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  
•       •       •

5752 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Sep 2012 at 8:02 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 307 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report