Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Libya consulate, US ambassador attacked,

2012

  • Please log in to reply
107 replies to this topic

#41 Kota

Kota
  • Islander
  • 417 posts

Posted 14 September 2012 - 10:57 AM

Ambassador Stevens had a false sense of security. He was moved to a second location which was suppose to be a safer location, but the security jobs were out sourced to a local Libyan Security team. Who then told the protesters where to find the Ambassador and others in the safe place.

Libyan Security

Quote

Though information on the circumstances surrounding Ambassador Stevens's death remain unclear, it appears that the embassy was not guarded by American Marines, but instead by local Libyans hired to act as a security force.

Questions about the cause of Ambassador Stevens' death remain unanswered. Initial reports indicated that he died when the car he was in was hit by a grenade launcher.  Subsequent reports indicate that he was suffocated.

But some reports indicated that he may not have been killed in an attack on the car, but instead was dragged through the crowd and killed in some other manner. A photograph purporting to be of Ambassador Stevens, who appears to be still alive, but being dragged through a crowd of militant protesters, appeared on the website National Turk.

In addition to Ambassador Stevens, two Marines and an embassy staff member were killed. The Marines appeared to have been sent in from another location just as the protest erupted.

Where Were the Marines

Quote

Security at the consulate was apparently provided by Libyan nationals hired by the United States. While security for American embassies is typically provided by our own Marines, the two Marines reported killed in yesterday's attacks appear not to have been stationed at the embassy, but were sent there from another unknown location as the violence erupted. There is also no indication if these two Marines were the only American military personnel on site at the time of Ambassador Stevens's death.

-snip-

As the facts surrounding the destruction of the American consulate and death of Ambassador Stevens become known, investigators will focus on these questions: Did the State Department provide adequate security for our embassy staff there? If not, why not?

And finally, the most important question of all: Where were the Marines?


#42 Balderdash

Balderdash
  • Islander
  • 5,729 posts

Posted 14 September 2012 - 11:42 AM

^^^

I have zero faith in Breitbart as any sort of legitimate news source.   First there are no Marines and then 2 Marines died.
There were 2 Marines that were handily just happened to be around somewhere, somehow?  What!?!?

Another Democrat leaning Independent that has to search for truth because it can't be found on Fox News OR MSNBC.



"Being gay is not a Western invention, it is a human reality"  by HRC


#43 offworlder

offworlder

    pls don't kick offworlders, we can find a place too

  • Islander
  • 5,363 posts

Posted 14 September 2012 - 11:46 AM

your'r right, I too heard that the Lybia team had a leak and that the militant paramilitary armed assault group got the loc info on the safe house to go assault it, .. 'out sourced to a local Libyan Security team. Who then told the protesters where to find' .... but it was the hit team got the info and planned the concerted hit, but I bet the protester mob followed someone b/c it seems they too got over to the safe house ............... I laugh at th e press confusing embassy with consulate; embassies do have Marines though most have no ammo in the Baretta pistols; I do not hear of consulates having Marines; the building in Tripoli is an embassy; the bldg. in Bengazi is/was a lux house only, not a facility, a wall but no real security facilities, a guardhouse but no institutionalized secure deterrent type things; just a consulate in a town that is the province seat but not capital............... I don't know to what extent SecState is involved in ops, procedures, security, maybe a top career exec in state, deputy global ops exec in state, report to Sec, does procedural ops things for missions..... decide what Marines in embassy, what not Marines but some kind sec idea for consulates, decide ammo, et al ; but I bet now, after, hindsight, SecState will get reports more and decide more ops procedural details worldwide; but not a campagn thing, like Romney with no hindsight could do better? what's his background in such things? it's not for Rom/Barack Nov debate; it's State ops et al.
"(Do you read what they say online?) I check out all these scandalous rumours about me and Elijah Wood having beautiful sex with each other ... (are they true?) About Elijah and me being boyfriend and boyfriend? Absolutely true. We've been together for about nine years. I wooed him. No I just like a lot of stuff - I like that someone says one thing and it becomes fact. It's kind of fun." --Dominic Monaghan in a phone interview with Newsweek while buying DVDs at the store. :D

#44 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 14 September 2012 - 12:02 PM

Pro-American Rally in Libya


Posted Image
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#45 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 14 September 2012 - 01:26 PM

Breitbart is not a news organization.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#46 Kota

Kota
  • Islander
  • 417 posts

Posted 14 September 2012 - 01:41 PM

Click the Breitbart link I provided,

go to the CBSNEWS link, and there ya go.

#47 Batrochides

Batrochides
  • Islander
  • 669 posts

Posted 14 September 2012 - 01:53 PM

According to the U.S. Department of State's DSS manual,  Bush Administration-era Federal solicitation documents for personal security contractors, and apparently long-standing SOPs for protective security operations in Iraq (all of which are or at least were available on the Internet), a high-value target traveling in a high-risk area requires fairly extensive protective support, including the use of armored vehicles, a minimum of a squad-size protective detail armed with  M-4 carbines or M-16s, various types of grenades, and at least one long-range sniper rifle. Such an escort is designed to effectively counter the most probable threats against that target: an impprovised ambush while in transit or a similar assault on the protectee at a particular venue. More dangerous threats of the nature of "crashing through the protection with force" (i.e. an attack by several heavily-armed assailants according to a pre-conceived plan) are dealt with by the protectee not venturing outside the area of maximum security (the embassy) except by an unannounced convoy with two or more Federally-managed security teams--not relying on local police forces--and by avoiding obvious areas of violent turmoil, intelligence of which would be made available to the Regional Security Officer.

I've yet to see any justification for Ambassador Stevens to have put himself deliberately into the extremely hazardous situation in Benghazi (as the Consulate personnel must surely have standing evacuation procedures that would not require the presence or direction of the Ambassador), much less do so with an entirely inadequate escort. If the Administration prefers to place the blame on well-coordinated terrorists rather than the local populace in general, then further fault must lie with those who collected local intelligence, as it seems incredible that a militant group could have successfully planned, deployed and carried out an overwhelming attack had basic security protocol involving movement secrecy been followed.

Batrochides



#48 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 14 September 2012 - 02:17 PM

Thanks for the clarification, Kota.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#49 Batrochides

Batrochides
  • Islander
  • 669 posts

Posted 14 September 2012 - 02:19 PM

Just a further note on the USMC embassy guards:

They are intended to provide  "last resort" security at the embassy itself, and most embassies have only a handful of riflemen, enough for one Marine to man "Post One" 24-7. They do not provide personal security for the ambassador, nor do they conduct perimeter patrols, access control, crowd control, or protective surveillance: these are done by independent companies hired by the State Department. The Department's Diplomatic Security Service is focused on protection for senior Department personnel and special envoys, and providing the Regional Security Officers at each embassy (the RSO being in charge of overall security at each post).

Batrochides

#50 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 14 September 2012 - 03:00 PM

View PostBatrochides, on 14 September 2012 - 01:53 PM, said:

I've yet to see any justification for Ambassador Stevens to have put himself deliberately into the extremely hazardous situation in Benghazi  

I can't find the link, and I apologize, but as I recall, Stevens went to Benghazi before the demonstrations began.  I don't think he went as a result of the demonstrations and subsequent attack on the embassy.  But, I'll be honest, I can't reference the time line, and I don't recall the reason for his visit.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#51 Kota

Kota
  • Islander
  • 417 posts

Posted 14 September 2012 - 04:07 PM

You're welcome Scott.

The quietly heroic life of Ambassador Chris Stevens

Quote

Why was Stevens in Benghazi instead of Tripoli?
He was in town for the inauguration of a cultural center that was part of his effort to build closer ties between the U.S. and Libya. In an email to friends and family in July, he noted that Libyans had become more welcoming to Americans and other Westerners since Gadhafi fell, saying, "Let's hope it lasts."


#52 Nikcara

Nikcara

    confused little imp

  • Islander
  • 3,500 posts

Posted 14 September 2012 - 07:15 PM

It would appear that the rumor that the Marines were not allowed live ammo is just that" a rumor.  

http://www.dailykos....dly-wingnut-lie

And while I generally take issue the Daily Kos being god-awfully biased, it would seem that the US Marine Corp has also stated that there were NO restrictions on ammo or weaponry

http://mediamatters....-marines/189888
We have fourty million reasons for failure, but not a single excuse  -- Rudyard Kipling

Develop compassion for your enemies, that is genuine compassion.  Limited compassion cannot produce this altruism.  -- H. H. the Dalai Lama

#53 DarthMarley

DarthMarley
  • Islander
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 14 September 2012 - 07:48 PM

View PostCertifiably Cait, on 14 September 2012 - 03:00 PM, said:

View PostBatrochides, on 14 September 2012 - 01:53 PM, said:

I've yet to see any justification for Ambassador Stevens to have put himself deliberately into the extremely hazardous situation in Benghazi  

I can't find the link, and I apologize, but as I recall, Stevens went to Benghazi before the demonstrations began.  I don't think he went as a result of the demonstrations and subsequent attack on the embassy.  But, I'll be honest, I can't reference the time line, and I don't recall the reason for his visit.

Something about a ribbon cutting ceremony at a cultural centre probably payed for with State Dept money in part.
"It is not who is right, but what is right that is of importance."

#54 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 14 September 2012 - 08:00 PM

Regardless of circumstances, it was a sad ending to a good man's life.
Posted Image
Posted Image

#55 DarthMarley

DarthMarley
  • Islander
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 14 September 2012 - 08:09 PM

View Postoffworlder, on 13 September 2012 - 12:25 PM, said:

I would use many grains of salt with any Romney sayings on the administration, with his agenda and all, remember how the right wing got on radio and tv the morning after the Obama election night, top priority, all efforts, all thoughts, all speech, bent toward the only goal, anything to Must get Obama out of the White House at all costs, so... Two, I see a bit of post after post right in here that seems rather agenda too, ;) , snicker.... Three, the admin have already said, news reported, that the embassy statement about feelings of Islam and the prophet was not from the admin, it was from the embassy in Cairo and not vetted, not opportunity to vet, or reported or notice beforehand; it was embassy statement alone, White House not pc or apologetic about U.S. people actions, no kowtow presentation to the world, weak world affairs, all that rot fox news luv to say.... Four, I read yesterday an expert reported in a new column who Really attacked the Bengazi consulate and why, I'll have to find that thing again for us..... Next, here is a thing, mob attacks U.S. embassy in capital of Yemen, 'death to America' stuff again, sort of the overall image of get U.S. out of mooslem regions, fight for dignity of prophet and Islam,http://www.usatoday....emen/57774256/1 . ;)

You should test truth claims no matter where they originate.

But of course Rmney will do his best to portray Obama as an ineffectual leader. It isn't hard, but only people who are not reflecively against the "agenda" of electing someone else will be receptive to that message.

As for post after post here that seem "agenda" and a snicker, why be evasive about it?
Enumerate what you find disagreement with so it might be explained.

Clinton's remarks have largely mirrored the appeasement rhetoric from the Cairo press release.
One must either reject the tone of explaining "We had nothing to do with this exercise in free speech, please don't hurt us" or not.
Those of us on the 'agenda" side of things would propose a response more in line with "Get off our lawn you silly mob, or injury and death will befall you!"
"It is not who is right, but what is right that is of importance."

#56 DarthMarley

DarthMarley
  • Islander
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 14 September 2012 - 08:11 PM

View PostBklnScott, on 14 September 2012 - 01:26 PM, said:

Breitbart is not a news organization.

No more than Drudge or Kos sites are, I suppose.
But they do qualify for press credentials when they cover events.

Much of their work might be categorized as opinion, others gonzo journalism, and still others, genuine investigative reporting.

Whether or not it is a "news" organization is less relevant to me than "Is what they say in a particular case true?"

In any case, blanket dismissal, or use of a "source indictment" like this strikes me as poor form.

Attack the messenger when you don't like the message, a lovely 3000 year old rhetorical method.
But it only works on people who don't understand they are being led astray by that line of "inquiry."
"It is not who is right, but what is right that is of importance."

#57 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 14 September 2012 - 09:39 PM

Quote

As for post after post here that seem "agenda" and a snicker, why be evasive about it?
Enumerate what you find disagreement with so it might be explained.

Clinton's remarks have largely mirrored the appeasement rhetoric from the Cairo press release.
One must either reject the tone of explaining "We had nothing to do with this exercise in free speech, please don't hurt us" or not.
Those of us on the 'agenda" side of things would propose a response more in line with "Get off our lawn you silly mob, or injury and death will befall you!"

I don't know if I so much disagree as I disapprove. I think there is a fundemental misunderstanding over there about responsibility for this video. Countries that have been run for entire lifetimes on a strongarm government controlling everything they see and do (I beleive) have left many in the region assuming that anything like this that see's the light of day must have come with our governments approval. Still others have no concept of our "free speech" rights and simply wouldn't want them if it allowed for stuff like this video to be deemed acceptable. Do I (or our government) condone what happened? No. But what should we do about it? In listening to Mitt Romney, he seemed all ready to go for another war we can't afford. Let's build up the military yadda yadda. I listen to that little press conference and several things struck me. As Americans all we've been hearing is how "We have to sacrifice" budget cuts to the safety net, less for those who have next to nothing and the middle class being squeezed to death, yet here's Mitt talking about more money for the military. So while we don't care of our citizens here at home, Mitt wants to bulk up the military even more. He came off as crass and opportunistic and honestly, I don't beleive we need more rootin shootin cowboy diplomacy. It's already left us deep in the red. So I would ask you, what would/should we do in your estimation? Should we open up a can of Tomahawk missile whup a** on them? Send in the marines? What?

I loathe that people over there would murder over their Prophet or have militants use it as a smoke screen to murder Americans but it's no secret many in the region don't need much of a flashpoint, afterall we have more often than not backed their dicators, which doesn't make them feel all warm and fuzzy about us. So in the end, what would YOU do if you were President.
Posted Image
Posted Image

#58 Nikcara

Nikcara

    confused little imp

  • Islander
  • 3,500 posts

Posted 14 September 2012 - 10:01 PM

I honestly question how much the film actually had to do with the protest in Libya.  I mean, if they want to get worked up over something there's plenty of legitimate things to get worked up over (or at least more legitimate than some not even shoe-string budge film no one in America ever heard of before the protest).  Also, most of the time when people protest things like a film, they don't bring frikkin rocket-propelled grenade launchers.  Additionally, there's evidence that they had been doing surveillance of the place for a couple weeks and that they had an inside informant.  Now I admit that I haven't been to that many protests, but all that strikes me as awfully suspicious.

Some of the protests happening now in other other countries might well be because some of the people there heard about the film and were upset by it, but I still think in regards to the killing in Libya that it's a red herring.
We have fourty million reasons for failure, but not a single excuse  -- Rudyard Kipling

Develop compassion for your enemies, that is genuine compassion.  Limited compassion cannot produce this altruism.  -- H. H. the Dalai Lama

#59 DarthMarley

DarthMarley
  • Islander
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 14 September 2012 - 10:24 PM

View PostLin731, on 14 September 2012 - 09:39 PM, said:

Quote

As for post after post here that seem "agenda" and a snicker, why be evasive about it?
Enumerate what you find disagreement with so it might be explained.

Clinton's remarks have largely mirrored the appeasement rhetoric from the Cairo press release.
One must either reject the tone of explaining "We had nothing to do with this exercise in free speech, please don't hurt us" or not.
Those of us on the 'agenda" side of things would propose a response more in line with "Get off our lawn you silly mob, or injury and death will befall you!"

I don't know if I so much disagree as I disapprove. I think there is a fundemental misunderstanding over there about responsibility for this video. Countries that have been run for entire lifetimes on a strongarm government controlling everything they see and do (I beleive) have left many in the region assuming that anything like this that see's the light of day must have come with our governments approval. Still others have no concept of our "free speech" rights and simply wouldn't want them if it allowed for stuff like this video to be deemed acceptable. Do I (or our government) condone what happened? No. But what should we do about it? In listening to Mitt Romney, he seemed all ready to go for another war we can't afford. Let's build up the military yadda yadda. I listen to that little press conference and several things struck me. As Americans all we've been hearing is how "We have to sacrifice" budget cuts to the safety net, less for those who have next to nothing and the middle class being squeezed to death, yet here's Mitt talking about more money for the military. So while we don't care of our citizens here at home, Mitt wants to bulk up the military even more. He came off as crass and opportunistic and honestly, I don't beleive we need more rootin shootin cowboy diplomacy. It's already left us deep in the red. So I would ask you, what would/should we do in your estimation? Should we open up a can of Tomahawk missile whup a** on them? Send in the marines? What?

I loathe that people over there would murder over their Prophet or have militants use it as a smoke screen to murder Americans but it's no secret many in the region don't need much of a flashpoint, afterall we have more often than not backed their dicators, which doesn't make them feel all warm and fuzzy about us. So in the end, what would YOU do if you were President.

I would take the "Get off my lawn" approach.
I not offer apologies, but something more like ultimatums.

It really boils down to how do you handle bullies?
"It is not who is right, but what is right that is of importance."

#60 DarthMarley

DarthMarley
  • Islander
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 14 September 2012 - 10:36 PM

View PostNikcara, on 14 September 2012 - 10:01 PM, said:

I honestly question how much the film actually had to do with the protest in Libya.  I mean, if they want to get worked up over something there's plenty of legitimate things to get worked up over (or at least more legitimate than some not even shoe-string budge film no one in America ever heard of before the protest).  Also, most of the time when people protest things like a film, they don't bring frikkin rocket-propelled grenade launchers.  Additionally, there's evidence that they had been doing surveillance of the place for a couple weeks and that they had an inside informant.  Now I admit that I haven't been to that many protests, but all that strikes me as awfully suspicious.

Some of the protests happening now in other other countries might well be because some of the people there heard about the film and were upset by it, but I still think in regards to the killing in Libya that it's a red herring.

Why would you doubt the reports?

http://news.blogs.cn...ssador-stevens/

Quote

On Tuesday night, protesters were outside the consulate in Benghazi, demonstrating against the video "Innocence of Muslims," which reportedly was made in California by a producer whose identity is unclear.

http://www.cnn.com/2...cene/index.html

Quote

The violence began around 10 p.m. Tuesday amid a protest by the radical Islamist group Ansar Al-Sharia against a film mocking Islam's prophet.

Stipulating that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack, not a protest by outraged Muslims, I genuinely do not understand the impulse to deny or minimize the protest of the film which was exploited as cover for the attack.
"It is not who is right, but what is right that is of importance."



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: 2012

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users