contractors (Triple Canopy and others).

I don't blame the MSGs for their mandate and I know that they would do what they could to help me in a pinch. Trust me, I respect them and get along great with them. I just understand their duties.

MSGs are not there for mobile security, no matter what Robert Ludlum says in his books. They are not our drivers either. That stupid show on Fox was also wrong, they do not guard our hallways or our residences.

For some reason, the IRM offices (my skill code and Sean Smith's also) frequently hang out with the Marines. You might find pol/econ/consular types at their parties but you usually find Marines at the houses of IRM and DS personnel when we have our own parties.

/son of a Marine


Yeah, but what do you know? I read all of Tom Clancy's books, and I once took a cruise to Cancun, so I know much more about foreign policy.
 
2012-09-13 10:05:27 AM

Ricardo Klement: Cubicle Jockey: oeneus: There are many missions that have no Marine presence and Marines, when present, protect information not personnel. Embassy and consulate protection is the responsibility of the host government.


Yup.
Unless one believes that the US would allow the presence of numerous armed Chinese & Russian Marine-equivalent detachments located in every major US city with the legal right to fire on US citizens they consider "threatening".

We actually do allow an awful lot of that. As far as firing on US citizens, they have as much right to as we do. If a bunch of protesters started climbing their fence to get into the consulate, trust me, some countries would have fired upon us and gotten away with it. But the US is smart enough not to let that happen to begin with, and policed every protest, no matter how small.


see, that's one of the things that kind of pissed me off about the egypt embassy incident. In the US, if there was an ugly incident on embassy row in DC (as opposed to the hundreds of peaceful protests every year), there would be police, federal agents, and maybe military there pronto.
 
2012-09-13 10:05:33 AM
I think it's time we stopped pretending the movie had anything to do with this.
The protests were quite clearly astroturfed cover for pre-meditated attacks. Protests do not naturally escalate to coordinated mortar and rocket fire.

It's quite ingenious, really. You've got a populace you can rile up pretty easily and a target that will bend over backwards to not fire on that crowd.
My guess is that Egypt and Yemen didn't turn out like Libya only because they had proper security and defenses.

Which brings me to: it's completely farked up that we would send American functionaries into countries that are literally out of control and overflowing with military gear *without* having built a fortress-embassy and/or sent over a goddamm plane-load of marines *first*. If that would be politically uncouth in a country in chaos? Then don't farking go. Let the CIA do whatever business needs to be done.
 
2012-09-13 10:06:20 AM
The security of the area *around* an embassy or consulate is the responsibility of the host nation.

(just like a protest or incident in the streets of Washington DC or NYC.)

The security of people, information and facilities inside a US Embassy or Consulate is the responsibility of the State Department's law enforcement division, the Buearu of Diplomatic Security.

MSG's fall under DS' direction.

DS is nothing to shake a stick at and are a highly competent crew.

Link
 
2012-09-13 10:08:49 AM
what_now: "See, Romney- this is a legitimate criticism. Now, had you not shot yourself in the foot yesterday, you could be all over the airwaves asking about this today.

But it's too late now. You just had to rush in and make a fool out of yourself, so you anything you say about this situation now will be accompanied by the picture of your shiat eating grin when talking about dead Americans."

This. This is precisely why people don't shoot from the hip. And now not only has Romney rendered himself impotent, but his smug political bullshiat has undercut all his proxies too.
 
2012-09-13 10:08:58 AM

stevetherobot: Exactly, You could probably pass through every country in Europe with 48 hours of straight driving.


The joke is that Europeans are fools who believe that 100 miles is a long drive, and that Americans are fools who believe that 100 years is a long time.

And the American thing is even weirder in terms of language. Most of us only speak one language, because on this side of the world you can drive from pole to pole speaking only english, spanish, and some french if you go through that weird little part of Canada. Brazil is pretty good with the spanish, and I've never had more trouble being understood with my half assed spanish in Brazil than in Mexico. It's pretty awesome.
 
2012-09-13 10:10:06 AM
So, at what point do we stop pretending that this kind of action and the sentiment behind it are not par for the course with middle eastern muslims?

And don't they comprise the bulk of islam?

Seriously, educate me here.
 
2012-09-13 10:10:17 AM

Kit Fister: Moopy Mac: Kit Fister: Gumaraid: HotWingConspiracy: Gumaraid: Welcome to Obama's brave new world where we all sing kumbaya while our enemies burn the house down around us.

Tomorrow you'll be calling him a monster again for having a kill list.

No. I've already said that. He is a murderer for authorizing the execution of Americans without trial by jury. Unlike you I don't let my politics interfere with my sense of right and wrong.

I generally believe once an american sides with the enemy during a time of war and acts in allegiance with an enemy combatant or group, they cease to be civilian criminals and become enemy combatants under the rules of war.

Also, do some research on the Folstoiche (sp?) During WW II. These were americans who left to go to nazi germany and fight for the Reich. They were generally captured and executed without trial, etc.

If you commit a crime by, say, blowing up a building or shooting up a movie theater, it is a civilian criminal act. If you openly support and join with declared enemy combatants, you're an enemy combatant. Period.

Under our constitution, the word "War" means something.

It does, and congress authorized a state of war in 2001.

Just because it was declared against radical organizations and not a nation doesn't change that.


Basically you are arguing that the 2001 authorization of use of force is an open ended Declaration of War. So we are permanently at "War" (as such term is used in the Constitution)?
 
2012-09-13 10:10:21 AM

Kit Fister: LesserEvil: Until people in the middle east stop volunteering to be slaves to their mythical sky lord and learn that words do not EVER cause mortal offense. It would help if the tribal mentality of that culture was eradicated, as well. Unfortunately, that won't happen any time soon; so the US' response has to take their culture into consideration, as well as what hasn't worked so far (putting radical Islamists into power), and what has (supporting moderates, which we seem to be currently NOT doing in Syria).

So if I run up to a black man and yell "nig---" or up to an italian and call him a wop or a daygo or whatever, this doesn't cause moral offense? Jeeze, that beatdown I got in jr. High for telling a black guy not to get is knickers in a twist must not have happened then...


How do you get "moral" when I specifically stated "mortal"?

Even then, why should words make a person violent? I don't condone anybody beating somebody up because they were called a name or said something that didn't match their opinions. Any culture that condones this is a BAD CULTURE.

Newsflash: Not all "cultures" are good, nor should we ever consider them "neutral". Cultures don't have any intrinsic right to exist; current western civilization wouldn't exist if our culture hadn't changed.

That we still have goons running around getting pissed off because somebody who doens't belong to their religion is criticising them for how they run around getting pissed off all the time is not conducive to a functional, free society.
 
2012-09-13 10:11:11 AM

Ricardo Klement: SandMann: The Marines didn't stop the Iranian capture of our embassy.

They are no protection against a major foreign policy failure.

I'm curious as to what you think Carter should have done that would have prevented it.


Look here.Some proactive leadership to crush the monster in the crib would have been nice.
 
2012-09-13 10:13:56 AM

ringersol: I think it's time we stopped pretending the movie had anything to do with this.
The protests were quite clearly astroturfed cover for pre-meditated attacks. Protests do not naturally escalate to coordinated mortar and rocket fire.

It's quite ingenious, really. You've got a populace you can rile up pretty easily and a target that will bend over backwards to not fire on that crowd.
My guess is that Egypt and Yemen didn't turn out like Libya only because they had proper security and defenses.

Which brings me to: it's completely farked up that we would send American functionaries into countries that are literally out of control and overflowing with military gear *without* having built a fortress-embassy and/or sent over a goddamm plane-load of marines *first*. If that would be politically uncouth in a country in chaos? Then don't farking go. Let the CIA do whatever business needs to be done.


if only Mitch Rapp were real, this would never have happened.

Seriously, though, I said the same thing yesterday. Everytthing related to the movie is coming up bogus, like it was a covert op type thing.

Now, you have staged protests in these countries, all of which are being used as cover for attacks. How is this NOT seen as a coordinated effort and just some tarded americans making a movie and a bunch of muslims acting like the savages they are (which is then used as fodder to prove the US has no respect of islam/muslims/people in those countries).
 
2012-09-13 10:18:07 AM
To kind of add on to the above, the State Department tends to give a fair amount of latitude to the guys on the ground in terms of security (at least they did back when I was in). There is a local security chief, the ambassador, and of course some folk who work for the CIA/NSA/etc. They tend to form the local brain trust on what they want. As an example, I was in one country that was not very friendly to America and the Ambassador wanted the Marines wearing dress shirts and khakis when we were publicly visible. Lead to a bunch of fights because of course that isn't how we are supposed to dress on duty. He want back to DC and had someone in the State Department lean on someone in the Pentagon and suddenly we had orders to follow the Ambassador's dress code. Actually the State Department bought me some nice designer suits and let me keep them. So we just looked like office drones.

In terms of playing the blame game, what we need to see are the memos from the security chief and the like at the embassy. If they say "You know what, we feel good about the local security guys and think the American military would just enrage the locals" then the lack of Marines is valid and hindsight proves the ambassador wrong. If there are dozens of memos where the Ambassador begs for more security, then whoever reject those requests needs to be starting a new career as a fry cook.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-09-13 10:20:07 AM

tereklusec: 1nsanilicious: tereklusec: WeDemocrats sent dignitaries THEN security personnel instead of the other way around?

WeDemocrats really are the overconfident assholes the rest of the countries accuse us of being.

FTFY

I'm as remorseful as you are that Democrats are also Americans, but sadly it's a truth we cannot change. So I stand, regretfully, correct in my original statement.


It's too bad that Republicans aren't, unless as in "Confederate States of America".
 
2012-09-13 10:20:35 AM
What the secret plans for the NEW mission building in Benghazi look like (artist rendering)

blog.frightcatalog.com
 
2012-09-13 10:20:50 AM

Lunaville: Generation_D: Hobodeluxe: oeneus: There are many missions that have no Marine presence and Marines, when present, protect information not personnel. Embassy and consulate protection is the responsibility of the host government.

exactly. the host country determines security. these dignitaries know their job can be dangerous. but something is fishy with all this and that video. this whole thing just feels weird. like we're being played. and yes I do watch shows like Rubicon,Jericho and Homeland. Why do you ask?

I put on my tinfoil and ask, "who benefits most from this action." And I keep coming back to Israel, Neocons, and Republicans.

Does Israel really benefit? I suppose an argument could be made that the Likud party may benefit, but Israel as a whole? I'm not seeing it.


There's a LOT of foreign money behind the Romney campaign, a big chunk of that was raised by Romney in his visit to Israel in Early August. Also, remember that Sheldon Adelson has put up 100 million alone and he has deep ties with the Israeli Likud party. A foreign policy embarrassment to Obama would benefit Adelson quite a bit and that kind of money goes a long way in a small nation like Israel.
 
2012-09-13 10:21:07 AM

Moopy Mac: Kit Fister: Moopy Mac: Kit Fister: Gumaraid: HotWingConspiracy: Gumaraid: Welcome to Obama's brave new world where we all sing kumbaya while our enemies burn the house down around us.

Tomorrow you'll be calling him a monster again for having a kill list.

No. I've already said that. He is a murderer for authorizing the execution of Americans without trial by jury. Unlike you I don't let my politics interfere with my sense of right and wrong.

I generally believe once an american sides with the enemy during a time of war and acts in allegiance with an enemy combatant or group, they cease to be civilian criminals and become enemy combatants under the rules of war.

Also, do some research on the Folstoiche (sp?) During WW II. These were americans who left to go to nazi germany and fight for the Reich. They were generally captured and executed without trial, etc.

If you commit a crime by, say, blowing up a building or shooting up a movie theater, it is a civilian criminal act. If you openly support and join with declared enemy combatants, you're an enemy combatant. Period.

Under our constitution, the word "War" means something.

It does, and congress authorized a state of war in 2001.

Just because it was declared against radical organizations and not a nation doesn't change that.

Basically you are arguing that the 2001 authorization of use of force is an open ended Declaration of War. So we are permanently at "War" (as such term is used in the Constitution)?


I don't see anyone saying the war is over, or withdrawing troops/ceasing military action against those groups who are still mounting attacks on military personnel. Congress didn't say "you have 30 days to get this specific group" or anything.

I don't like it, and fighting a war against a nebulous organization that exists because of the radicalization of particular beliefs is like trying to stop rain from falling. But, here we are: mired in a country that continues to cost lives and be seen as an active war zone, and facing military attacks on embassies and american personnel abroad.

Whether you want to agree or not, if we're sending military forces to fight a group of people and are actively engaged in military combat, that's war. Otherwise, we'd be sending in the fbi and conducting other types of non-military intervention.
 
2012-09-13 10:21:07 AM

HotWingConspiracy: So the right wingers shiatting all over the marines have been incorrect? This is a shocking development.


Where's this shiatting been happening? I was certainly going 'where were the marines?', 'Were they under crazy restrictive ROE's?', but in general, armed marines should be able to keep a mostly unarmed mob from killing the ambassador. At the very least, they should be able to provide quotes like 'ramparts of bodies' and 'rivers of blood' before the ambassador is torn to pieces.

Cubicle Jockey: Unless one believes that the US would allow the presence of numerous armed Chinese & Russian Marine-equivalent detachments located in every major US city with the legal right to fire on US citizens they consider "threatening".


Actually, I believe that we DO allow armed security within the embassy. For that matter, in 'most' cases I think it'd be entirely legal for them to shoot a US citizen who they consider 'threatening', as long as said US citizen was doing something that would be considered threatening to the common person. IE the same self defense rights all on US soil enjoy.

That being said, Ha-Ha Guy has it pretty much right - we really, really try to not leave a pile of local bodies. Replacing a flag is cheap. If we can realistically bunker down, we should and shall.
 
2012-09-13 10:22:25 AM
Romney smirked after a speech. His fault.

Also Bush.
 
2012-09-13 10:23:47 AM

vpb: tereklusec: 1nsanilicious: tereklusec: WeDemocrats sent dignitaries THEN security personnel instead of the other way around?

WeDemocrats really are the overconfident assholes the rest of the countries accuse us of being.

FTFY

I'm as remorseful as you are that Democrats are also Americans, but sadly it's a truth we cannot change. So I stand, regretfully, correct in my original statement.

It's too bad that Republicans aren't, unless as in "Confederate States of America".


Yes, because the proper response to people whose views differ from yours is "leave the country" since your views are the only valid ones, right?

I don't agree with much of the democrat or republican ticket, but I don't velieve in telling people who disagree with me to gtfo (unless their platform involves selectively editing the bill of rights, then I believe that they are anathema to what the US originally stood for and are better off leaving).
 
2012-09-13 10:24:30 AM

SandMann: Ricardo Klement: SandMann: The Marines didn't stop the Iranian capture of our embassy.

They are no protection against a major foreign policy failure.

I'm curious as to what you think Carter should have done that would have prevented it.

Look here.Some proactive leadership to crush the monster in the crib would have been nice.


Yeah, Iran was much like Arab Spring... Carter chose to let the Shah's regime fall to radicals who were completely anti-western. It sparked a monster that still isn't tamed and on the verge of being the Islamist (note the "ist) country to have nuclearweapons. In addition, Iran has been behind many opf the region's flareups, whether it's supporting Islamist factions in Lebanon, or all out war with Iraq (and currently supporting insurgency operations in Iraq).

If you erase that one failure, I think the picture changes dramatically in the Middle East over the last 30 years. Instead, we have a cascade of failures that bguild on an already dysfunctional and volatile region.

We see a similar thing now with Libya and Egypt, with the Muslim Brotherhood gaining power. Why on earth the State Department thought this was an acceptable outcome is beyond me. A simple look at the support the US gave the Mujhadeen in Afghanistan in the 80s (resulting in the Taliban and Al Qaida) should have been enough to convince the US how wrong Arab Spring would turn out for us.

Don't even get me started on the idiot Saudis and their Wahabbist crap.
 
2012-09-13 10:26:43 AM

X-boxershorts: Lunaville: Generation_D: Hobodeluxe: oeneus: There are many missions that have no Marine presence and Marines, when present, protect information not personnel. Embassy and consulate protection is the responsibility of the host government.

exactly. the host country determines security. these dignitaries know their job can be dangerous. but something is fishy with all this and that video. this whole thing just feels weird. like we're being played. and yes I do watch shows like Rubicon,Jericho and Homeland. Why do you ask?

I put on my tinfoil and ask, "who benefits most from this action." And I keep coming back to Israel, Neocons, and Republicans.

Does Israel really benefit? I suppose an argument could be made that the Likud party may benefit, but Israel as a whole? I'm not seeing it.

There's a LOT of foreign money behind the Romney campaign, a big chunk of that was raised by Romney in his visit to Israel in Early August. Also, remember that Sheldon Adelson has put up 100 million alone and he has deep ties with the Israeli Likud party. A foreign policy embarrassment to Obama would benefit Adelson quite a bit and that kind of money goes a long way in a small nation like Israel.


Okay, let's assume for the sake of argument that recent events will benefit: the Likud, neocons, Shel Adelson, and, by extension, Romney. Don't you think that asserting that those same events will also benefit Israel as a whole and, by implication, all Israelis is a bit akin to asserting that a series of events, which benefits the GOP and Romney, benefits America as a whole and, by extension, all Americans?
 
2012-09-13 10:26:53 AM

SandMann: Ricardo Klement: SandMann: The Marines didn't stop the Iranian capture of our embassy.

They are no protection against a major foreign policy failure.

I'm curious as to what you think Carter should have done that would have prevented it.

Look here.Some proactive leadership to crush the monster in the crib would have been nice.


Oh, Carter certainly made mistakes, some of them egregious. But I don't think he had a play here that would have helped. This wasn't the first revolution, and his faith-in-everyones-humanity naïveté was clearly only making things worse. But that revolution was coming, and the only options we had were to side with the rebels (who would have been as grateful as the Libyan rebels, and we suspected were Soviet clients anyway) or side with the Shah in a losing battle.

If you want a great book on the revolution (and an extreme desire to have a certain Marine guard traitor hung) read "Guests of the Ayatollah".
 
2012-09-13 10:27:31 AM

ha-ha-guy: tereklusec: oeneus: There are many missions that have no Marine presence and Marines, when present, protect information not personnel. Embassy and consulate protection is the responsibility of the host government.

Marines, like all armed forces, protect whatever you tell them to. And they protect it well, with violence if necessary.

I'm a former MSG and what oeneus said is more or less correct. The top of our list is "Destroy the following shiat in the event of an embassy breach". Moving beyond that our goal is to support the State Department in their goals long term diplomatic goals, not mow down crowds with .50 caliber fire. Mass killings tend to put a chill a diplomacy and create long term problems. Had Marine Security Guards been there they likely would have been busy destroying stuff, fighting fires, and moving staff to safe rooms. There really isn't an "empty the armory and kill hundreds of people" page in the security guard book. The State Department is pissed about the dead staff, they'd be even more pissed had the locals been massacred. Sometimes your the unit that gets to be the first ashore (read: 90% causality rate) and sometimes your the State Department worker who buys the farm for being in a hostile environment. No one likes to admit it, but sometimes a platoon or two of dead Americans are better than the alternative in the long run.

For that matter the 50 person team that is getting dropped off is likely laden down with LRADs, Tear Gas, and all kinds of fun non lethal toys. They'll likely sandbag in some weapons like 40mm grenade launchers or the like as kind of a visible do not fark with us symbol (and you can fire all kinds of fun nonlethal shiat from the 40mm). However the real security will be the Libyan military, paramilitary, or riot police units that get are setting up camp around an embassy. If the locals heads have to be cracked, you want locals doing the cracking, much less of a backlash that way. 10 Libyan security guards di ...


A fair and reasonable analysis, thank you!
 
2012-09-13 10:30:57 AM

LesserEvil: SandMann: Ricardo Klement: SandMann: The Marines didn't stop the Iranian capture of our embassy.

They are no protection against a major foreign policy failure.

I'm curious as to what you think Carter should have done that would have prevented it.

Look here.Some proactive leadership to crush the monster in the crib would have been nice.

Yeah, Iran was much like Arab Spring... Carter chose to let the Shah's regime fall to radicals who were completely anti-western. It sparked a monster that still isn't tamed and on the verge of being the Islamist (note the "ist) country to have nuclearweapons. In addition, Iran has been behind many opf the region's flareups, whether it's supporting Islamist factions in Lebanon, or all out war with Iraq (and currently supporting insurgency operations in Iraq).

If you erase that one failure, I think the picture changes dramatically in the Middle East over the last 30 years. Instead, we have a cascade of failures that bguild on an already dysfunctional and volatile region.

We see a similar thing now with Libya and Egypt, with the Muslim Brotherhood gaining power. Why on earth the State Department thought this was an acceptable outcome is beyond me. A simple look at the support the US gave the Mujhadeen in Afghanistan in the 80s (resulting in the Taliban and Al Qaida) should have been enough to convince the US how wrong Arab Spring would turn out for us.

Don't even get me started on the idiot Saudis and their Wahabbist crap.


Unless you're suggesting a ground war in Iran with the same US forces that couldn't even get their aircraft to park in a wide-open desert without running into each other, I don't think Carter had a military option. Certainly not one in a country people forget was adjacent to the Soviet Union. No way, nohow.
 
2012-09-13 10:31:52 AM

ThreadSinger: ha-ha-guy: tereklusec: oeneus: There are many missions that have no Marine presence and Marines, when present, protect information not personnel. Embassy and consulate protection is the responsibility of the host government.

Marines, like all armed forces, protect whatever you tell them to. And they protect it well, with violence if necessary.

I'm a former MSG and what oeneus said is more or less correct. The top of our list is "Destroy the following shiat in the event of an embassy breach". Moving beyond that our goal is to support the State Department in their goals long term diplomatic goals, not mow down crowds with .50 caliber fire. Mass killings tend to put a chill a diplomacy and create long term problems. Had Marine Security Guards been there they likely would have been busy destroying stuff, fighting fires, and moving staff to safe rooms. There really isn't an "empty the armory and kill hundreds of people" page in the security guard book. The State Department is pissed about the dead staff, they'd be even more pissed had the locals been massacred. Sometimes your the unit that gets to be the first ashore (read: 90% causality rate) and sometimes your the State Department worker who buys the farm for being in a hostile environment. No one likes to admit it, but sometimes a platoon or two of dead Americans are better than the alternative in the long run.

For that matter the 50 person team that is getting dropped off is likely laden down with LRADs, Tear Gas, and all kinds of fun non lethal toys. They'll likely sandbag in some weapons like 40mm grenade launchers or the like as kind of a visible do not fark with us symbol (and you can fire all kinds of fun nonlethal shiat from the 40mm). However the real security will be the Libyan military, paramilitary, or riot police units that get are setting up camp around an embassy. If the locals heads have to be cracked, you want locals doing the cracking, much less of a backlash that way. 10 Libyan security guards di ...

A fair and reasonable analysis, thank you!


Shhh, we don't encourage fair and reasoned talk here on fark.
 
2012-09-13 10:39:56 AM

Lunaville: Okay, let's assume for the sake of argument that recent events will benefit: the Likud, neocons, Shel Adelson, and, by extension, Romney. Don't you think that asserting that those same events will also benefit Israel as a whole and, by implication, all Israelis is a bit akin to asserting that a series of events, which benefits the GOP and Romney, benefits America as a whole and, by extension, all Americans?


Since when has today's Republican party given 2 shiats about "ALL" of America?
 
2012-09-13 10:41:37 AM

1nsanilicious: Maybe Obama would have if he attended his intelligence reviews instead of requesting bear hugs from pizza shop owners for campaign fodder.


Mr. Obama has proven he's significantly better at running for the office he holds than actually performing the duties of that office, whether we're talking the U.S. Senate or the Presidency.
 
2012-09-13 10:44:30 AM

Ricardo Klement: LesserEvil: SandMann: Ricardo Klement: SandMann: The Marines didn't stop the Iranian capture of our embassy.

They are no protection against a major foreign policy failure.

I'm curious as to what you think Carter should have done that would have prevented it.

Look here.Some proactive leadership to crush the monster in the crib would have been nice.

Yeah, Iran was much like Arab Spring... Carter chose to let the Shah's regime fall to radicals who were completely anti-western. It sparked a monster that still isn't tamed and on the verge of being the Islamist (note the "ist) country to have nuclearweapons. In addition, Iran has been behind many opf the region's flareups, whether it's supporting Islamist factions in Lebanon, or all out war with Iraq (and currently supporting insurgency operations in Iraq).

If you erase that one failure, I think the picture changes dramatically in the Middle East over the last 30 years. Instead, we have a cascade of failures that bguild on an already dysfunctional and volatile region.

We see a similar thing now with Libya and Egypt, with the Muslim Brotherhood gaining power. Why on earth the State Department thought this was an acceptable outcome is beyond me. A simple look at the support the US gave the Mujhadeen in Afghanistan in the 80s (resulting in the Taliban and Al Qaida) should have been enough to convince the US how wrong Arab Spring would turn out for us.

Don't even get me started on the idiot Saudis and their Wahabbist crap.

Unless you're suggesting a ground war in Iran with the same US forces that couldn't even get their aircraft to park in a wide-open desert without running into each other, I don't think Carter had a military option. Certainly not one in a country people forget was adjacent to the Soviet Union. No way, nohow.


Sure there were options. Side with the Shah and engage Iran's neighbors to help. Saddam was in our pocket then, and certainly didn't want shiates gaining power next door. Likewise, the Turks probably would have chipped in to shore up the lesser of two evils.

You also don't let the Shah flee the country... a big part of the collapse of his government came after he fled the country. If he had remained, he MIGHT still have lost, but the military would have continued support for his regime. Yes, it would have been ugly... so what? It still was ugly, and has been for a long time. Hundreds of thousands of Iranians are dead because of the revolutionaries that took over. With the military still in play, the Embassy hostage situation possibly doesn't happen, and maybe at the end, a compromise with more moderate parties in "the revolution" occurs to keep the Soviets from creating another client state born of radical Islamism.


We'll never know because Carter's foreign policy was crap. He never understood what he was up against, and constantly erred in the worst possible ways.
 
2012-09-13 10:45:01 AM

ha-ha-guy: Honestly the Egyptian embassy was handled perfectly. People saw it coming and got the fark out of the way. The protesters tore down a flag, chanted a bit, and got it out of their system. No one died and al-Qaeda had no martyrs. All the staff were either in secure areas of the compound or out of there completely. Libya wasn't handled badly considering what a shiatty they hand were dealt. Reports are suggesting the ambassador suffocated to death and for that matter a second group of Libyans came in and tried to carry him to the hospital. It wasn't like security was so bad someone walked into his office and shot him in the head. Dead people is never good, but as far as bad situations go it wasn't made worse by American actions (based on reports so far). Had MSGs been there then maybe one of them might have dragged the Ambassador to safety, a medic might have saved him, but that's all just speculation. Basically the Libyan Embassy did have functional security in that the local security guards stood their ground and died for their loyalty. They didn't just bail and leave the doors open. Nothing short of parking a massive military force would have broken up that mob and if we'd done that from Day 1 it would have created bad blood and increased the odds of confrontation. You don't always want your embassy to be the massively secure compound that showcases American military might, that just tends to increase the odds someone tries to fark with you in an effort to create martyrs.


The Egypt situation wasn't handled perfectly, we missed a great opportunity to rid Egypt of some of its excess islamists, which is good for US interests, and great for secular Egyptians. Also, why should we care about giving the fanatics martyrs? Do martyrs give them super powers or something? No, we're being given a perfect working relationship between ourselves and the theocrats: they send us live theocrats, and we send them dead theocrats.

/And the kind of person who storms an embassy doesn't just "get it out of their system", those are the kind of people you want to be killing because when they're not threatening US assets and personnel, they're threatening their neighbors
//Also, I understand that firing on people that forcibly enter an embassy isn't the way things are done, I'm advocating for a radical change in policy
 
2012-09-13 10:46:05 AM

X-boxershorts: Lunaville: Okay, let's assume for the sake of argument that recent events will benefit: the Likud, neocons, Shel Adelson, and, by extension, Romney. Don't you think that asserting that those same events will also benefit Israel as a whole and, by implication, all Israelis is a bit akin to asserting that a series of events, which benefits the GOP and Romney, benefits America as a whole and, by extension, all Americans?

Since when has today's Republican party given 2 shiats about "ALL" of America?


Since when has today's Democratic party given 2 shiats about "MOST" of America?
 
2012-09-13 10:47:50 AM

Lunaville: Generation_D: Hobodeluxe: oeneus: There are many missions that have no Marine presence and Marines, when present, protect information not personnel. Embassy and consulate protection is the responsibility of the host government.

exactly. the host country determines security. these dignitaries know their job can be dangerous. but something is fishy with all this and that video. this whole thing just feels weird. like we're being played. and yes I do watch shows like Rubicon,Jericho and Homeland. Why do you ask?

I put on my tinfoil and ask, "who benefits most from this action." And I keep coming back to Israel, Neocons, and Republicans.

Does Israel really benefit? I suppose an argument could be made that the Likud party may benefit, but Israel as a whole? I'm not seeing it.


They benefit from having a lapdog US President, Romney, rather than the guy now, who actually isn't 100% willing to do what they tell him to do 100% of the time.
 
2012-09-13 10:50:23 AM
www.obama-sucks.com
 
2012-09-13 10:50:51 AM
Has anyone figured out how many people were firing the heavy machinery?

Not sure if the rally was incited so the heavily-armed crazies could attack the consulate, or if the crazies were told, "Hey, next time there's a rally, go ahead and start firing off."
 
2012-09-13 10:51:36 AM

Lunaville: X-boxershorts: Lunaville: Generation_D: Hobodeluxe: oeneus: There are many missions that have no Marine presence and Marines, when present, protect information not personnel. Embassy and consulate protection is the responsibility of the host government.

exactly. the host country determines security. these dignitaries know their job can be dangerous. but something is fishy with all this and that video. this whole thing just feels weird. like we're being played. and yes I do watch shows like Rubicon,Jericho and Homeland. Why do you ask?

I put on my tinfoil and ask, "who benefits most from this action." And I keep coming back to Israel, Neocons, and Republicans.

Does Israel really benefit? I suppose an argument could be made that the Likud party may benefit, but Israel as a whole? I'm not seeing it.

There's a LOT of foreign money behind the Romney campaign, a big chunk of that was raised by Romney in his visit to Israel in Early August. Also, remember that Sheldon Adelson has put up 100 million alone and he has deep ties with the Israeli Likud party. A foreign policy embarrassment to Obama would benefit Adelson quite a bit and that kind of money goes a long way in a small nation like Israel.

Okay, let's assume for the sake of argument that recent events will benefit: the Likud, neocons, Shel Adelson, and, by extension, Romney. Don't you think that asserting that those same events will also benefit Israel as a whole and, by implication, all Israelis is a bit akin to asserting that a series of events, which benefits the GOP and Romney, benefits America as a whole and, by extension, all Americans?


Thats a fair point. So you're saying not all Israelis want John Bolton back as Secretary of State, and not all Israelis want a lapdog US president?

Where are these moderate Israelis? The only ones you see here are the neocon allies.
 
2012-09-13 10:54:52 AM

stpickrell: Has anyone figured out how many people were firing the heavy machinery?

Not sure if the rally was incited so the heavily-armed crazies could attack the consulate, or if the crazies were told, "Hey, next time there's a rally, go ahead and start firing off."


That's kind of an interesting question. Why wait for some weak-ass cover story from a protest when it sounds like they had the muscle and mismatch to pull off an attack like this whenever they pleased.
 
2012-09-13 10:56:58 AM

Moopy Mac: Kit Fister: Moopy Mac: Kit Fister: Gumaraid: HotWingConspiracy: Gumaraid: Welcome to Obama's brave new world where we all sing kumbaya while our enemies burn the house down around us.

Tomorrow you'll be calling him a monster again for having a kill list.

No. I've already said that. He is a murderer for authorizing the execution of Americans without trial by jury. Unlike you I don't let my politics interfere with my sense of right and wrong.

I generally believe once an american sides with the enemy during a time of war and acts in allegiance with an enemy combatant or group, they cease to be civilian criminals and become enemy combatants under the rules of war.

Also, do some research on the Folstoiche (sp?) During WW II. These were americans who left to go to nazi germany and fight for the Reich. They were generally captured and executed without trial, etc.

If you commit a crime by, say, blowing up a building or shooting up a movie theater, it is a civilian criminal act. If you openly support and join with declared enemy combatants, you're an enemy combatant. Period.

Under our constitution, the word "War" means something.

It does, and congress authorized a state of war in 2001.

Just because it was declared against radical organizations and not a nation doesn't change that.

Basically you are arguing that the 2001 authorization of use of force is an open ended Declaration of War. So we are permanently at "War" (as such term is used in the Constitution)?


That's what it was intended to be. We're at war with a bunch of rouge organizations for an indefinite term, and the President has power to use military force against those groups.

If you don't like it, blame Congress. Get on the line to your local congresscritter and suggest they repeal the 2001 authorization, and see how long it takes for the staffer to stop laughing.
 
2012-09-13 10:57:15 AM

LesserEvil: X-boxershorts: Lunaville: Okay, let's assume for the sake of argument that recent events will benefit: the Likud, neocons, Shel Adelson, and, by extension, Romney. Don't you think that asserting that those same events will also benefit Israel as a whole and, by implication, all Israelis is a bit akin to asserting that a series of events, which benefits the GOP and Romney, benefits America as a whole and, by extension, all Americans?

Since when has today's Republican party given 2 shiats about "ALL" of America?

Since when has today's Democratic party given 2 shiats about "MOST" of America?


Funny, lol...completely off the topic of the post I was responding to though.
But hey, I for one am glad they rammed health insurance reform down your throat.....
 
2012-09-13 10:58:38 AM

Generation_D: Lunaville: X-boxershorts: Lunaville: Generation_D: Hobodeluxe: oeneus: There are many missions that have no Marine presence and Marines, when present, protect information not personnel. Embassy and consulate protection is the responsibility of the host government.

exactly. the host country determines security. these dignitaries know their job can be dangerous. but something is fishy with all this and that video. this whole thing just feels weird. like we're being played. and yes I do watch shows like Rubicon,Jericho and Homeland. Why do you ask?

I put on my tinfoil and ask, "who benefits most from this action." And I keep coming back to Israel, Neocons, and Republicans.

Does Israel really benefit? I suppose an argument could be made that the Likud party may benefit, but Israel as a whole? I'm not seeing it.

There's a LOT of foreign money behind the Romney campaign, a big chunk of that was raised by Romney in his visit to Israel in Early August. Also, remember that Sheldon Adelson has put up 100 million alone and he has deep ties with the Israeli Likud party. A foreign policy embarrassment to Obama would benefit Adelson quite a bit and that kind of money goes a long way in a small nation like Israel.

Okay, let's assume for the sake of argument that recent events will benefit: the Likud, neocons, Shel Adelson, and, by extension, Romney. Don't you think that asserting that those same events will also benefit Israel as a whole and, by implication, all Israelis is a bit akin to asserting that a series of events, which benefits the GOP and Romney, benefits America as a whole and, by extension, all Americans?

Thats a fair point. So you're saying not all Israelis want John Bolton back as Secretary of State, and not all Israelis want a lapdog US president?

Where are these moderate Israelis? The only ones you see here are the neocon allies.


Maybe the Jewish Voice for Peace, Link, and other similar organizations, their members and their sympathizers.
 
2012-09-13 10:58:46 AM

LesserEvil: Sure there were options. Side with the Shah and engage Iran's neighbors to help. Saddam was in our pocket then, and certainly didn't want shiates gaining power next door. Likewise, the Turks probably would have chipped in to shore up the lesser of two evils.

You also don't let the Shah flee the country... a big part of the collapse of his government came after he fled the country. If he had remained, he MIGHT still have lost, but the military would have continued support for his regime. Yes, it would have been ugly... so what? It still was ugly, and has been for a long time. Hundreds of thousands of Iranians are dead because of the revolutionaries that took over. With the military still in play, the Embassy hostage situation possibly doesn't happen, and maybe at the end, a compromise with more moderate parties in "the revolution" occurs to keep the Soviets from creating another client state born of radical Islamism.


We'll never know because Carter's foreign policy was crap. He never understood what he was up against, and constantly erred in the worst possible ways.


I'll agree Carter was a tool. But Iran? I think it's mazingly optimistic, given how well US interventions have worked out elsewhere, to think it would have done anything more than antagonize them even more. Frankly, once we allowed the Shah to flee, our embassy staff should probably have been at LEAST been reduced to a skeleton crew, if not withdrawn entirely.
 
2012-09-13 10:59:01 AM
www.11thcavnam.com
denverpost.slideshowpro.com

Why didn't LBJ stop this? Why can't we protect our embassies?

/Oh wait, I just remembered. Presidents can't magically stop bad things from happening because this isn't fantasy land.
 
2012-09-13 10:59:52 AM
Thank goodness Obama has apologized to the terrorists that did this and has ordered the DOJ to try to prosecute American's for exercising freedom of speech. Who would have thought a liberal would blame America first and take the side of our enemies.
 
2012-09-13 11:02:31 AM

lordaction: Thank goodness Obama has apologized to the terrorists that did this and has ordered the DOJ to try to prosecute American's for exercising freedom of speech. Who would have thought a liberal would blame America first and take the side of our enemies.


Romney already beat you to the punch on that troll. It fell flat for him too.
 
2012-09-13 11:04:56 AM

oeneus: There are many missions that have no Marine presence and Marines, when present, protect information not personnel. Embassy and consulate protection is the responsibility of the host government.


Don't confuse the Tea Baggers with fact, they prefer their global politics nice and simple; somewhere between NASCAR fandom and a witch burning.
 
2012-09-13 11:04:58 AM
Hmmmm...... if only there was someone who wasn't full of bullshiat and that understands what's going on...

Link (pops)
 
2012-09-13 11:05:15 AM

rockforever: This is proof that people shouldn't be carrying guns in America if I ever saw it.


Trolls are gonna troll. Nice trolling, troll.
 
2012-09-13 11:05:25 AM

s1ugg0: lordaction: Thank goodness Obama has apologized to the terrorists that did this and has ordered the DOJ to try to prosecute American's for exercising freedom of speech. Who would have thought a liberal would blame America first and take the side of our enemies.

Romney already beat you to the punch on that troll. It fell flat for him too.


Actually, I thought it was rather explosive. Much like a petard
 
2012-09-13 11:06:21 AM

LesserEvil: SandMann: Ricardo Klement: SandMann: The Marines didn't stop the Iranian capture of our embassy.

They are no protection against a major foreign policy failure.

I'm curious as to what you think Carter should have done that would have prevented it.

Look here.Some proactive leadership to crush the monster in the crib would have been nice.

Yeah, Iran was much like Arab Spring... Carter chose to let the Shah's regime fall to radicals who were completely anti-western. It sparked a monster that still isn't tamed and on the verge of being the Islamist (note the "ist) country to have nuclearweapons. In addition, Iran has been behind many opf the region's flareups, whether it's supporting Islamist factions in Lebanon, or all out war with Iraq (and currently supporting insurgency operations in Iraq).

If you erase that one failure, I think the picture changes dramatically in the Middle East over the last 30 years. Instead, we have a cascade of failures that bguild on an already dysfunctional and volatile region.

We see a similar thing now with Libya and Egypt, with the Muslim Brotherhood gaining power. Why on earth the State Department thought this was an acceptable outcome is beyond me. A simple look at the support the US gave the Mujhadeen in Afghanistan in the 80s (resulting in the Taliban and Al Qaida) should have been enough to convince the US how wrong Arab Spring would turn out for us.

Don't even get me started on the idiot Saudis and their Wahabbist crap.


How do you prevent a population form choosing the guy they want versus the guy you want for them? Go ahead and explaign this one to me, i'd love to hear it.
 
2012-09-13 11:06:53 AM

peewinkle: Hmmmm...... if only there was someone who wasn't full of bullshiat and that understands what's going on...

Link(pops)


Lots of detail
 
2012-09-13 11:07:23 AM

ha-ha-guy: If say Saturday the Libyans come over the all, the Marines orders likely are to use nonlethal methods to buy time and either move everyone to safe rooms or evac them via APCs/helicopters/etc.


That's pretty much how I remember it from time in Mauritania, Senegal, London and Baghdad. The low-key response was ALWAYS the Weeners. If trouble developed we had two primary rules: if we were in "town," we were to stay where we were and wait for help. If we were in the compound, go to our assigned positions and wait for help. Pretty much every instruction I got - whether it was from MSDs or PSDs - ended with the phrase "and wait for the choppers to get here."

Fighting it out was pretty low on the list, and then only to protect sensitive material. Contractors like me were expendable.

I had a GF who was in Dar when the embassy was bombed. Her group was in a building down the block, holding health care classes, when the bomb went off. Things were in chaos until a Marine arrived to take charge of her group. His first priority was to secure any laptops or books on the "burn" list. Then he sorted out the crowd into three groups: State Dept folks, contractors, and locals. The locals were sent on their way. The State Dept got first dibs on the armored Surburbans when they arrived. Contractors got to walk back to the compound. But, everyone was expecting it to be that way.

At the compound in Karrada, all the antennas on the roof were rigged to blow from the MSO's office so choppers could land on the roof. All our emergency plans revolved around GTFO, not fighting. Our guards were expected to form a "collapsing bag" until everyone was out. Mowing down waves of al-Quaida wasn't even on the list, because they expected sequential car bombs to breach the walls and gates.

Fortunately it never came to that. There's really not much you can do if the mob is big enough except "wait for the choppers to get here."
 
2012-09-13 11:08:53 AM

lordaction: Thank goodness Obama has apologized to the terrorists that did this and has ordered the DOJ to try to prosecute American's for exercising freedom of speech. Who would have thought a liberal would blame America first and take the side of our enemies.


0/10
 
2012-09-13 11:09:50 AM

Sargun: What's that? Temporary consulates don't have the same protection as permanent embassies?
More at 11


i work in a nondescript two story office building. the Swedish consulate is in a suite on the first floor. we have more protection than they do - we at least have to swipe a badge to get through our office doors.
 
2012-09-13 11:10:06 AM

Antimatter: LesserEvil: SandMann: Ricardo Klement: SandMann: The Marines didn't stop the Iranian capture of our embassy.

They are no protection against a major foreign policy failure.

I'm curious as to what you think Carter should have done that would have prevented it.

Look here.Some proactive leadership to crush the monster in the crib would have been nice.

Yeah, Iran was much like Arab Spring... Carter chose to let the Shah's regime fall to radicals who were completely anti-western. It sparked a monster that still isn't tamed and on the verge of being the Islamist (note the "ist) country to have nuclearweapons. In addition, Iran has been behind many opf the region's flareups, whether it's supporting Islamist factions in Lebanon, or all out war with Iraq (and currently supporting insurgency operations in Iraq).

If you erase that one failure, I think the picture changes dramatically in the Middle East over the last 30 years. Instead, we have a cascade of failures that bguild on an already dysfunctional and volatile region.

We see a similar thing now with Libya and Egypt, with the Muslim Brotherhood gaining power. Why on earth the State Department thought this was an acceptable outcome is beyond me. A simple look at the support the US gave the Mujhadeen in Afghanistan in the 80s (resulting in the Taliban and Al Qaida) should have been enough to convince the US how wrong Arab Spring would turn out for us.

Don't even get me started on the idiot Saudis and their Wahabbist crap.

How do you prevent a population form choosing the guy they want versus the guy you want for them? Go ahead and explaign this one to me, i'd love to hear it.


This. Also, I hope people realize that if those embassy security personnel had opened fire there were about a hundred thousand people in that crowd, right? Should they have just kept shooting?
 
2012-09-13 11:12:32 AM

peewinkle: Hmmmm...... if only there was someone who wasn't full of bullshiat and that understands what's going on...

Link (pops)


Wow - that was an amazing prediction. Did he mention whether sand would be involved?
 
2012-09-13 11:14:35 AM
".....a Libyan politician who had breakfast with Mr. Stevens at the mission the morning before he was killed described security, mainly four video cameras and as few as four Libyan guards, as sorely inadequate for an American ambassador in such a tumultuous environment. "This country is still in transition, and everybody knows the extremists are out there," said Fathi Baja, the Libyan politician."

In June a bomb went off against the consulate wall.

The UK consulate has been empty since June, when the British ambassadors' convoy was attacked in Benghazi, according to the Foreign Office in London.
 
2012-09-13 11:14:54 AM

lunchinlewis: stpickrell: Has anyone figured out how many people were firing the heavy machinery?

Not sure if the rally was incited so the heavily-armed crazies could attack the consulate, or if the crazies were told, "Hey, next time there's a rally, go ahead and start firing off."

That's kind of an interesting question. Why wait for some weak-ass cover story from a protest when it sounds like they had the muscle and mismatch to pull off an attack like this whenever they pleased.


Pretty obviously coordinated - most likely AlQaeda. Romney has held out the hope to them that if Obama can be driven from office, he will restore the Bush-era foreign policy team that AlQaeda thrived under. They have very good reasons to be doing this now, and Romney has no compunctions about siding with terrorists if it gets him Obama's job.
 
2012-09-13 11:15:32 AM

Ricardo Klement: peewinkle: Hmmmm...... if only there was someone who wasn't full of bullshiat and that understands what's going on...

Link (pops)

Wow - that was an amazing prediction. Did he mention whether sand would be involved?


A more rational and thorough analysis - It's Rachel Maddow from last night

And yeah, Fark Independants would do well to pay attention
 
2012-09-13 11:18:20 AM

lordaction: Thank goodness Obama has apologized to the terrorists that did this and has ordered the DOJ to try to prosecute American's for exercising freedom of speech. Who would have thought a liberal would blame America first and take the side of our enemies.


Romney is siding with AlQaeda on this because he wants Obama's job - but he's only a liberal when it's convenient.
 
2012-09-13 11:20:02 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: advex101: Is it too much of a fact load to point out that the Embassy is in Tripoli. The facility in Benghazi is a consulate. Kind of like a field office.

Americans don't really understand that kind of stuff. Most never leave their home county couch.

 
2012-09-13 11:21:40 AM
I can't be bothered to read all the derp in this thread but there are some of you who blame Obama and Democrats for this? You really are the idiots that people from other countries say you are if you believe that.
 
2012-09-13 11:22:37 AM

OldManDownDRoad: AverageAmericanGuy: advex101: Is it too much of a fact load to point out that the Embassy is in Tripoli. The facility in Benghazi is a consulate. Kind of like a field office.

Americans don't really understand that kind of stuff. Most never leave their home county.

Nonsense. There's 50k+ in Afghanistan this very minute.


I bet they're not the ones on the internet, jibber-jabbering about how the intricacies of diplomatic missions and diplomatic mission security ought to work, if only the people in charge would be smart enough to ask their completely uninformed opinion.
 
2012-09-13 11:28:23 AM

LesserEvil: We'll never know because Carter's foreign policy was crap. He never understood what he was up against, and constantly erred in the worst possible ways.


Ever heard of the Camp David Accords? Maybe the biggest advance toward Middle East peace evar? Nobel Peace Prize to participants?


/just askin'
 
2012-09-13 11:28:46 AM

Kit Fister: Moopy Mac: Kit Fister: Moopy Mac: Kit Fister: Gumaraid: HotWingConspiracy: Gumaraid: Welcome to Obama's brave new world where we all sing kumbaya while our enemies burn the house down around us.

Tomorrow you'll be calling him a monster again for having a kill list.

No. I've already said that. He is a murderer for authorizing the execution of Americans without trial by jury. Unlike you I don't let my politics interfere with my sense of right and wrong.

I generally believe once an american sides with the enemy during a time of war and acts in allegiance with an enemy combatant or group, they cease to be civilian criminals and become enemy combatants under the rules of war.

Also, do some research on the Folstoiche (sp?) During WW II. These were americans who left to go to nazi germany and fight for the Reich. They were generally captured and executed without trial, etc.

If you commit a crime by, say, blowing up a building or shooting up a movie theater, it is a civilian criminal act. If you openly support and join with declared enemy combatants, you're an enemy combatant. Period.

Under our constitution, the word "War" means something.

It does, and congress authorized a state of war in 2001.

Just because it was declared against radical organizations and not a nation doesn't change that.

Basically you are arguing that the 2001 authorization of use of force is an open ended Declaration of War. So we are permanently at "War" (as such term is used in the Constitution)?

I don't see anyone saying the war is over, or withdrawing troops/ceasing military action against those groups who are still mounting attacks on military personnel. Congress didn't say "you have 30 days to get this specific group" or anything.

I don't like it, and fighting a war against a nebulous organization that exists because of the radicalization of particular beliefs is like trying to stop rain from falling. But, here we are: mired in a country that continues to cost lives and be seen as an ...


So we are in a situation where it will never be over, because militant Islam will never be completely wiped off the face of the earth. We are looking at a permanent state of war with all of the limitations of Constitutional protections that comes with it? Yikes.
 
2012-09-13 11:34:35 AM

Walker: The intelligence source contrasted it with the American embassy in Cairo, Egypt - "a permanent facility, which is a lot easier to defend."

You mean the facility where protesters easily climbed over the wall, tore down the US flag, ripped it to shreds, then hung up an Islamic flag....on 9/11?
Yeah, that place sounds real secure.


//WTF is an Islamic flag?
 
2012-09-13 11:34:47 AM

tereklusec: 1nsanilicious: tereklusec: WeDemocrats sent dignitaries THEN security personnel instead of the other way around?

WeDemocrats really are the overconfident assholes the rest of the countries accuse us of being.

FTFY

I'm as remorseful as you are that Democrats are also Americans, but sadly it's a truth we cannot change. So I stand, regretfully, correct in my original statement.


You know. I really wish we could give you the A while we keep the US. If we could get rid of the major drain on our society (The republicans) we would be damn near a utopia.
 
2012-09-13 11:37:47 AM

Moopy Mac: But that's not really the point if we are discussing exposure to different cultures. Because as much as someone in San Angelo wants to say they are different than someone in Boston, it really isn't that different.


There are very few places anyone would want to go to in North America that offers a culture markedly different than that of the United States.
 
2012-09-13 11:41:39 AM

Moopy Mac: Kit Fister: Moopy Mac: Kit Fister: Moopy Mac: Kit Fister: Gumaraid: HotWingConspiracy: Gumaraid: Welcome to Obama's brave new world where we all sing kumbaya while our enemies burn the house down around us.

Tomorrow you'll be calling him a monster again for having a kill list.

No. I've already said that. He is a murderer for authorizing the execution of Americans without trial by jury. Unlike you I don't let my politics interfere with my sense of right and wrong.

I generally believe once an american sides with the enemy during a time of war and acts in allegiance with an enemy combatant or group, they cease to be civilian criminals and become enemy combatants under the rules of war.

Also, do some research on the Folstoiche (sp?) During WW II. These were americans who left to go to nazi germany and fight for the Reich. They were generally captured and executed without trial, etc.

If you commit a crime by, say, blowing up a building or shooting up a movie theater, it is a civilian criminal act. If you openly support and join with declared enemy combatants, you're an enemy combatant. Period.

Under our constitution, the word "War" means something.

It does, and congress authorized a state of war in 2001.

Just because it was declared against radical organizations and not a nation doesn't change that.

Basically you are arguing that the 2001 authorization of use of force is an open ended Declaration of War. So we are permanently at "War" (as such term is used in the Constitution)?

I don't see anyone saying the war is over, or withdrawing troops/ceasing military action against those groups who are still mounting attacks on military personnel. Congress didn't say "you have 30 days to get this specific group" or anything.

I don't like it, and fighting a war against a nebulous organization that exists because of the radicalization of particular beliefs is like trying to stop rain from falling. But, here we are: mired in a country that continues to cost lives and be seen as an ...

So we are in a situation where it will never be over, because militant Islam will never be completely wiped off the face of the earth. We are looking at a permanent state of war with all of the limitations of Constitutional protections that comes with it? Yikes.


Yeah, pretty much, unless obama, romney, or whomever decides enough is enough, bites the bullet, finds a way to withdraw from the areas we're stuck in and accept that to have peace means we support groups and ideas that may not exactly match our own interests instead of fighting against an idea.

We can't force an alien world view on a culture that has no concept of democracy or individual freedoms. We can't forcibly educate our morality onto them. Any time in history when someone attempted to "civilize" a culture, it's ended badly.

The best we can hope for is to sponsor moderate governments and support the people that ask for our help and otherwise not interfere with other nations and their governments.

We'll also never stop the fundies. People find it easier to hear about things that are beyond their control as reasons for their lives sucking than taking personal responsibility for it. Ane the wisdom to walk away from that is painfully won. We can, as I said, walk away from active war and figting and playing kingmakers and support in a positive way while retasking our military in a defensive posture.

We can also reduce fanatacism by doing good for islamic countries without the strings, and make change in positivw ways that show people we're not the assholes the fundies make us out to be.

But, hey, nothing in this world works unless we actively control the regions peripheral to our interests, right?

That all being said, too, this isn't a schoolyard fight, either, where we can pull a Southpark Saddam and change instantly, or stop fighting and expect no backlash as the enemy presses their advantage.
We're in this for a good long time even if we start scaling back our involvement right now.
 
2012-09-13 11:42:10 AM
Hope the family sues the US government.
 
2012-09-13 11:44:25 AM
If only we had forces everywhere keeping people from reaching a riotous frenzy then we would have world peace. I blame the USA for not proactively making world peace.
 
2012-09-13 11:45:35 AM
This was gross negligence on our part.
 
2012-09-13 11:45:42 AM
Well after reading the article, it was supposed to be a temporary small post. Sucks, but probably didn't have the facilities to house all the Marines and staff. Obviously hindsight is 20/20.
 
2012-09-13 11:47:25 AM

bizwack: //WTF is an Islamic flag?


In this case the flag reads "there is no god but allah, and mohommed is his prophet". Not an official flag from the department of Islam, exactly, but it gets the point across.
 
2012-09-13 11:47:38 AM

ModernLuddite: I blame Obama repealing DADT.


I'm going to assume that you are repeating Dinnerjacket's "There are no gays in Iran" and then assuming the reader would link Muslim country with that statement thereby making it extremely humorous when following the poking of calling Marines gay.

I like that. You mixed at least three jokes in that tiny statement.

(or maybe I read too much into things)
 
2012-09-13 11:47:43 AM

tereklusec: I'm as remorseful as you are that Democrats are also Americans, but sadly it's a truth we cannot change. So I stand, regretfully, correct in my original statement.


Hell, Democrats are the only true Americans. Blue states pay more taxes into the system than we take out, while red states sponge off of us. And we don't whine about it, because we know what it means to be a country. You Republicans hate society and thus hate America (even as you are the biggest leeches off of said society and said country).

Frankly I'd be more than happy for you guys to go off and secede. I guarantee you, we'd be better off.
 
2012-09-13 11:48:00 AM

ha-ha-guy: tereklusec: oeneus: There are many missions that have no Marine presence and Marines, when present, protect information not personnel. Embassy and consulate protection is the responsibility of the host government.

Marines, like all armed forces, protect whatever you tell them to. And they protect it well, with violence if necessary.

I'm a former MSG and what oeneus said is more or less correct. The top of our list is "Destroy the following shiat in the event of an embassy breach". Moving beyond that our goal is to support the State Department in their goals long term diplomatic goals, not mow down crowds with .50 caliber fire. Mass killings tend to put a chill a diplomacy and create long term problems. Had Marine Security Guards been there they likely would have been busy destroying stuff, fighting fires, and moving staff to safe rooms. There really isn't an "empty the armory and kill hundreds of people" page in the security guard book. The State Department is pissed about the dead staff, they'd be even more pissed had the locals been massacred. Sometimes your the unit that gets to be the first ashore (read: 90% causality rate) and sometimes your the State Department worker who buys the farm for being in a hostile environment. No one likes to admit it, but sometimes a platoon or two of dead Americans are better than the alternative in the long run.

For that matter the 50 person team that is getting dropped off is likely laden down with LRADs, Tear Gas, and all kinds of fun non lethal toys. They'll likely sandbag in some weapons like 40mm grenade launchers or the like as kind of a visible do not fark with us symbol (and you can fire all kinds of fun nonlethal shiat from the 40mm). However the real security will be the Libyan military, paramilitary, or riot police units that get are setting up camp around an embassy. If the locals heads have to be cracked, you want locals doing the cracking, much less of a backlash that way. 10 Libyan security guards died defending ...


I agree with your diplomatic points. But I would say that having some marines there to do the things that you said the Marines would be doing rather than having none(or a couple non-uniformed guys) would have increased the odds that folks would have survived, in my opinion.

Do you really have protocol to destroy documents if rioting protestors or terrorists fire RPGs into a consulate?
 
2012-09-13 11:49:41 AM

Red_Fox: I can't be bothered to read all the derp in this thread but there are some of you who blame Obama and Democrats for this? You really are the idiots that people from other countries say you are if you believe that.


Not only that...they're HAPPY this happened. Disgusting treasonous individuals, all of 'em.
 
2012-09-13 11:50:01 AM

KanedaJD: This POST was gross negligence on our MY part.



Corrected

/Well....it was!
 
2012-09-13 11:51:17 AM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: tereklusec: I'm as remorseful as you are that Democrats are also Americans, but sadly it's a truth we cannot change. So I stand, regretfully, correct in my original statement.

Hell, Democrats are the only true Americans. Blue states pay more taxes into the system than we take out, while red states sponge off of us. And we don't whine about it, because we know what it means to be a country. You Republicans hate society and thus hate America (even as you are the biggest leeches off of said society and said country).

Frankly I'd be more than happy for you guys to go off and secede. I guarantee you, we'd be better off.


It's people with your fish brained mindsets- both of you dipshiats- that I would be happy to see 'go off and secede'.

Hopefully I'm missing some sarcasm.
 
2012-09-13 11:51:57 AM

tereklusec: Do you really have protocol to destroy documents if rioting protestors or terrorists fire RPGs into a consulate?


Why the fark wouldn't they?
 
2012-09-13 11:51:59 AM

X-boxershorts: KanedaJD: This POST was gross negligence on our MY part.


Corrected

/Well....it was!


Cute
 
2012-09-13 11:53:11 AM

KanedaJD: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: tereklusec: I'm as remorseful as you are that Democrats are also Americans, but sadly it's a truth we cannot change. So I stand, regretfully, correct in my original statement.

Hell, Democrats are the only true Americans. Blue states pay more taxes into the system than we take out, while red states sponge off of us. And we don't whine about it, because we know what it means to be a country. You Republicans hate society and thus hate America (even as you are the biggest leeches off of said society and said country).

Frankly I'd be more than happy for you guys to go off and secede. I guarantee you, we'd be better off.

It's people with your fish brained mindsets- both of you dipshiats- that I would be happy to see 'go off and secede'.

Hopefully I'm missing some sarcasm.


I'm just reading from their playbook. Welcome to fark.
 
2012-09-13 11:53:49 AM
Kit Fister: "Seriously, though, I said the same thing yesterday. Everytthing related to the movie is coming up bogus, like it was a covert op type thing."

Yeah, the weirdest bit is that the catalyst for the protests was the translated trailer, posted to the same account as the original trailer. And that followed the original trailer by some months. It would seem a stretch that the anti-American forces had "Use a protest as cover" plan to attack US assets in several countries ready to go when the translated call to action just happened to be uploaded. That's a bit too convenient. If it was natural, you'd think it would take more than a week for them to have co-opted the video, built the plan, built the outrage and arranged protests on *9/11* ffs.

So it seems more likely the terrorists got their plan ready then indicated a green light to post the translation and kick off the 'build a mob' portion.

I guess it's possible the bad actors did the translation themselves and hacked the filmmakers account. But it seems more likely that the film's money originally came from someone who knew what the end goal was. Not only to make a video that would cause protests, but that those protests themselves would be cover for attacks. And the film-maker was probably a wannabe political ratfarker who just thought their stunt would get them some sweet fringe patronage gigs (ala O'Keefe), but realized yesterday afternoon that he's just a patsy.
 
2012-09-13 11:53:50 AM

KanedaJD: X-boxershorts: KanedaJD: This POST was gross negligence on our MY part.


Corrected

/Well....it was!

Cute


Well, hey....you could have cited evidence supporting your claim.

Without citing evidence, your comment was just more of the same inflammatory nonsense making up 99% of the thread.

/Ain't FARK great?
 
2012-09-13 11:54:43 AM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: KanedaJD: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: tereklusec: I'm as remorseful as you are that Democrats are also Americans, but sadly it's a truth we cannot change. So I stand, regretfully, correct in my original statement.

Hell, Democrats are the only true Americans. Blue states pay more taxes into the system than we take out, while red states sponge off of us. And we don't whine about it, because we know what it means to be a country. You Republicans hate society and thus hate America (even as you are the biggest leeches off of said society and said country).

Frankly I'd be more than happy for you guys to go off and secede. I guarantee you, we'd be better off.

It's people with your fish brained mindsets- both of you dipshiats- that I would be happy to see 'go off and secede'.

Hopefully I'm missing some sarcasm.

I'm just reading from their playbook. Welcome to fark.


Mmmhmm...

Why put out a fire when you can pour gas on it, after all.

I've been here for a while, thanks
 
2012-09-13 11:57:49 AM

X-boxershorts: KanedaJD: X-boxershorts: KanedaJD: This POST was gross negligence on our MY part.


Corrected

/Well....it was!

Cute

Well, hey....you could have cited evidence supporting your claim.

Without citing evidence, your comment was just more of the same inflammatory nonsense making up 99% of the thread.

/Ain't FARK great?


Think real hard about what happened in Libya recently.
 
2012-09-13 12:07:25 PM

KanedaJD: X-boxershorts: KanedaJD: X-boxershorts: KanedaJD: This POST was gross negligence on our MY part.


Corrected

/Well....it was!

Cute

Well, hey....you could have cited evidence supporting your claim.

Without citing evidence, your comment was just more of the same inflammatory nonsense making up 99% of the thread.

/Ain't FARK great?

Think real hard about what happened in Libya recently.


I have, as a veteran and now as a taxpayer. I wonder the same about you.
 
2012-09-13 12:10:02 PM

SeismicJizzer: It is hard to predict what will set off Muslim nations, this time its about a movie that no one has ever heard of and these douchebags whipped themselves into a frenzy, created by asinine coonts for political gain.


You really believe everything the media tells you, don't you?

This happened on NINE farkING ELEVEN. It has nothing to do with a movie that came out over a year ago.
 
2012-09-13 12:10:20 PM
There's a startling amount of mindnumbingly stupid posts in this thread.

Look, the diplomatic service is a dangerous business and its participants know it, we know it, everyone knows it.

The men who died woke up that morning with the full understanding that sometimes things go pear-shaped and violence happens. It's a sad reality and their deaths will not go unpunished, but there it is. Sometimes, people die in that service.

Did it have to happen? No. The retard hick preacher who deliberately provoked them into violence is entirely to blame for igniting their fury and 'should' be held accountable, just as any fool who yells 'fire' in a crowded theater and gets people trampled to death.

Did this particular administration actually 'do' anything different to exacerbate the crisis? No.

A few last things to consider:

1) Romney is a smarmy douchenozzle unfit to even be near the White House. I actively hate that farker now.

2) There were spontaneous protests and candlelight vigils held in Libya after the attacks, showing that the vast majority of Libyans are allies and friends of the U.S. now. They are well aware that their current freedom from Daffy's regime is partially due to our efforts.
 
2012-09-13 12:12:15 PM

JohnCarter: What the secret plans for the NEW mission building in Benghazi look like (artist rendering)

[blog.frightcatalog.com image 600x533]


That's pretty cool. Does it have an elevator or does it just use stairs?
 
2012-09-13 12:12:41 PM

tereklusec: I agree with your diplomatic points. But I would say that having some marines there to do the things that you said the Marines would be doing rather than having none(or a couple non-uniformed guys) would have increased the odds that folks would have survived, in my opinion.

Do you really have protocol to destroy documents if rioting protestors or terrorists fire RPGs into a consulate?


Our primary purpose in life to protect classified stuff. Ensure it isn't stolen, ensure it doesn't fall into enemy hands, etc. At my posts we never did personal protection, if the State Department wants you to have bodyguard detail they'll issue you one. The extent at which was protected people was some individuals had classified information in their skulls, thus protecting the information entailed protecting them. Which meant for you example you dragged the ambassador to the safe room and threw him in there, even if he wanted to go check on his support staff and make sure they're okay. The support staff was on their own though. If they didn't make it to the safe room before it had to be secured, sucks to be them.

Basically if my superiors had seen my dead corpse being carried down the street by a mob, their first thought would have been "That chump better have destroyed everything he was supposed to before he got himself killed." The thought "I hope he saved the interns" never would have crossed their minds.

You wouldn't destroy stuff just on RPGs though. However that would be sign to get ready to. In other words, had what happened in Libya happened at my embassy, my Marine ass would not have been running for the walls with a machine gun. I would have been inside a fairly boring interior room with another Marine and two civilians employed by the Diplomatic Security Services (part of the Department of State). On another signal, stuff would be destroyed.

In other words there would not have have been a pack of Marines roaming the halls and rescuing everyone. We would have been busy locking the doors and destroying shiat. There may have been guys out to locate specific high value people and get them on the helicopter/into the safe room, but we're not the guys who protect the general staff. The local police/paramilitary outside the walls is supposed to break the crowd up before it storms the embassy. If they fail, the embassy security guards (normally people contracted by DSS) are supposed to delay the crowd. At no point do the Marines really emerge and go into kill the intruders/rescue everyone mode.

If it turns out the crowd made off with a super secret code book, when that's something the Marines would have stopped. You may have had some Marines outside supervising the people who handled external security, but odds are the majority would be inside and busy focusing on the protection/destruction of specific assets. The guys outside would not have been enough to turn the tide of the riot. All that would change is now it would be 10 Libyans and 2 Marines supervising them died.
 
2012-09-13 12:18:30 PM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: tereklusec: I'm as remorseful as you are that Democrats are also Americans, but sadly it's a truth we cannot change. So I stand, regretfully, correct in my original statement.

Hell, Democrats are the only true Americans. Blue states pay more taxes into the system than we take out, while red states sponge off of us. And we don't whine about it, because we know what it means to be a country. You Republicans hate society and thus hate America (even as you are the biggest leeches off of said society and said country).

Frankly I'd be more than happy for you guys to go off and secede. I guarantee you, we'd be better off.


Who would you tax then? Just because a state is blue, does not mean the Democrats there work, just means there are more welfare bums who vote for Obama.
 
2012-09-13 12:19:36 PM

HotWingConspiracy: If they had raped a single white female your outrage would be changing teams, I think, and you would be calling them rapists instead of protestors.

I don't even know what the fark to say to this. Why do people like you bring race in to everything?


Because they see race in everything. And then they get outraged when you call them racists.
 
2012-09-13 12:21:27 PM

tereklusec: We sent dignitaries THEN security personnel instead of the other way around?

We really are the overconfident assholes the rest of the countries accuse us of being.


Yeah, clearly we were asking for it. Not protecting ourselves is a provocation, and we should apologize for being attacked.
 
2012-09-13 12:21:49 PM

gerbilpox: LesserEvil: We'll never know because Carter's foreign policy was crap. He never understood what he was up against, and constantly erred in the worst possible ways.

Ever heard of the Camp David Accords? Maybe the biggest advance toward Middle East peace evar? Nobel Peace Prize to participants?


/just askin'


Carter got a peace prize? Oh, that's right, he didn't. He aped the success Kissinger had and got two leaders who were reasonable and rational to the table. This wasn't bad, but let's not give Carter all the credit here.

My reference was specifically to how the "revolution" was handled, or rather, mishandled.

A others stated, the embassy should have been evacuated when the Shah left. Instead, the administration took too many half-measures until it was too late.

The biggest problem was miscalculating the situation on the ground - in a number of ways - including being 'surprised' by the Shah's departure; hardly surprising considering the lack of actual support the US was giving his regime. Diplomatic effort could have been spent to reassure the Shah of support, perhaps a coalition of nations backing him explicitly, while at the same time, leaning on him to make compromises with the more moderate of his opponents (who ended up dead anyway when the Islamists took over, but might have swung the popular revolt).

A negotiated transfer of power was also an option - again, until the Shah left, the military backed his regime. The collapse was not inevitable until he fled the country. A more orderly transition to a western-style democracy might have been possible.

None of that was even attempted. The US stood by and let everything play out... and we can see the result with hindsight's 20/20 clarity.
 
2012-09-13 12:29:36 PM

Sliding Carp: OldManDownDRoad: AverageAmericanGuy: advex101: Is it too much of a fact load to point out that the Embassy is in Tripoli. The facility in Benghazi is a consulate. Kind of like a field office.

Americans don't really understand that kind of stuff. Most never leave their home county.

Nonsense. There's 50k+ in Afghanistan this very minute.

I bet they're not the ones on the internet, jibber-jabbering about how the intricacies of diplomatic missions and diplomatic mission security ought to work, if only the people in charge would be smart enough to ask their completely uninformed opinion.


Heh. There's at least one person here posting from Kabul - although from AUAF, not the diplomatic compound.

But you have to remember that most of the folks only get their news from the so-called major media, which means they are either hearing "Dear Leader Osama is calming the restless natives with the mere wave of his hand" or "Evil socialist Kenyan is destroying American interests around the globe" so you can't really blame them.

Luckily, both AlJazeera and the BBC - not to mention AFP, Moscow Times, der Spiegel, et al, - have internet feeds if anyone is curious about what's happening in the world other than Hollywood gossip.
 
2012-09-13 12:30:57 PM

SeismicJizzer: It is hard to predict what will set off Muslim nations, this time its about a movie that no one has ever heard of and these douchebags whipped themselves into a frenzy, created by asinine coonts for political gain.

One thing for sure is the leadership in Egypt doesn't have the cojones to quell the Islamists, it is going to be fun to see that country slowly rot in the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood.

I have always thought the Middle East is a rotten part of the world that should be shunned from the International community, that includes Israel.

These backward, feckless people deserve to be left to rot...


Thinking of this as "Muslims getting murderous over a film" is incorrect. These outbursts are directed events, and behind them lie what amount to hate-groups, using their members and resources to create chaotic situations, then exploit them. In the West we have hate groups, but we also have orgs like the FBI and INTERPOL that spent a lot of their time infiltrating, monitoring, and disrupting those hate groups, rendering them mostly impotent. In the Near East, and particularly in countries like Libya or Egypt that are in periods of transition, those sorts of police organizations either don't exist, are compromised, or are occasionally called off such work by governments hoping to use such groups for their own purposes. If there's a complaint to be made about the region here it's that most Near Eastern states, for a variety of reasons, due a very poor job of reeling in demagogues.

Regarding the event in Cairo, of course Morsi isn't going to do anything about it openly; he's allied with the MB and the people behind the raid are likely MB associates as well. Going after them openly would threaten their political coalition, so anything the Egyptian gov does in response to this will be either preventative or under the table. I find it rather unlikely that nothing at all will be done though, because Egypt still relies heavily on the US for military and commercial support, and because the US is currently guarantor of the Egyptian military's soft-touch in politics. Morsi and his gov realize as well as anyone that if US gov opinion about civilian rule changes, then the likelihood of a military coup followed by a return to a military dictatorship goes up.

Regarding the events in Benghazi; that wasn't a spontaneous riot, it was a concerted assault upon our embassy by religious militias. It was a military attack, likely one in the works for quite a while. As such, it didn't arise out of some generalized hysteria that Muslims are prone to, but rather out of the specific goals and desires of identifiable actors in a lightly and chaotically governed state we just finished smashing to bits not a year ago. Like I was writing at the time, invasions have consequences, and one of them is that some of the people who live there are not going to be happy about it and they're going to come after you for it, sooner or later. These sorts of organizations can operate wherever government is weak and animus exists to motivate the act; there is nothing exclusively Muslim about them just as there is nothing exclusively Muslim about the ability demagogues have to whip people into a fury and organize violence via the social organizations they are part of. As a good non-Near Eastern example, we Americans invaded Iraq and caused there a decade of tragedy and hardship due to our own susceptibility to the lies of unscrupulous men preying on our fear and desire for retribution. Americans may not have gone into the streets and, at the direction of provocateurs, lynched Muslim-seeming fellow citizens, but there are a few million dead Iraqis whose corpses well attest to just how deadly our more measured, procedurally expressed outrage can be.

I understand why you're angry, but dehumanizing fantasies aren't going to help us prevent this sort of thing, or find the people ultimately responsible.
 
2012-09-13 12:32:23 PM
Chill out everyone, 0bama has this one so handled, he jet'd off to a fund raiser in Las Vegas, where he compared his campaign volunteers to a dead diplomat, while collecting his silver coins.

I am officially speechless.
 
2012-09-13 12:35:15 PM
A lightly-secured "interim facility?" Sounds like "CIA safe house" to me.
 
2012-09-13 12:36:27 PM

tereklusec: oeneus: There are many missions that have no Marine presence and Marines, when present, protect information not personnel. Embassy and consulate protection is the responsibility of the host government.

Marines, like all armed forces, protect whatever you tell them to. And they protect it well, with violence if necessary.


We do the "break stuff and kill people" better than any other branch of service.
 
2012-09-13 12:38:58 PM
Was wondering how long it would take before "ZOMG we have troops everywhere" turned into "ZOMG we dont have enough troops everywhere".  Looks like it took 4 people being killed. You know what they say, lessons not learned in blood are often soon forgotten
 
2012-09-13 12:44:21 PM

X-boxershorts: KanedaJD: X-boxershorts: KanedaJD: This POST was gross negligence on our MY part.


Corrected

/Well....it was!

Cute

Well, hey....you could have cited evidence supporting your claim.

Without citing evidence, your comment was just more of the same inflammatory nonsense making up 99% of the thread.

/Ain't FARK great?


Hey Shortsucker, which alt are you using today?
 
2012-09-13 12:47:51 PM

X-boxershorts: KanedaJD: X-boxershorts: KanedaJD: X-boxershorts: KanedaJD: This POST was gross negligence on our MY part.


Corrected

/Well....it was!

Cute

Well, hey....you could have cited evidence supporting your claim.

Without citing evidence, your comment was just more of the same inflammatory nonsense making up 99% of the thread.

/Ain't FARK great?

Think real hard about what happened in Libya recently.

I have, as a veteran and now as a taxpayer. I wonder the same about you.


As I have stated in the past, you lying scumbag, quit calling yourself a veteran.

Playing Halo doesn't make you a soldier.
 
2012-09-13 01:02:09 PM

ha-ha-guy: I'm a former MSG and what oeneus said is more or less correct. The top of our list is "Destroy the following shiat in the event of an embassy breach". Moving beyond that our goal is to support the State Department in their goals long term diplomatic goals, not mow down crowds with .50 caliber fire. Mass killings tend to put a chill a diplomacy and create long term problems. Had Marine Security Guards been there they likely would have been busy destroying stuff, fighting fires, and moving staff to safe rooms. There really isn't an "empty the armory and kill hundreds of people" page in the security guard book. The State Department is pissed about the dead staff, they'd be even more pissed had the locals been massacred. Sometimes your the unit that gets to be the first ashore (read: 90% causality rate) and sometimes your the State Department worker who buys the farm for being in a hostile environment. No one likes to admit it, but sometimes a platoon or two of dead Americans are better than the alternative in the long run.


If you're not there to protect Americans, then anyone in the army is just another goon with a gun.
 
2012-09-13 01:08:56 PM

ha-ha-guy: Our primary purpose in life to protect classified stuff. Ensure it isn't stolen, ensure it doesn't fall into enemy hands, etc. At my posts we never did personal protection, if the State Department wants you to have bodyguard detail they'll issue you one. The extent at which was protected people was some individuals had classified information in their skulls, thus protecting the information entailed protecting them. Which meant for you example you dragged the ambassador to the safe room and threw him in there


Wouldn't it be safer to just shoot him yourself?

Seeing as protecting classified information was a higher priority than the life expectancy of your co-workers. For that matter, why even be armed? You could do the job with a zippo and a magnet.
 
2012-09-13 01:31:42 PM
unmotivationalposters.com

This guy predicted it.
 
2012-09-13 01:35:28 PM

Slam1263: X-boxershorts: KanedaJD: X-boxershorts: KanedaJD: X-boxershorts: KanedaJD: This POST was gross negligence on our MY part.


Corrected

/Well....it was!

Cute

Well, hey....you could have cited evidence supporting your claim.

Without citing evidence, your comment was just more of the same inflammatory nonsense making up 99% of the thread.

/Ain't FARK great?

Think real hard about what happened in Libya recently.

I have, as a veteran and now as a taxpayer. I wonder the same about you.

As I have stated in the past, you lying scumbag, quit calling yourself a veteran.

Playing Halo doesn't make you a soldier.


What? I was never a soldier. I am USN, served aboard USS Lawrence DDG4 81-84. Rate was FTM4
I ran the missile computer system out of missile plot,
 
2012-09-13 01:37:48 PM

Slam1263: X-boxershorts: KanedaJD: X-boxershorts: KanedaJD: This POST was gross negligence on our MY part.


Corrected

/Well....it was!

Cute

Well, hey....you could have cited evidence supporting your claim.

Without citing evidence, your comment was just more of the same inflammatory nonsense making up 99% of the thread.

/Ain't FARK great?

Hey Shortsucker, which alt are you using today?


I have no alt. Are you confusing me for someone else?
 
2012-09-13 01:40:58 PM
What we need here is some strong condemnation!
 
2012-09-13 01:50:09 PM

OldManDownDRoad: Heh. There's at least one person here posting from Kabul - although from AUAF, not the diplomatic compound.


This has been a very interesting thread for me. There's a very distinct dichotomy between the ITG jibberjabber and the actual explanations from experience. That kind of thing isn't usually as recognizable on the popular threads.
 
2012-09-13 01:56:09 PM

This text is now purple: ha-ha-guy: Our primary purpose in life to protect classified stuff. Ensure it isn't stolen, ensure it doesn't fall into enemy hands, etc. At my posts we never did personal protection, if the State Department wants you to have bodyguard detail they'll issue you one. The extent at which was protected people was some individuals had classified information in their skulls, thus protecting the information entailed protecting them. Which meant for you example you dragged the ambassador to the safe room and threw him in there

Wouldn't it be safer to just shoot him yourself?

Seeing as protecting classified information was a higher priority than the life expectancy of your co-workers. For that matter, why even be armed? You could do the job with a zippo and a magnet.


This is kind of amusing in that upthread we had a State Department contractor basically go "Yeah we realized we were on our own and expected it" (to paraphrase). If the government wants you have a bodyguard they'll issue you one. Everyone else understand how it works, the onus is on them to get their ass to the safe area as the cavalry is likely not in the immediate vicinity.

As for shooting Americans, I assumed that's what the dude who works for the CIA is there for. He likely had a list. I needed the gun to stop people from walking off with the items because my fat donut eating ass was way too lazy and out of shape to tackle them.
 
2012-09-13 02:10:02 PM
2.bp.blogspot.com
or what?
 
2012-09-13 02:24:23 PM

Thunderpipes: Hope the family sues the US government.


Why would you hope that?

I'm interested to know what you think that would accomplish specifically, and why you think that is the most appropriate action.
 
2012-09-13 02:35:11 PM

1nsanilicious: Maybe Obama would have if he attended his intelligence reviews instead of requesting bear hugs from pizza shop owners for campaign fodder.


Stupid or trolling? Stupid or trolling? Hmm...I'm gonna have to go with...stupid.
 
2012-09-13 02:45:32 PM
Meanwhile . . . .

amerikimpatriot.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-09-13 02:49:48 PM
It would have been good for the author to have read up on the difference between a consulate and an embassy. Consulates typically are relatively small administrative offices, and there may be many of them in a single country (usually in cities where they can serve tourists or business people from their home country). An embassy is the seat of the government's official representative to the host country, and is a much bigger deal. I've never seen a consulate that had any guards at all--usually they look like small business offices or nice houses. But then I've never traveled in North Africa or the Middle East.
 
2012-09-13 02:50:28 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Thunderpipes: Hope the family sues the US government.

Why would you hope that?

I'm interested to know what you think that would accomplish specifically, and why you think that is the most appropriate action.


Because if it were my family members gunned down because Hopey McChangebutt didn't want to offend anyone by having actual troops protecting diplomats, I would be really pissed. I am pissed now. Guy was a World of Tanks player too, and I played against him. Video gamer, gunned down in cold blood. Sad.

Seriously, what were people thinking, 4 Libyan security guards? Really? That is just dumb.
 
2012-09-13 03:02:14 PM

rufus-t-firefly: Gumaraid: HotWingConspiracy: Gumaraid: Welcome to Obama's brave new world where we all sing kumbaya while our enemies burn the house down around us.

Tomorrow you'll be calling him a monster again for having a kill list.

No. I've already said that. He is a murderer for authorizing the execution of Americans without trial by jury. Unlike you I don't let my politics interfere with my sense of right and wrong.

So, he's doing too much while he does nothing.

Cognitive dissonance isn't treated as a preexisting condition anymore. Please get help.


Ahhh the liberal mind. It never ceases to amaze in it's ability to feign intelligence when to all who see it is but a monkey fapping to the crowd at a zoo. So, let me get this straight; it's ok by you if foreign countries allow the murder of our citizens without fear of reprisal and it's ok if the President targets Americans for murder by missile without due process as long as he is a liberal and bites his upper lip when he pulls the trigger? And you see both of these scenarios as somehow opposites of each other? Unfortunately there is no help for you.
 
2012-09-13 03:04:06 PM

Thunderpipes: BojanglesPaladin: Thunderpipes: Hope the family sues the US government.

Why would you hope that?

I'm interested to know what you think that would accomplish specifically, and why you think that is the most appropriate action.

Because if it were my family members gunned down because Hopey McChangebutt didn't want to offend anyone by having actual troops protecting diplomats, I would be really pissed. I am pissed now. Guy was a World of Tanks player too, and I played against him. Video gamer, gunned down in cold blood. Sad.

Seriously, what were people thinking, 4 Libyan security guards? Really? That is just dumb.


It is beyond dumb. It is (imho) negligent especially considering the situation in that country and in fact that whole region in the last two years. This is hardly what one might call...a surprise. There is probably a room full of people at the CIA face-desking becuase they told him so or something.
 
2012-09-13 03:06:41 PM

LesserEvil: Look, all you need to understand (are you listening, press?) is that this was a coordinated attack by Al Qaida in retribution for the killing of one of their leaders in late August. The Libyan ambassador was targeted where he was because of the lack of security.

Countries that host embassies also have a repsonsibility to keep mobs clear from the surrounding areas through crowd control. It's possible, in this case, that not only did that not happen, but government personnel were actually involved in the attack.

It's getting a bit sickening that the red herring of "that bad bad film thoise racists are making" is continually being floated as the reason for these attacks. These were not "protestors" - they were attackers.

This was a terrorist attack.

It's very likely the attack on the Egyptian embassy was part of that. The Yemeni embassy attacks might also be a part of that (or it's just momentum).

Who is to blame? How about we blame radical Islamists for being what they are? No more reason is needed beyond that. There are several ways to stop these attacks, but appeasement isn't a practical choice.


Yeah, I agree.

The stupid "movie" was used as an excuse, but that thing has been around on the intertubes since July, apparently.

Also (from a WSJ story I read today), the locals said the "protestors" had guns and RPGs. They did not go to the building to protest, they were there to attack it. And it started at about 8 PM local time (so kinda under cover of darkness).

This shiat didn't have anything to do with some stupid anti-Islam video. Maybe the consulate personnel didn't know that at the time, but it seems pretty clear now.
 
2012-09-13 03:07:51 PM

Gumaraid: rufus-t-firefly: Gumaraid: HotWingConspiracy: Gumaraid: Welcome to Obama's brave new world where we all sing kumbaya while our enemies burn the house down around us.

Tomorrow you'll be calling him a monster again for having a kill list.

No. I've already said that. He is a murderer for authorizing the execution of Americans without trial by jury. Unlike you I don't let my politics interfere with my sense of right and wrong.

So, he's doing too much while he does nothing.

Cognitive dissonance isn't treated as a preexisting condition anymore. Please get help.

Ahhh the liberal mind. It never ceases to amaze in it's ability to feign intelligence when to all who see it is but a monkey fapping to the crowd at a zoo. So, let me get this straight; it's ok by you if foreign countries allow the murder of our citizens without fear of reprisal and it's ok if the President targets Americans for murder by missile without due process as long as he is a liberal and bites his upper lip when he pulls the trigger? And you see both of these scenarios as somehow opposites of each other? Unfortunately there is no help for you.


Libya "allowed" the deaths? You mean by having 10 security people fight to the death to protect them? Here's the problem: your thinking is sloppy. It happened in a foreign country so a "foreign country allowed it." Just like when Belgian tourists are carjacked and shot in Florida the "United States allowed it."
 
2012-09-13 03:12:18 PM

Kazrath: If we could get rid of the major drain on our society (The republicans) we would be damn near a utopia.


There's already a place like that.

It's called Detroit.
 
2012-09-13 03:12:59 PM

XveryYpettyZ: Gumaraid: rufus-t-firefly: Gumaraid: HotWingConspiracy: Gumaraid: Welcome to Obama's brave new world where we all sing kumbaya while our enemies burn the house down around us.

Tomorrow you'll be calling him a monster again for having a kill list.

No. I've already said that. He is a murderer for authorizing the execution of Americans without trial by jury. Unlike you I don't let my politics interfere with my sense of right and wrong.

So, he's doing too much while he does nothing.

Cognitive dissonance isn't treated as a preexisting condition anymore. Please get help.

Ahhh the liberal mind. It never ceases to amaze in it's ability to feign intelligence when to all who see it is but a monkey fapping to the crowd at a zoo. So, let me get this straight; it's ok by you if foreign countries allow the murder of our citizens without fear of reprisal and it's ok if the President targets Americans for murder by missile without due process as long as he is a liberal and bites his upper lip when he pulls the trigger? And you see both of these scenarios as somehow opposites of each other? Unfortunately there is no help for you.

Libya "allowed" the deaths? You mean by having 10 security people fight to the death to protect them? Here's the problem: your thinking is sloppy. It happened in a foreign country so a "foreign country allowed it." Just like when Belgian tourists are carjacked and shot in Florida the "United States allowed it."


The US pulls out all the stops to keep it from happening, and kicks peoples' asses when it does. When was the last time a foreign diplomat was killed in the US? But here, the blame lies with the State Department. Hillary fat mouth should be doing some explaining, not apologizing on TV.
 
2012-09-13 03:13:27 PM

Thunderpipes: BojanglesPaladin: Thunderpipes: Hope the family sues the US government.

Why would you hope that?

I'm interested to know what you think that would accomplish specifically, and why you think that is the most appropriate action.

Because if it were my family members gunned down because Hopey McChangebutt didn't want to offend anyone by having actual troops protecting diplomats, I would be really pissed. I am pissed now. Guy was a World of Tanks player too, and I played against him. Video gamer, gunned down in cold blood. Sad.

Seriously, what were people thinking, 4 Libyan security guards? Really? That is just dumb.


You apparently suffer from cognitive or literacy malfunction. If you read up the thread, there are a number of embassies protected only by host-government forces and not with marines.

Also, I'm sure everyone who gets assigned to one of these embassies is warned about the risks of unstable regions...
 
2012-09-13 03:14:30 PM

Gulper Eel: Kazrath: If we could get rid of the major drain on our society (The republicans) we would be damn near a utopia.

There's already a place like that.

It's called Detroit.


It scares me that people like Kazrath exist.
 
2012-09-13 03:15:17 PM
The galloping stupidity in this thread is headshake-inducing, even for Fark.

Not really surprised, just sayin'.
 
2012-09-13 03:16:17 PM

Kit Fister: Thunderpipes: BojanglesPaladin: Thunderpipes: Hope the family sues the US government.

Why would you hope that?

I'm interested to know what you think that would accomplish specifically, and why you think that is the most appropriate action.

Because if it were my family members gunned down because Hopey McChangebutt didn't want to offend anyone by having actual troops protecting diplomats, I would be really pissed. I am pissed now. Guy was a World of Tanks player too, and I played against him. Video gamer, gunned down in cold blood. Sad.

Seriously, what were people thinking, 4 Libyan security guards? Really? That is just dumb.

You apparently suffer from cognitive or literacy malfunction. If you read up the thread, there are a number of embassies protected only by host-government forces and not with marines.

Also, I'm sure everyone who gets assigned to one of these embassies is warned about the risks of unstable regions...


That is your argument? So an embassy in Libya, after all this, should only be protected by a few local goons because the one in Switzerland is?
 
2012-09-13 03:18:31 PM

LesserEvil: gerbilpox: LesserEvil: We'll never know because Carter's foreign policy was crap. He never understood what he was up against, and constantly erred in the worst possible ways.

Ever heard of the Camp David Accords? Maybe the biggest advance toward Middle East peace evar? Nobel Peace Prize to participants?


/just askin'

Carter got a peace prize? Oh, that's right, he didn't.


He got one (though technically it was later).

He aped built on the success Kissinger had and got two leaders who were reasonable and rational to the table. This wasn't bad, but let's not give Carter all the credit here.

FTFY

My reference was specifically to how the "revolution" was handled, or rather, mishandled.

A others stated, the embassy should have been evacuated when the Shah left. Instead, the administration took too many half-measures until it was too late.

The biggest problem was miscalculating the situation on the ground - in a number of ways - including being 'surprised' by the Shah's departure; hardly surprising considering the lack of actual support the US was giving his regime. Diplomatic effort could have been spent to reassure the Shah of support, perhaps a coalition of nations backing him explicitly, while at the same time, leaning on him to make compromises with the more moderate of his opponents (who ended up dead anyway when the Islamists took over, but might have swung the popular revolt).

A negotiated transfer of power was also an option - again, until the Shah left, the military backed his regime. The collapse was not inevitable until he fled the country. A more orderly transition to a western-style democracy might have been possible.

None of that was even attempted. The US stood by and let everything play out... and we can see the result with hindsight's 20/20 clarity.


The Shah was a ruthless dictator, and his SAVAK tortured and murdered people. By the time he left, as much as 10% of the population was demonstrating against him. It's naive to think either he or the people would have accepted him conceding only some power, or doing it slowly. People were already angry about his relationship with the U.S.; outside support was not going to save him. He did make concessions to more moderate opponents; he conceded the whole gov't to Bakhtiar, who called for free elections. It didn't stop the Islamists from taking power.

We helped him overthrow a democratic gov't to take power, and like many dictators (in Latin America, for example), we supported him despite his crimes because it served our Cold War purposes -- to the detriment and anger of his people. Carter got left with the mess others created.

His main mistake was to let the Shah into the country for medical treatment, which outraged Iran and sparked the embassy takeover. That move, by the way, was strongly urged by Kissinger.
 
2012-09-13 03:21:18 PM
Send in the drones!
 
2012-09-13 03:23:40 PM

Thunderpipes: That is your argument? So an embassy in Libya, after all this, should only be protected by a few local goons because the one in Switzerland is?


It wasn't an embassy. It was a consulate. Like a branch office.

PS...After the US pretty much drove off the Gadaffi forces from Benghazi, the people there have been very much friendly to Americans.

This was a well planned effort by a handful of thugs taking advantage of the translated release of a Christian film maker's poorly made, over the top, intended to be insulting to Muslims, movie trailer on the very day the protests began...(coincidence? I think not)

Use your brain man....
 
2012-09-13 03:40:06 PM

Thunderpipes: Kit Fister: Thunderpipes: BojanglesPaladin: Thunderpipes: Hope the family sues the US government.

Why would you hope that?

I'm interested to know what you think that would accomplish specifically, and why you think that is the most appropriate action.

Because if it were my family members gunned down because Hopey McChangebutt didn't want to offend anyone by having actual troops protecting diplomats, I would be really pissed. I am pissed now. Guy was a World of Tanks player too, and I played against him. Video gamer, gunned down in cold blood. Sad.

Seriously, what were people thinking, 4 Libyan security guards? Really? That is just dumb.

You apparently suffer from cognitive or literacy malfunction. If you read up the thread, there are a number of embassies protected only by host-government forces and not with marines.

Also, I'm sure everyone who gets assigned to one of these embassies is warned about the risks of unstable regions...

That is your argument? So an embassy in Libya, after all this, should only be protected by a few local goons because the one in Switzerland is?


What argument? It's a statement of fact, given by people who have ACTUALLY BEEN IN THE MSG PROGRAM. There is no argument there. There is only "This is how it is."

And, then there's what X-boxershorts had to say about the fact that this was a pre-planned attack...

Now, you could argue the fact that the CIA didn't pick up on the threat and warn the WH, etc. but even the Libyan gov't warned the ambassador that the region was unstable and unsafe.

What more do you want? How is the US Gov't liable for anything? The ambassador and the others knew the risks going in, and there was no way, short of having had foreknowledge of the attacks, to have prevented this.

Lastly, I'd point out that even if the Marines HAD been there, their jobs is to destroy sensitive data and equipment and get people into safe rooms, not protect or act as bodyguards, so what would they have done?
 
2012-09-13 03:46:21 PM

Kit Fister: Thunderpipes: Kit Fister: Thunderpipes: BojanglesPaladin: Thunderpipes: Hope the family sues the US government.

Why would you hope that?

I'm interested to know what you think that would accomplish specifically, and why you think that is the most appropriate action.

Because if it were my family members gunned down because Hopey McChangebutt didn't want to offend anyone by having actual troops protecting diplomats, I would be really pissed. I am pissed now. Guy was a World of Tanks player too, and I played against him. Video gamer, gunned down in cold blood. Sad.

Seriously, what were people thinking, 4 Libyan security guards? Really? That is just dumb.

You apparently suffer from cognitive or literacy malfunction. If you read up the thread, there are a number of embassies protected only by host-government forces and not with marines.

Also, I'm sure everyone who gets assigned to one of these embassies is warned about the risks of unstable regions...

That is your argument? So an embassy in Libya, after all this, should only be protected by a few local goons because the one in Switzerland is?

What argument? It's a statement of fact, given by people who have ACTUALLY BEEN IN THE MSG PROGRAM. There is no argument there. There is only "This is how it is."

And, then there's what X-boxershorts had to say about the fact that this was a pre-planned attack...

Now, you could argue the fact that the CIA didn't pick up on the threat and warn the WH, etc. but even the Libyan gov't warned the ambassador that the region was unstable and unsafe.

What more do you want? How is the US Gov't liable for anything? The ambassador and the others knew the risks going in, and there was no way, short of having had foreknowledge of the attacks, to have prevented this.

Lastly, I'd point out that even if the Marines HAD been there, their jobs is to destroy sensitive data and equipment and get people into safe rooms, not protect or act as bodyguards, so what would they have done?


Oh, okay Jason Bourne. The Marines would have stepped aside and let the diplomats be killed. Gotcha. There is dumb, and then bad dumb.
 
2012-09-13 03:47:55 PM

Kit Fister: Thunderpipes: Kit Fister: Thunderpipes: BojanglesPaladin: Thunderpipes: Hope the family sues the US government.

Why would you hope that?

I'm interested to know what you think that would accomplish specifically, and why you think that is the most appropriate action.

Because if it were my family members gunned down because Hopey McChangebutt didn't want to offend anyone by having actual troops protecting diplomats, I would be really pissed. I am pissed now. Guy was a World of Tanks player too, and I played against him. Video gamer, gunned down in cold blood. Sad.

Seriously, what were people thinking, 4 Libyan security guards? Really? That is just dumb.

You apparently suffer from cognitive or literacy malfunction. If you read up the thread, there are a number of embassies protected only by host-government forces and not with marines.

Also, I'm sure everyone who gets assigned to one of these embassies is warned about the risks of unstable regions...

That is your argument? So an embassy in Libya, after all this, should only be protected by a few local goons because the one in Switzerland is?

What argument? It's a statement of fact, given by people who have ACTUALLY BEEN IN THE MSG PROGRAM. There is no argument there. There is only "This is how it is."

And, then there's what X-boxershorts had to say about the fact that this was a pre-planned attack...

Now, you could argue the fact that the CIA didn't pick up on the threat and warn the WH, etc. but even the Libyan gov't warned the ambassador that the region was unstable and unsafe.

What more do you want? How is the US Gov't liable for anything? The ambassador and the others knew the risks going in, and there was no way, short of having had foreknowledge of the attacks, to have prevented this.

Lastly, I'd point out that even if the Marines HAD been there, their jobs is to destroy sensitive data and equipment and get people into safe rooms, not protect or act as bodyguards, so what would they have done?


Dude, you're wasting your time. It doesn't recognize logic or reason.
 
2012-09-13 03:57:07 PM
Here you go: What Happened in Benghazi Was a Battle

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/09/libya-fast-team/
 
2012-09-13 03:58:28 PM

gerbilpox: His main mistake was to let the Shah into the country for medical treatment, which outraged Iran and sparked the embassy takeover. That move, by the way, was strongly urged by Kissinger.


Kissinger. A JEW.

/I KEED! I KEED!
 
2012-09-13 04:01:04 PM

Lunaville: PunGent: LesserEvil: Look, all you need to understand (are you listening, press?) is that this was a coordinated attack by Al Qaida in retribution for the killing of one of their leaders in late August. The Libyan ambassador was targeted where he was because of the lack of security.

Countries that host embassies also have a repsonsibility to keep mobs clear from the surrounding areas through crowd control. It's possible, in this case, that not only did that not happen, but government personnel were actually involved in the attack.

It's getting a bit sickening that the red herring of "that bad bad film thoise racists are making" is continually being floated as the reason for these attacks. These were not "protestors" - they were attackers.

This was a terrorist attack.

It's very likely the attack on the Egyptian embassy was part of that. The Yemeni embassy attacks might also be a part of that (or it's just momentum).

Who is to blame? How about we blame radical Islamists for being what they are? No more reason is needed beyond that. There are several ways to stop these attacks, but appeasement isn't a practical choice.

So you're in favor of no longer giving Muslim countries like Pakistan and Egypt billions of dollars, like Democratic AND Republican presidents have been doing for decades?

Just curious what your proposal actually is...it's easy to say "no more appeasement", but much harder to actually come up with a practical alternative.

Personally, I say cut off all the aid. Screw 'em.

I somewhat disagree. I firmly believe we should end all military aid to all nations. Humanitarian aid, however should be continued and, possibly, increased.


My problem with humanitarian aid is that paying for someone's butter lets them buy more guns.

I'd limit it to disease monitoring and prevention.
 
2012-09-13 04:05:34 PM

LesserEvil: PunGent: LesserEvil: Look, all you need to understand (are you listening, press?) is that this was a coordinated attack by Al Qaida in retribution for the killing of one of their leaders in late August. The Libyan ambassador was targeted where he was because of the lack of security.

Countries that host embassies also have a repsonsibility to keep mobs clear from the surrounding areas through crowd control. It's possible, in this case, that not only did that not happen, but government personnel were actually involved in the attack.

It's getting a bit sickening that the red herring of "that bad bad film thoise racists are making" is continually being floated as the reason for these attacks. These were not "protestors" - they were attackers.

This was a terrorist attack.

It's very likely the attack on the Egyptian embassy was part of that. The Yemeni embassy attacks might also be a part of that (or it's just momentum).

Who is to blame? How about we blame radical Islamists for being what they are? No more reason is needed beyond that. There are several ways to stop these attacks, but appeasement isn't a practical choice.

So you're in favor of no longer giving Muslim countries like Pakistan and Egypt billions of dollars, like Democratic AND Republican presidents have been doing for decades?

Just curious what your proposal actually is...it's easy to say "no more appeasement", but much harder to actually come up with a practical alternative.

Personally, I say cut off all the aid. Screw 'em.

I hate that we pay off governments (which is basically what aid is), and there is definitely a failure of their obligations here. Cutting off aid is one step... I'm not a fan of the idiot in the Egyptian embassy who has continually posted the nonsense about the film, either...


Yes, and invading Iraq was supposed to herald a blossoming of democracy over there.

Respect for us over there has been eroding since the 50s, when we took out Iran's democratic government. Remember the Marine barracks bombing?

This is, sadly, a GOOD day for the Middle East in comparison.

There's nothing for us over there; it's a blood-soaked sandbox full of angry children.

Let 'em kill each other, buy the oil from the winners.
 
2012-09-13 04:12:58 PM

1nsanilicious: tereklusec: WeDemocrats sent dignitaries THEN security personnel instead of the other way around?

WeDemocrats really are the overconfident assholes the rest of the countries accuse us of being.

FTFY


So, you're saying Republicans are fraidy-cat pussies.
 
2012-09-13 04:14:05 PM

Smelly Pirate Hooker: Here you go: What Happened in Benghazi Was a Battle

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/09/libya-fast-team/


So basically it breaks down as expected.

1. Libya lacked enough politically reliable troops to provide external security (note the reports of a sympathetic militia being needed to help push the attackers back).
2. DSS had a security team there, likely some mixture of private military contractors and locals that were hired.
3. The whole compound was ad hoc, not that shocking given the state of post civil war Libya.

Given the known flaws (weak local forces, ad hoc building) odds are there wasn't anything top secret in there. I bet someone did a survey of that place months ago and said "No way do we put anything classified in here". Hence the lack of MSGs, no classified things for them to protect/monitor. Odds are the private military contractors present included some retired military personnel who could supervise the locals as well as a MSG could. The ambassador though appears to have had strong ties with at least some of the locals which likely explains why he was operating out of there.

So at the end of the day, the whole Marine protection thing just shows a lack of understanding on how embassy security works. DSS runs embassy security and does so in a basically three pronged manner.

1. MSGs inside the compounds who have clearances to deal with the classified things. Also a few MSGs possibly as liaison to local security.
2. DSS employees and PMCs "on the walls"/screening visitors, etc.
3. Getting the host government to keep local security out front (be it a couple cops or a full on paramilitary unit).

There was likely no need for #1 due to the lack of classified stuff stored there. #3 was a problem due to the weakness of the central government. The proper thing to debate was if DSS had enough hired guns there for protection of the staff. Given there was a four hour gun battle with a militia that likely had combat experience (from the civil war) and the defenders lacked much in the way of ballistics protection and only a few Americans were KIA, it honestly does seem the DSS folks did a decent enough job. Of course they'll get second guessed now for the rest of the year.

So lets see the memos. Was the Ambassador asking for more hired guns? Was he begging for funds for a real embassy? Or was he saying "You know what, for a war torn city, security is actually pretty good.".
 
2012-09-13 04:33:16 PM

PunGent: Yes, and invading Iraq was supposed to herald a blossoming of democracy over there.

Respect for us over there has been eroding since the 50s, when we took out Iran's democratic government. Remember the Marine barracks bombing?

This is, sadly, a GOOD day for the Middle East in comparison.

There's nothing for us over there; it's a blood-soaked sandbox full of angry children.

Let 'em kill each other, buy the oil from the winners.




It's always about the oil too! When we overthrew Mossadegh in '53, it was for the oil (He threatened to nationalize Iran's oil industry...Oh oh! Less profit!) When I was in the Persian Gulf on USS Lawrence in 83 it was all about oil. It was the height if the Iran-Iraq war and we were escorting oil tankers from port to the Straits of Hormuz. When we kicked Saddam out of Kuwait in 1990, it's because that's where the Straits of Hormuz is an he could negatively impact the flow of 50% of the world's oil!

We should forsake oil from the ground and start making our own.

HEMP SEED OIL FTW!!!!!!
 
2012-09-13 04:40:37 PM

Sliding Carp: OldManDownDRoad: Heh. There's at least one person here posting from Kabul - although from AUAF, not the diplomatic compound.

This has been a very interesting thread for me. There's a very distinct dichotomy between the ITG jibberjabber and the actual explanations from experience. That kind of thing isn't usually as recognizable on the popular threads.


Well, that's the problem with Fark lately - all these adults joining up.

However, if you need a dose of simplistic solutions, ad hominem attacks, and general name-calling, there's always the politics tab.
 
2012-09-13 04:52:05 PM
Meh, they don't need marines and the marines don't need bullets. Harsh words should suffice. Welcome to ObamaBizzaroWorld.

www.top10films.co.uk
 
2012-09-13 05:02:34 PM

xtragrind: Are morons like you still calling them protestors? So far we know that they had heavy machine guns, rocket propelled grenades and also launched a coordinated mortar attack.


It's pretty simple really, there were protestors, and then there were the Islamist terrorists with the machine guns and rockets. As always if you follow the money it leads from the Islamists to Saudi Arabia.
 
2012-09-13 05:07:09 PM

gibbon1: As always if you follow the money it leads from the Islamists to Saudi Arabia.


Not always. Sometimes the money originates right here in America...Link
 
2012-09-13 05:15:47 PM
I'm obviously late to this, but my vote WILL hinge on how well Obama handles this situation.
 
2012-09-13 05:16:41 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Meh, they don't need marines and the marines don't need bullets. Harsh words should suffice. Welcome to ObamaBizzaroWorld.

[www.top10films.co.uk image 580x359]


I think you mean harsh language.
 
2012-09-13 05:41:03 PM

pkellmey: tereklusec: AverageAmericanGuy: OldManDownDRoad: AverageAmericanGuy: advex101: Is it too much of a fact load to point out that the Embassy is in Tripoli. The facility in Benghazi is a consulate. Kind of like a field office.

Americans don't really understand that kind of stuff. Most never leave their home county.

Nonsense. There's 50k+ in Afghanistan this very minute.

You have a funny definition of 'most'

Off the cuff speculation or not, I wonder what the real numbers on that statistic is. What percentage of Americans have traveled to a country outside of the US? Outside the Western Hemisphere?

Less than one third have a U.S. passport, per CNN.


It's the kind of attitude I have heard of and only rarely encountered. I met a woman who was a petrified at the idea of going to a big city, let alone another country. She was a small town lady, not an agoraphobic.
 
2012-09-13 05:42:55 PM
www.broccolicity.com
images.sodahead.com

msnbcmedia2.msn.com
 
2012-09-13 05:45:05 PM

gibbon1: xtragrind: Are morons like you still calling them protestors? So far we know that they had heavy machine guns, rocket propelled grenades and also launched a coordinated mortar attack.

It's pretty simple really, there were protestors, and then there were the Islamist terrorists with the machine guns and rockets. As always if you follow the money it leads from the Islamists to Saudi Arabia.


And when the Islamist terrorists hid their weapons again, they stopped being Islamist terrorists and became innocent unarmed protesters unfairly targeted by America's lust for disproportionate revenge.

/or would be, if the President was Republican
//since this isn't the case, we'll kill some Libyan wedding celebrations, declare the President's great detective skills identified them as the murderers of Ambassador Stevens (including the ones who hadn't been born yet... can't put anything past Al Qaeda), and fly home making memes out of Dubya's "Mission Accomplished" banner
 
2012-09-13 05:47:44 PM

Thunderpipes: Because if it were my family members gunned down because Hopey McChangebutt didn't want to offend anyone by having actual troops protecting diplomats, I would be really pissed.


Sure. But I didn't ask why you were angry, I asked why you were hoping for the families to file suit against the Government.

I think we all recognize that the security (marine or otherwise) provided at this consulate was inadequate, and given the KNOWN instability and likelihood of violence, that this might have been avoidable. But we also know that foreign posts can be unpredictably dangerous.

How does suing the government provide recompense? What exactly do you think that would accomplish? Why do you think this would be an appropriate next step?
 
2012-09-13 05:55:07 PM

HotWingConspiracy: So the right wingers shiatting all over the marines have been incorrect? This is a shocking development.


I didn't see any right wingers shiatting over marines. I did see the massive deflection to Mitt that I expected from Carter v2.0s hand in the entire thing though.
 
2012-09-13 05:58:46 PM
Fark seems full of people with vast international experience.
 
2012-09-13 06:01:46 PM

stevetherobot: fireclown: AverageAmericanGuy: According to this article at CNN, about 30% of Americans have passports. There may be some who traveled to Canada prior to the passport requirements, but as far as eligibility to travel, only a third can today.

Europeans don't quite understand how frakkning BIG the US is. Baltimore to LA is 48 hours of straight driving, per google maps. If we needed passports to travel from DC to Ohio, more of us would have them. And if I had to speak German when I got there, I'd probably speak a few more languages.

Exactly, You could probably pass through every country in Europe Norway with 48 hours of straight driving.



/FTFY
 
2012-09-13 06:04:46 PM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: tereklusec: Do you really have protocol to destroy documents if rioting protestors or terrorists fire RPGs into a consulate?

Why the fark wouldn't they?


About 10 years ago when a Chinese figher jet slammed into a USAF Surveillance plane and the plane had to land in China, there was a Marine on board who's protocol was to shoot the 10 or so occupants of the airplane and not let them surrender to the Chinese. He didn't.
 
2012-09-13 06:29:33 PM
CNN interviewed a Libyan named Fathi Baja who says he had breakfast with Abamassdor Stevens the day of the attack. Per Mr. Baja, there were four Libyan security guards on duty, armed with Ak-47s, and no Americans. 20 vs. 4 are difficult odds assuming the attackers had the element of surprise, and the 4 defenders weren't prepared to die.

It wouldn't surprise me if those 4 Libyans weren't in on it: I'd be shocked if any of them died.

Time interview here
 
2012-09-13 06:48:02 PM

1nsanilicious: tereklusec: WeDemocrats sent dignitaries THEN security personnel instead of the other way around?

WeDemocrats really are the overconfident assholes the rest of the countries accuse us of being.

FTFY


See, no. This is where you are wrong.

The word is "we."

If you fail to understand that and you fail to understand the importance of why you're mistaken then please be clear about it in your reply (if you make one). It is inarguable but if you still feel that you're not in error then let me know and I'll make the appropriate choice based on that reply. For the moment I'll give you the benefit of doubt and hope that you're simply unaware.

Think on it. Really. Normally I'm much more an asshole about these things.
 
2012-09-13 06:49:57 PM

tereklusec: 1nsanilicious: tereklusec: WeDemocrats sent dignitaries THEN security personnel instead of the other way around?

WeDemocrats really are the overconfident assholes the rest of the countries accuse us of being.

FTFY

I'm as remorseful as you are that Democrats are also Americans, but sadly it's a truth we cannot change. So I stand, regretfully, correct in my original statement.


Ah, you had it covered.

What, read the thread entirely before clicking the quote button and typing? Me? Nah... ;)
 
2012-09-13 07:08:50 PM

CowboyUpCowgirlDown: It wouldn't surprise me if those 4 Libyans weren't in on it: I'd be shocked if any of them died.


If they weren't in on it, the more likely is they simply disappeared once the shooting started.....Do you honestly think any of those fargin bastards would willingly fight/die defending americans? Please.

Whole thing stinks to high hell. You're doing a great job Obama. Keep it up. You're batting a solid 0 fer so far. Our enemies in this world are watching and laughing.
 
2012-09-13 07:13:16 PM

stevetherobot: dervish16108: maddogdelta: dervish16108: What was the Ambassador to Libya doing in an unfortified consulate (unlike the US Embassy in Tripoli) without Marine protection? The situation seems very strange to me

He was doing his job. Which probably is a foreign concept to you.

It was a most unnecessary risk. Responsibility is apparently an alien concept to you.

Says a guy who has no experience with international diplomacy, but still knows better than the State Department and the ambassador on the ground.


According to your logic, the government is always beyond reproach because they have more experience than we are. What an Orwellian world you live in.
 
2012-09-13 07:15:39 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: CowboyUpCowgirlDown: It wouldn't surprise me if those 4 Libyans weren't in on it: I'd be shocked if any of them died.

If they weren't in on it, the more likely is they simply disappeared once the shooting started.....Do you honestly think any of those fargin bastards would willingly fight/die defending americans? Please.

Whole thing stinks to high hell. You're doing a great job Obama. Keep it up. You're batting a solid 0 fer so far. Our enemies in this world are watching and laughing.


The fact that there was a 4-5 hour gun battle lends your entire argument to the realm of..."HEY..I'M A PARTISAN DERP FACTOrY"

Go derp yourself you farking traitor
 
2012-09-13 07:20:07 PM

X-boxershorts: Lt. Cheese Weasel: CowboyUpCowgirlDown: It wouldn't surprise me if those 4 Libyans weren't in on it: I'd be shocked if any of them died.

If they weren't in on it, the more likely is they simply disappeared once the shooting started.....Do you honestly think any of those fargin bastards would willingly fight/die defending americans? Please.

Whole thing stinks to high hell. You're doing a great job Obama. Keep it up. You're batting a solid 0 fer so far. Our enemies in this world are watching and laughing.

The fact that there was a 4-5 hour gun battle lends your entire argument to the realm of..."HEY..I'M A PARTISAN DERP FACTOrY"

Go derp yourself you farking traitor


Where's your sparkly Eagle? The 4-5 hour gun battle was likely Sean Smith and the other ex Seal vs 20. Where's the other 4 bodies if they fought?

Moran.
 
2012-09-13 07:26:35 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: X-boxershorts: Lt. Cheese Weasel: CowboyUpCowgirlDown: It wouldn't surprise me if those 4 Libyans weren't in on it: I'd be shocked if any of them died.

If they weren't in on it, the more likely is they simply disappeared once the shooting started.....Do you honestly think any of those fargin bastards would willingly fight/die defending americans? Please.

Whole thing stinks to high hell. You're doing a great job Obama. Keep it up. You're batting a solid 0 fer so far. Our enemies in this world are watching and laughing.

The fact that there was a 4-5 hour gun battle lends your entire argument to the realm of..."HEY..I'M A PARTISAN DERP FACTOrY"

Go derp yourself you farking traitor

Where's your sparkly Eagle? The 4-5 hour gun battle was likely Sean Smith and the other ex Seal vs 20. Where's the other 4 bodies if they fought?

Moran.


So when you have the citation backing your claims, we'd all like to see it. News all says 4 americans dead. That's it. 3 security officers and 1 ambassador. Don't see any Libyan bodies do you?
 
2012-09-13 07:52:37 PM
img641.imageshack.us

Good to see MSNBC has the proper top story on their site. Must focus on what is important. A few dead americans and some embassies are burning....meh.
 
2012-09-13 08:13:54 PM
The "others" were active Navy SEALS team 3. You will never know their names....
 
2012-09-13 08:23:11 PM

LesserEvil: Since when has today's Republican party given 2 shiats about "ALL" of America?

Since when has today's Democratic party given 2 shiats about "MOST" of America?


Stop. I call Poe's Law.
 
2012-09-13 08:24:52 PM

peewinkle: Hmmmm...... if only there was someone who wasn't full of bullshiat and that understands what's going on...

Link (pops)


Yeah. If only there were.
 
2012-09-13 08:38:54 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: X-boxershorts: Lt. Cheese Weasel: CowboyUpCowgirlDown: It wouldn't surprise me if those 4 Libyans weren't in on it: I'd be shocked if any of them died.

If they weren't in on it, the more likely is they simply disappeared once the shooting started.....Do you honestly think any of those fargin bastards would willingly fight/die defending americans? Please.

Whole thing stinks to high hell. You're doing a great job Obama. Keep it up. You're batting a solid 0 fer so far. Our enemies in this world are watching and laughing.

The fact that there was a 4-5 hour gun battle lends your entire argument to the realm of..."HEY..I'M A PARTISAN DERP FACTOrY"

Go derp yourself you farking traitor

Where's your sparkly Eagle? The 4-5 hour gun battle was likely Sean Smith and the other ex Seal vs 20. Where's the other 4 bodies if they fought?

Moran.


The only security detail in this friendly town was a local security detail and a contracted militia you ,lying turd/.
 
2012-09-13 08:42:56 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Lt. Cheese Weasel: X-boxershorts: Lt. Cheese Weasel: CowboyUpCowgirlDown: It wouldn't surprise me if those 4 Libyans weren't in on it: I'd be shocked if any of them died.

If they weren't in on it, the more likely is they simply disappeared once the shooting started.....Do you honestly think any of those fargin bastards would willingly fight/die defending americans? Please.

Whole thing stinks to high hell. You're doing a great job Obama. Keep it up. You're batting a solid 0 fer so far. Our enemies in this world are watching and laughing.

The fact that there was a 4-5 hour gun battle lends your entire argument to the realm of..."HEY..I'M A PARTISAN DERP FACTOrY"

Go derp yourself you farking traitor

Where's your sparkly Eagle? The 4-5 hour gun battle was likely Sean Smith and the other ex Seal vs 20. Where's the other 4 bodies if they fought?

Moran.

So when you have the citation backing your claims, we'd all like to see it. News all says 4 americans dead. That's it. 3 security officers and 1 ambassador. Don't see any Libyan bodies do you?


Do your own lazy brained self flagellating research you turdstick

Or watch...dickferbrains: Yeah, we get it it. It's a liberal source so you won't click

Again, challenge the content thereof..... or suffer my mockery ad infinitum...
 
2012-09-13 08:48:17 PM
Link

They knew 48 hours before hand this attack in Libya was likely? Really? I wish they would name those 'sources'. Where is Julian Assange when you need him? That of course would the delicious irony, if WikiLeaks were to reveal that information. Libtard Obama Pole smokers heads would explode.

According to senior diplomatic sources, the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and "lockdown", under which movement is severely restricted.
 
2012-09-13 08:53:31 PM

X-boxershorts: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Lt. Cheese Weasel: X-boxershorts: Lt. Cheese Weasel: CowboyUpCowgirlDown: It wouldn't surprise me if those 4 Libyans weren't in on it: I'd be shocked if any of them died.

If they weren't in on it, the more likely is they simply disappeared once the shooting started.....Do you honestly think any of those fargin bastards would willingly fight/die defending americans? Please.

Whole thing stinks to high hell. You're doing a great job Obama. Keep it up. You're batting a solid 0 fer so far. Our enemies in this world are watching and laughing.

The fact that there was a 4-5 hour gun battle lends your entire argument to the realm of..."HEY..I'M A PARTISAN DERP FACTOrY"

Go derp yourself you farking traitor

Where's your sparkly Eagle? The 4-5 hour gun battle was likely Sean Smith and the other ex Seal vs 20. Where's the other 4 bodies if they fought?

Moran.

So when you have the citation backing your claims, we'd all like to see it. News all says 4 americans dead. That's it. 3 security officers and 1 ambassador. Don't see any Libyan bodies do you?

Do your own lazy brained self flagellating research you turdstick

Or watch...dickferbrains: Yeah, we get it it. It's a liberal source so you won't click

Again, challenge the content thereof..... or suffer my mockery ad infinitum...


Your mockery is tantamount to a single pixel out on a 1080p display. You know it's there, but it's so insignificant, it's like worrying about the sun running out of hydrogen in 8 billion years. There is no reason to bother.
 
2012-09-13 09:05:25 PM

X-boxershorts: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Lt. Cheese Weasel: X-boxershorts: Lt. Cheese Weasel: CowboyUpCowgirlDown: It wouldn't surprise me if those 4 Libyans weren't in on it: I'd be shocked if any of them died.

If they weren't in on it, the more likely is they simply disappeared once the shooting started.....Do you honestly think any of those fargin bastards would willingly fight/die defending americans? Please.

Whole thing stinks to high hell. You're doing a great job Obama. Keep it up. You're batting a solid 0 fer so far. Our enemies in this world are watching and laughing.

The fact that there was a 4-5 hour gun battle lends your entire argument to the realm of..."HEY..I'M A PARTISAN DERP FACTOrY"

Go derp yourself you farking traitor

Where's your sparkly Eagle? The 4-5 hour gun battle was likely Sean Smith and the other ex Seal vs 20. Where's the other 4 bodies if they fought?

Moran.

So when you have the citation backing your claims, we'd all like to see it. News all says 4 americans dead. That's it. 3 security officers and 1 ambassador. Don't see any Libyan bodies do you?

Do your own lazy brained self flagellating research you turdstick

Or watch...dickferbrains: Yeah, we get it it. It's a liberal source so you won't click

Again, challenge the content thereof..... or suffer my mockery ad infinitum...

Wissam Buhmeid, the commander of the Tripoli government-sanctioned Libya's Shield Brigade, effectively a police force for Benghazi, maintained that it was anger over the Mohamed video which made the guards abandon their post. "There were definitely people from the security forces who let the attack happen because they were themselves offended by the film; they would absolutely put their loyalty to the Prophet over the consulate. The deaths are all nothing compared to insulting the Prophet."


You need anything else you repulsive worm? Crawl back into your hole and bite your pillow. We'll let you know when the shooting is over.
 
2012-09-14 12:10:22 AM

HK-MP5-SD: Sometime in the last few months a terrorist walked by that consulate and said "Wow, I bet a fairly small group of armed men could destroy that building and kill lots of Americans". It will be interesting to find out if any of our people also walked by and said "Wow, I bet a fairly small group of armed men could destroy that building and kill lots of Americans". If our people did notice, who did they tell and what did the people who were told do about it.

Also the rescue team that was sent out by the embassy was only 8 men, not even a full squad of Marines. The consulate was in flames, the entire staff on the run and they could only spare 8 marines? Sounds like the embassy is under protected too. Especially for an embassy in a country where there was a recent rebellion, known groups of armed islamic radicals and a weak central government.


Heh... What makes you think it takes more than 8?

/sworn at twice
//needed the education
/obviously
 
2012-09-14 08:25:47 AM

CowboyUpCowgirlDown: CNN interviewed a Libyan named Fathi Baja who says he had breakfast with Abamassdor Stevens the day of the attack. Per Mr. Baja, there were four Libyan security guards on duty, armed with Ak-47s, and no Americans. 20 vs. 4 are difficult odds assuming the attackers had the element of surprise, and the 4 defenders weren't prepared to die.

It wouldn't surprise me if those 4 Libyans weren't in on it: I'd be shocked if any of them died.

Time interview here


I seem to recall reading somewhere that 10 Libyans died defending the consulate and its personnel during the attack, so I wouldn't be so quick to jump on the hate-bus if I were you.
 
2012-09-14 09:59:03 AM

pxlboy: pkellmey: tereklusec: AverageAmericanGuy: OldManDownDRoad: AverageAmericanGuy: advex101: Is it too much of a fact load to point out that the Embassy is in Tripoli. The facility in Benghazi is a consulate. Kind of like a field office.

Americans don't really understand that kind of stuff. Most never leave their home county.

Nonsense. There's 50k+ in Afghanistan this very minute.

You have a funny definition of 'most'

Off the cuff speculation or not, I wonder what the real numbers on that statistic is. What percentage of Americans have traveled to a country outside of the US? Outside the Western Hemisphere?

Less than one third have a U.S. passport, per CNN.

It's the kind of attitude I have heard of and only rarely encountered. I met a woman who was a petrified at the idea of going to a big city, let alone another country. She was a small town lady, not an agoraphobic.


We are really lucky enough to have an incredibly diverse culture in various areas of this country, with enough interesting things that I rarely leave the U.S. I live near a large city, but I try to keep my distance and to explore as much as I can in the smaller surrounding areas, as I might do in a foriegn country. I really find those experience are often more varied than many city experiences can provide .
 
2012-09-15 03:48:48 PM
Not to worry. apparently Marine's are being sent to use their fingers, fists, feet and heads to protect consulates. Since they won't be allowed live ammo
 
Displayed 307 of 307 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report