login
Libya and Egypt Attacks (Page 3)
-
No new posts
|
 2012-09-12 11:40 PM in reply to: #4407571 |
 Subject: RE: Libya and Egypt Attacksmr2tony - 2012-09-12 8:47 AM I dont recall anybody saying there was a moral equivelancy other than you. And the Obama Administration's statements are in agreement with one another -- attacking a religion is bad, as is attacking and killing people in the name of religion. Attacking one's religion is a bad thing because it shows religious intolerance regardless of the religion being attacked, wouldn't you agree? Now, while the filmmaker was an idiot, no, it doesn't justify any sort of violent attacks on ANYONE, especially to the scale of what we saw in Libya and Egypt. People attacking and killing in the name of religion -- this is why I'm an atheist. The Ambassador and the other killed were "attacked". I haven't seen the movie but regardless no one was "attacked" and I think it's wrong to use the word attacked, it implies both parties did basically the same thing. One party you are referring to made a movie, broke no laws and expressed their views (I'm assuming). The other party sought out an American Ambassador with the help of the people moving him to safety and executed him and other Americans on the 11th Anniversary of 9/11. I find it morally wrong to say they both "attacked" something/someone, there was only one part attacking anyone! |
| 2012-09-12 11:49 PM in reply to: #4408744 |
Pro  15655    | Subject: RE: Libya and Egypt Attacks crusevegas - 2012-09-12 11:40 PM mr2tony - 2012-09-12 8:47 AM I dont recall anybody saying there was a moral equivelancy other than you. And the Obama Administration's statements are in agreement with one another -- attacking a religion is bad, as is attacking and killing people in the name of religion. Attacking one's religion is a bad thing because it shows religious intolerance regardless of the religion being attacked, wouldn't you agree? Now, while the filmmaker was an idiot, no, it doesn't justify any sort of violent attacks on ANYONE, especially to the scale of what we saw in Libya and Egypt. People attacking and killing in the name of religion -- this is why I'm an atheist. The Ambassador and the other killed were "attacked". I haven't seen the movie but regardless no one was "attacked" and I think it's wrong to use the word attacked, it implies both parties did basically the same thing. One party you are referring to made a movie, broke no laws and expressed their views (I'm assuming). The other party sought out an American Ambassador with the help of the people moving him to safety and executed him and other Americans on the 11th Anniversary of 9/11. I find it morally wrong to say they both "attacked" something/someone, there was only one part attacking anyone! Yeah, that was my point earlier, and I think you've got it right. mr2tony can have some leeway with some of his arguments IMO....but he's WAY out of line calling both an "attack" so he loses some credibility all around to me. I've been attacked, and I've been made fun of or ridiculed....the difference was pretty clear. It really can't even be compared in the same argument. Edited by Left Brain 2012-09-12 11:50 PM |
| 2012-09-13 12:38 AM in reply to: #4408343 |
| Subject: RE: Libya and Egypt Attacks ratherbeswimming - 2012-09-12 2:47 PM A little good news on the subject: http://imgur.com/a/tlCyI To be honest when I read your post, I think I did the eye roll and thought how could there be any good news on this event. I couldn't have been more wrong, thanks for posting this. All too often most of what the media posts is negative, because that is what sells. Again, many thanks. |
| 2012-09-13 12:44 AM in reply to: #4408347 |
| Subject: RE: Libya and Egypt Attacks ChineseDemocracy - 2012-09-12 2:51 PM
Great post coredump. If the Right really wants to paint the president as weak and apologetic to enemies of the U.S., they might want to talk to Al Qaeda's leaders...oops, might be tough, the Presidents been irking human rights groups by using drones all over the middle east picking these guys off one by one. Challenging Obama on foreign policy will doom the GOP's chances...which I'm really not against. The violence was denunciated pure and simple. Should we be responding by dropping bombs on Tripoli and Cairo? Seriously, this just strikes me as manufactured outrage...a bit of "grasping at straws." I've always thought that curious, how offended Obama was by a few people being water-boarded, yet assassinating people, even American citizens he seems to have no problem with. Hmmm, let me think, would I prefer to go through some water-boarding or be assassinated? |
| 2012-09-13 12:48 AM in reply to: #4408748 |
| Subject: RE: Libya and Egypt Attacks Left Brain - 2012-09-12 9:49 PM crusevegas - 2012-09-12 11:40 PM mr2tony - 2012-09-12 8:47 AM I dont recall anybody saying there was a moral equivelancy other than you. And the Obama Administration's statements are in agreement with one another -- attacking a religion is bad, as is attacking and killing people in the name of religion. Attacking one's religion is a bad thing because it shows religious intolerance regardless of the religion being attacked, wouldn't you agree? Now, while the filmmaker was an idiot, no, it doesn't justify any sort of violent attacks on ANYONE, especially to the scale of what we saw in Libya and Egypt. People attacking and killing in the name of religion -- this is why I'm an atheist. The Ambassador and the other killed were "attacked". I haven't seen the movie but regardless no one was "attacked" and I think it's wrong to use the word attacked, it implies both parties did basically the same thing. One party you are referring to made a movie, broke no laws and expressed their views (I'm assuming). The other party sought out an American Ambassador with the help of the people moving him to safety and executed him and other Americans on the 11th Anniversary of 9/11. I find it morally wrong to say they both "attacked" something/someone, there was only one part attacking anyone! Yeah, that was my point earlier, and I think you've got it right. mr2tony can have some leeway with some of his arguments IMO....but he's WAY out of line calling both an "attack" so he loses some credibility all around to me. I've been attacked, and I've been made fun of or ridiculed....the difference was pretty clear. It really can't even be compared in the same argument. In fairness, I believe those are our Presidents words, Tony was quoting him. As I mentioned I think it's an incredibly poor choice of words, especially when comparing a bad movie with MURDER or acts of WAR, unless you are trying to say one is no worse than the other. |
| 2012-09-13 12:55 AM in reply to: #4408774 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Libya and Egypt Attacks crusevegas - 2012-09-13 12:48 AM Left Brain - 2012-09-12 9:49 PM crusevegas - 2012-09-12 11:40 PM mr2tony - 2012-09-12 8:47 AM I dont recall anybody saying there was a moral equivelancy other than you. And the Obama Administration's statements are in agreement with one another -- attacking a religion is bad, as is attacking and killing people in the name of religion. Attacking one's religion is a bad thing because it shows religious intolerance regardless of the religion being attacked, wouldn't you agree? Now, while the filmmaker was an idiot, no, it doesn't justify any sort of violent attacks on ANYONE, especially to the scale of what we saw in Libya and Egypt. People attacking and killing in the name of religion -- this is why I'm an atheist. The Ambassador and the other killed were "attacked". I haven't seen the movie but regardless no one was "attacked" and I think it's wrong to use the word attacked, it implies both parties did basically the same thing. One party you are referring to made a movie, broke no laws and expressed their views (I'm assuming). The other party sought out an American Ambassador with the help of the people moving him to safety and executed him and other Americans on the 11th Anniversary of 9/11. I find it morally wrong to say they both "attacked" something/someone, there was only one part attacking anyone! Yeah, that was my point earlier, and I think you've got it right. mr2tony can have some leeway with some of his arguments IMO....but he's WAY out of line calling both an "attack" so he loses some credibility all around to me. I've been attacked, and I've been made fun of or ridiculed....the difference was pretty clear. It really can't even be compared in the same argument. In fairness, I believe those are our Presidents words, Tony was quoting him. As I mentioned I think it's an incredibly poor choice of words, especially when comparing a bad movie with MURDER or acts of WAR, unless you are trying to say one is no worse than the other. No, in an earlier post Tony used his own words....but yeah, we're all throwing this crap around so I'm not trying to hammer him....especially since I think Romney should, for now, shut his pie hole. This needs a response, we have a President, let's see what he does, but let's give him some room. Disclaimer: I can't stand Obama, but he is the President.....I'm willing to see. |
| 2012-09-13 7:12 AM in reply to: #4408770 |
 Austin, Texas or Jupiter, Florida | Subject: RE: Libya and Egypt Attacks crusevegas - 2012-09-13 1:38 AM ratherbeswimming - 2012-09-12 2:47 PM A little good news on the subject: http://imgur.com/a/tlCyI To be honest when I read your post, I think I did the eye roll and thought how could there be any good news on this event. I couldn't have been more wrong, thanks for posting this. All too often most of what the media posts is negative, because that is what sells. Again, many thanks. I heard there were around 100 people supporting America in Benghazi yesterday so I don't dispute the sentiment. But the pictures look photoshopped. Like this one: http://www.salon.com/2004/04/22/doctored_photos/ |
| 2012-09-13 7:59 AM in reply to: #4408236 |
Elite 2733 Venture Industries, | Subject: RE: Libya and Egypt Attacks coredump - 2012-09-12 4:45 PM scoobysdad - 2012-09-12 3:26 PM drewb8 - 2012-09-12 3:07 PM Fair enough. My bad on the timing with the attack in Libya. It still sure seems that US Consulate was providing some measure of justification for the protests that preceded the attack on the US Consulate in Egypt. It seems like blaming the victim. scoobysdad - 2012-09-12 1:41 PM I'm sorry, which fact represents my skewed world view? The fact that the US Embassy in Cairo condemns the views expressed by a private citizen after violent attacks against two US embassies/consulates in two different nations, resulting in the murder of several embassy staff? The fact the attacks occurred on 9/11? The fact we have a president who, for over 20 years, attended mass at a church led by a minister who vehemently blamed the US following the original 9/11 attacks? Exactly which of those facts is the result of my my "skewed world view"? You have your facts wrong. The statement from the embassy (which the whitehouse had nothing to do with) was issued before the protests even began and well before the violence at the embassy and then in Libya occurred. I have the right to walk into the west side of Chicago and start shouting "I hate Ni***ers!". I'm pretty sure that violence would result. I pretty much doubt that there would be any sympathy for me, and while it's certainly my right to do so, it's not well advised. The filmmaker effectively is doing the same, though someone else got to bear the brunt of the violence. He admits(1)(2) to making it specifically to provoke a reaction like what has now occurred ( though he says he didn't intend specifically for our Ambassador to be killed ).
(1) The film's 52-year-old writer, director and producer, Sam Bacile, said that he wanted to showcase his view of Islam as a hateful religion. "Islam is a cancer," he said in a telephone interview from his home. "The movie is a political movie. It's not a religious movie." Mr. Bacile said he raised $5 million from about 100 Jewish donors, whom he declined to identify. Working with about 60 actors and 45 crew members, he said he made the two-hour movie in three months last year in California. (2) Though Bacile was apologetic about the American who was killed as a result of the outrage over his film, he blamed lax embassy security and the perpetrators of the violence. "I feel the security system [at the embassies] is no good," said Bacile. "America should do something to change it." A consultant on the film, Steve Klein, said the filmmaker is concerned for family members who live in Egypt. Bacile declined to confirm. Klein said he vowed to help Bacile make the movie but warned him that "you're going to be the next Theo van Gogh." Van Gogh was a Dutch filmmaker killed by a Muslim extremist in 2004 after making a film that was perceived as insulting to Islam. "We went into this knowing this was probably going to happen," Klein said. The difference of course is that your yelling "N*****" in Chicago might get you beat up by a mob of citizens, and then those citizens would have been subjected to criminal prosecution; but in the majority of the Middle East the film would have subjected the film maker to criminal prosecution and the death penalty. |
| 2012-09-13 8:09 AM in reply to: #4408978 |
Champion 6056 Menomonee Falls, WI | Subject: RE: Libya and Egypt Attacks Brock Samson - 2012-09-13 7:59 AM coredump - 2012-09-12 4:45 PM scoobysdad - 2012-09-12 3:26 PM drewb8 - 2012-09-12 3:07 PM Fair enough. My bad on the timing with the attack in Libya. It still sure seems that US Consulate was providing some measure of justification for the protests that preceded the attack on the US Consulate in Egypt. It seems like blaming the victim. scoobysdad - 2012-09-12 1:41 PM I'm sorry, which fact represents my skewed world view? The fact that the US Embassy in Cairo condemns the views expressed by a private citizen after violent attacks against two US embassies/consulates in two different nations, resulting in the murder of several embassy staff? The fact the attacks occurred on 9/11? The fact we have a president who, for over 20 years, attended mass at a church led by a minister who vehemently blamed the US following the original 9/11 attacks? Exactly which of those facts is the result of my my "skewed world view"? You have your facts wrong. The statement from the embassy (which the whitehouse had nothing to do with) was issued before the protests even began and well before the violence at the embassy and then in Libya occurred. I have the right to walk into the west side of Chicago and start shouting "I hate Ni***ers!". I'm pretty sure that violence would result. I pretty much doubt that there would be any sympathy for me, and while it's certainly my right to do so, it's not well advised. The filmmaker effectively is doing the same, though someone else got to bear the brunt of the violence. He admits(1)(2) to making it specifically to provoke a reaction like what has now occurred ( though he says he didn't intend specifically for our Ambassador to be killed ).
(1) The film's 52-year-old writer, director and producer, Sam Bacile, said that he wanted to showcase his view of Islam as a hateful religion. "Islam is a cancer," he said in a telephone interview from his home. "The movie is a political movie. It's not a religious movie." Mr. Bacile said he raised $5 million from about 100 Jewish donors, whom he declined to identify. Working with about 60 actors and 45 crew members, he said he made the two-hour movie in three months last year in California. (2) Though Bacile was apologetic about the American who was killed as a result of the outrage over his film, he blamed lax embassy security and the perpetrators of the violence. "I feel the security system [at the embassies] is no good," said Bacile. "America should do something to change it." A consultant on the film, Steve Klein, said the filmmaker is concerned for family members who live in Egypt. Bacile declined to confirm. Klein said he vowed to help Bacile make the movie but warned him that "you're going to be the next Theo van Gogh." Van Gogh was a Dutch filmmaker killed by a Muslim extremist in 2004 after making a film that was perceived as insulting to Islam. "We went into this knowing this was probably going to happen," Klein said. The difference of course is that your yelling "N*****" in Chicago might get you beat up by a mob of citizens, and then those citizens would have been subjected to criminal prosecution; but in the majority of the Middle East the film would have subjected the film maker to criminal prosecution and the death penalty. It's not even a valid analogy. In coredump's example, the mob shouldn't attack him but an innocent bystander simply because he or she is white. And local authorities would issue a statement saying, "Well, we condemn both usage of the "n-word" and violence of any sort. But should anything happen, well, white people don't belong in that neighborhood." Edited by scoobysdad 2012-09-13 8:15 AM |
| 2012-09-13 11:10 AM in reply to: #4408905 |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: Libya and Egypt Attacks GomesBolt - 2012-09-13 7:12 AM crusevegas - 2012-09-13 1:38 AM ratherbeswimming - 2012-09-12 2:47 PM A little good news on the subject: http://imgur.com/a/tlCyI To be honest when I read your post, I think I did the eye roll and thought how could there be any good news on this event. I couldn't have been more wrong, thanks for posting this. All too often most of what the media posts is negative, because that is what sells. Again, many thanks. I heard there were around 100 people supporting America in Benghazi yesterday so I don't dispute the sentiment. But the pictures look photoshopped. Like this one: http://www.salon.com/2004/04/22/doctored_photos/ So you believe the photos of the dead ambassador are photoshopped too, then, right? Personally I don't think any of the photos are doctored from this week, but I could be wrong. Maybe they all are and there's no actual riot going on! Maybe it's a ploy by the Republicans to make Obama look bad, or by Obama to prove that he can handle such anti-American protests! Where'd my tinfoil hat go? |
| 2012-09-13 11:24 AM in reply to: #4409449 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Libya and Egypt Attacks mr2tony - 2012-09-13 11:10 AM GomesBolt - 2012-09-13 7:12 AM So you believe the photos of the dead ambassador are photoshopped too, then, right? Personally I don't think any of the photos are doctored from this week, but I could be wrong. Maybe they all are and there's no actual riot going on! Maybe it's a ploy by the Republicans to make Obama look bad, or by Obama to prove that he can handle such anti-American protests! Where'd my tinfoil hat go? crusevegas - 2012-09-13 1:38 AM ratherbeswimming - 2012-09-12 2:47 PM A little good news on the subject: http://imgur.com/a/tlCyI To be honest when I read your post, I think I did the eye roll and thought how could there be any good news on this event. I couldn't have been more wrong, thanks for posting this. All too often most of what the media posts is negative, because that is what sells. Again, many thanks. I heard there were around 100 people supporting America in Benghazi yesterday so I don't dispute the sentiment. But the pictures look photoshopped. Like this one: http://www.salon.com/2004/04/22/doctored_photos/ I agree the photo's are legit. The only thing I thought was that most of them were the same ink, same handwriting which kind of reminded me of a political event where they hand everybody the same posters to hold up. My thoughts were they could be saying "holy crap we just torched the Embassy, the crazy american's are going to bomb the bleep out of us. Get some people on the street to show them we love America quick..." |
| 2012-09-13 11:30 AM in reply to: #4409480 |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: Libya and Egypt Attacks tuwood - 2012-09-13 11:24 AM mr2tony - 2012-09-13 11:10 AM GomesBolt - 2012-09-13 7:12 AM So you believe the photos of the dead ambassador are photoshopped too, then, right? Personally I don't think any of the photos are doctored from this week, but I could be wrong. Maybe they all are and there's no actual riot going on! Maybe it's a ploy by the Republicans to make Obama look bad, or by Obama to prove that he can handle such anti-American protests! Where'd my tinfoil hat go? crusevegas - 2012-09-13 1:38 AM ratherbeswimming - 2012-09-12 2:47 PM A little good news on the subject: http://imgur.com/a/tlCyI To be honest when I read your post, I think I did the eye roll and thought how could there be any good news on this event. I couldn't have been more wrong, thanks for posting this. All too often most of what the media posts is negative, because that is what sells. Again, many thanks. I heard there were around 100 people supporting America in Benghazi yesterday so I don't dispute the sentiment. But the pictures look photoshopped. Like this one: http://www.salon.com/2004/04/22/doctored_photos/ I agree the photo's are legit. The only thing I thought was that most of them were the same ink, same handwriting which kind of reminded me of a political event where they hand everybody the same posters to hold up. My thoughts were they could be saying "holy crap we just torched the Embassy, the crazy american's are going to bomb the bleep out of us. Get some people on the street to show them we love America quick..." Well a lot of them are the same sign being held by the same person. Who knows -- it could be all made up and photoshopped but if that's the case, so could the photos of the dead ambassador. Who knows what's real anymore! My only question is, why do we have Marines on station with guns if they're not allowed to use said guns. I mean, this situation where they're being bombed and RPGd would seem a logical time to start fighting back. I understand diplomacy and all that but really if they're under attack, especially on American soil, can't they defend themselves? |
| 2012-09-13 12:29 PM in reply to: #4409449 |
| Subject: RE: Libya and Egypt Attacks mr2tony - 2012-09-13 9:10 AM GomesBolt - 2012-09-13 7:12 AM So you believe the photos of the dead ambassador are photoshopped too, then, right? Personally I don't think any of the photos are doctored from this week, but I could be wrong. Maybe they all are and there's no actual riot going on! Maybe it's a ploy by the Republicans to make Obama look bad, or by Obama to prove that he can handle such anti-American protests! Where'd my tinfoil hat go? crusevegas - 2012-09-13 1:38 AM ratherbeswimming - 2012-09-12 2:47 PM A little good news on the subject: http://imgur.com/a/tlCyI To be honest when I read your post, I think I did the eye roll and thought how could there be any good news on this event. I couldn't have been more wrong, thanks for posting this. All too often most of what the media posts is negative, because that is what sells. Again, many thanks. I heard there were around 100 people supporting America in Benghazi yesterday so I don't dispute the sentiment. But the pictures look photoshopped. Like this one: http://www.salon.com/2004/04/22/doctored_photos/
Did you look behind the zombie tracking scanner scope or possibly by the gubmnt listening warning scanner?
I agree with you about wtf why have armed Marines and not allow them to defend themselves and those they are responsible for defending? If it were my decision I think I'd want a couple of Apache gun ships with the Gatling to maintain a protest free zone around the embassy. Or A Gatling on every corner. I guess we aren't any more concerned about protecting our embassy than our borders. Wait, shouldn't we re-name the gun ships? |
| 2012-09-13 12:37 PM in reply to: #4407320 |
| Austin, Texas or Jupiter, Florida | Subject: RE: Libya and Egypt Attacks My photoshop comment was because the text looked exactly the same. Maybe it was the same sign and they passed it around. And then there was one sign where it just looked very strange. As I said in my post though, I know it's true that people were protesting in favor of the US. As for the removal of ammo. That would be an unlawful order in my mind. I'd tell her I'm not going on the post without my ammo. I'll keep the rounds in a clip in my cargo pocket, but you are not putting me out there with only non lethals. A lieutenant I went to school with shot and killed several Haitian police with his weapon when he was told not to carry live ammo and he was acquitted because it was a responsible use of force. Wolf blitzed was praising her yesterday pretty hard. We'll see how this turns out. |
| 2012-09-13 12:41 PM in reply to: #4409494 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Libya and Egypt Attacks mr2tony - 2012-09-13 11:30 AM tuwood - 2012-09-13 11:24 AM Well a lot of them are the same sign being held by the same person. Who knows -- it could be all made up and photoshopped but if that's the case, so could the photos of the dead ambassador. Who knows what's real anymore! My only question is, why do we have Marines on station with guns if they're not allowed to use said guns. I mean, this situation where they're being bombed and RPGd would seem a logical time to start fighting back. I understand diplomacy and all that but really if they're under attack, especially on American soil, can't they defend themselves? mr2tony - 2012-09-13 11:10 AM GomesBolt - 2012-09-13 7:12 AM So you believe the photos of the dead ambassador are photoshopped too, then, right? Personally I don't think any of the photos are doctored from this week, but I could be wrong. Maybe they all are and there's no actual riot going on! Maybe it's a ploy by the Republicans to make Obama look bad, or by Obama to prove that he can handle such anti-American protests! Where'd my tinfoil hat go? crusevegas - 2012-09-13 1:38 AM ratherbeswimming - 2012-09-12 2:47 PM A little good news on the subject: http://imgur.com/a/tlCyI To be honest when I read your post, I think I did the eye roll and thought how could there be any good news on this event. I couldn't have been more wrong, thanks for posting this. All too often most of what the media posts is negative, because that is what sells. Again, many thanks. I heard there were around 100 people supporting America in Benghazi yesterday so I don't dispute the sentiment. But the pictures look photoshopped. Like this one: http://www.salon.com/2004/04/22/doctored_photos/ I agree the photo's are legit. The only thing I thought was that most of them were the same ink, same handwriting which kind of reminded me of a political event where they hand everybody the same posters to hold up. My thoughts were they could be saying "holy crap we just torched the Embassy, the crazy american's are going to bomb the bleep out of us. Get some people on the street to show them we love America quick..." I have no idea what the rules of engagement are for them over there, but when I was in the Navy after the first gulf war we had very restrictive rules of engagement under the Clinton Navy. We literally could not fire unless we took a direct hit first, which if you've ever seen a video of a cruise missile hitting a ship meant we would all have to die before we could actually shoot anything. We sailed off the cost of Somalia when the whole "Blackhawk down" situation broke out and we were not allowed to shoot or do anything. we were just there for a show of force. We were taking small arms fire from the shore but were not allowed to shoot back. So, I totally get how our marines could potentially not be allowed to shoot back as sad as it is. If, they were ultimately not allowed to fight back then it was because their chain of command didn't anticipate an incident and had restrictive rules of engagement in place because they felt the risk of an accident outweighed the risk of needing to defend ourselves. |
| 2012-09-13 12:59 PM in reply to: #4407320 |
| Austin, Texas or Jupiter, Florida | Subject: RE: Libya and Egypt Attacks Ground rules of combat are different. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_engagement While they're different from place to place, you have a right to protect yourself in every one I've ever seen or heard of. The MSG Bn supports the Embassy, but their Chain of Command goes through a HQ in Quantico. I believe they have a standing ROE that has the same language. |
| 2012-09-13 1:13 PM in reply to: #4409731 |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: Libya and Egypt Attacks GomesBolt - 2012-09-13 12:59 PM Ground rules of combat are different. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_engagement While they're different from place to place, you have a right to protect yourself in every one I've ever seen or heard of. The MSG Bn supports the Embassy, but their Chain of Command goes through a HQ in Quantico. I believe they have a standing ROE that has the same language. This is what I thought too. Tuwood -- the `do not fire until fired upon' rule is no longer in effect (or it wasn't back in the day) as far as I know. That said, the embassies were fired upon so I can't help but think the Marines were out of place or not able to fire back or were simply told `HOLD YOUR FIRE!' Or they did and we didn't hear about it. I don't really know any Marines who stand by when the crap hits the fan so there was either an order to stand down or they did fire and it's not being reported. |
| 2012-09-13 2:07 PM in reply to: #4409769 |
Slower Than You 9566 Cracklantaburbs | Subject: RE: Libya and Egypt Attacks http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/2012/09/13/wtf-marines-defendi... The Marine guards were not carrying live ammo, as dictated by another Ambassador. They couldn't have returned fir even if they wanted to. |
| 2012-09-13 2:11 PM in reply to: #4409945 |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: Libya and Egypt Attacks bcart1991 - 2012-09-13 2:07 PM http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/2012/09/13/wtf-marines-defendi... The Marine guards were not carrying live ammo, as dictated by another Ambassador. They couldn't have returned fir even if they wanted to. EFF. THAT. No way I'm a Marine in Cairo assigned to protect an embassy without ammo. Rumor is from another thread that there were no Marines guarding the embassy in Benghazi. How is that possible? I thought Marines were automatically part of the crew when setting up a new embassy. Yikes! |
| 2012-09-13 2:30 PM in reply to: #4409957 |
Pro 3906 St Charles, IL | Subject: RE: Libya and Egypt Attacks mr2tony - 2012-09-13 2:11 PM bcart1991 - 2012-09-13 2:07 PM http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/2012/09/13/wtf-marines-defendi... The Marine guards were not carrying live ammo, as dictated by another Ambassador. They couldn't have returned fir even if they wanted to. EFF. THAT. No way I'm a Marine in Cairo assigned to protect an embassy without ammo. Rumor is from another thread that there were no Marines guarding the embassy in Benghazi. How is that possible? I thought Marines were automatically part of the crew when setting up a new embassy. Yikes! Benghazi technically wasn't an embassy, it was a consulate. He had State Dept security detail, but it wasn't actually a full blown embassy, as that is located in the capital. It's a minor distinction, but it's why there weren't Marines in Benghazi. We have Marines at every embassy, but we don't have Marines at every consulate ( though they can be posted there, and in hindsight in this case, should have been ). And considering the Ambassador spent most of the duration of the Libyan rebel uprising against Ghadaffi in Benghazi helping the rebels and acting as the liason between the rebels there and the US, it's not terribly surprising that he considered it to be a ( relatively ) safe area to be. |
| 2012-09-13 8:14 PM in reply to: #4407320 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Libya and Egypt Attacks America 'was warned of embassy attack but did nothing' I'm sure this will be on the cover of the NYT tomorrow. |
| 2012-09-13 9:20 PM in reply to: #4410524 |
| Austin, Texas or Jupiter, Florida | Subject: RE: Libya and Egypt Attacks tuwood - 2012-09-13 9:14 PM America 'was warned of embassy attack but did nothing' I'm sure this will be on the cover of the NYT tomorrow. The NYT will collude with CBS to somehow make it Romney's fault... (sarc) I heard a guy on a radio program who said he was the former CO of the MSG Battalion. He said it is highly unlikely the Marines had no live rounds on post (MSGs carry a 357 revolver for some stupid reason), but that there are ROE calling for non lethals only until a certain line is crossed. But he said they never surrender their 357s. He said he had no direct knowledge of the circumstances, but thats what he thought of it. Is it possible that the Ambassador didn't trust the Marines to hold their fire? Ive known a few Diplomat types who had that level of distrust for troops. After all, there still is not a heavier Marine force at the Cairo Embassy. Tuwood, the more disturbing thing on that article was the mention that there were names and identities of Libyans who were supporting us in Benghazi. Doc destruction is one of the immediate action drills so I have no idea how they didn't get those destroyed. The Security officers usually have Incindiary grenades that have a 3 sec fuse so you can stack your valuables and "melt them". Either way this goes down, The Obama Administration is not looking good at all... |
| 2012-09-13 9:33 PM in reply to: #4410635 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Libya and Egypt Attacks GomesBolt - 2012-09-13 9:20 PM tuwood - 2012-09-13 9:14 PM America 'was warned of embassy attack but did nothing' I'm sure this will be on the cover of the NYT tomorrow. The NYT will collude with CBS to somehow make it Romney's fault... (sarc) I heard a guy on a radio program who said he was the former CO of the MSG Battalion. He said it is highly unlikely the Marines had no live rounds on post (MSGs carry a 357 revolver for some stupid reason), but that there are ROE calling for non lethals only until a certain line is crossed. But he said they never surrender their 357s. He said he had no direct knowledge of the circumstances, but thats what he thought of it. Is it possible that the Ambassador didn't trust the Marines to hold their fire? Ive known a few Diplomat types who had that level of distrust for troops. After all, there still is not a heavier Marine force at the Cairo Embassy. Tuwood, the more disturbing thing on that article was the mention that there were names and identities of Libyans who were supporting us in Benghazi. Doc destruction is one of the immediate action drills so I have no idea how they didn't get those destroyed. The Security officers usually have Incindiary grenades that have a 3 sec fuse so you can stack your valuables and "melt them". Either way this goes down, The Obama Administration is not looking good at all... I thought the same thing about the docs. There's probably a lot more people local people that were killed that we don't even know about. |
| 2012-09-13 9:50 PM in reply to: #4407320 |
Expert 1146 Johns Creek, Georgia | Subject: RE: Libya and Egypt Attacks With so much hate by middle eastern extremists, what's really going to change it, ever? |
| 2012-09-14 7:46 AM in reply to: #4407320 |
| Austin, Texas or Jupiter, Florida | Subject: RE: Libya and Egypt Attacks This is gonna shock some people, but good for the Administration getting Libya to arrest "those responsible" for the attacks in Benghazi. Now, where are they going to be tortured, I mean tried? Gitmo or NYC? Then again if it was so easy to find and arrest an RPG-wielding terrorist, wouldnt they have known who they were already and how come they didn't arrest them before it happened??? Ok, that's it, tin foil hat back on. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK