Embassy atacks and deaths

[Bill Mattocks]

It does seem there is some confusion about marines placement and even that security (marines) were not allowed to carry ammunition. I wholely agree if this was the case, that those responsible are held accountable.

There is one thing about your statement though, those who scaled the walls in Egypt and Yemen were unarmed. No staff members were harmed. Both the Yemen and Egypt governments have a lot of egg on thier face from this incident, which may push them to greater cooperate with American interest for a while. How different would that be if Marines mowed down a bunch of unarmed guys? While within our rights because they were coming into what is essentially US territory, it might have been a purposeful call that unless they were armed not to shoot.

If they represent a threat (and that is for the Marines on duty to decide, not you, not me, not some politician in Washington), then they should fire their weapons. It is not acceptable that a US Embassy be 'overrun' or 'captured' or anything else by angry citizens of that country, armed or not. If the Marine officer in charge of the situation sees that they are unarmed and do NOT present a threat (in his or her opinion), then fine. If he or she decides they do, then those protesters made a fatal mistake. I do not care if they are unarmed if the Marines on the scene feel they pose a threat and kill them based on that. Too bad for them. Being stupid around US Marines has consequences.

 

[Tgace]

If they represent a threat (and that is for the Marines on duty to decide, not you, not me, not some politician in Washington), then they should fire their weapons. It is not acceptable that a US Embassy be 'overrun' or 'captured' or anything else by angry citizens of that country, armed or not. If the Marine officer in charge of the situation sees that they are unarmed and do NOT present a threat (in his or her opinion), then fine. If he or she decides they do, then those protesters made a fatal mistake. I do not care if they are unarmed if the Marines on the scene feel they pose a threat and kill them based on that. Too bad for them. Being stupid around US Marines has consequences.

I agree...scaling an embassy wall, armed or not, is a weapons free situation...or at least it should be.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[seasoned]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162...cluding-u.s-ambassador-j-christopher-stevens/

Al-Sharef said two U.S. Marines sent to Benghazi when the clash erupted were shot and killed by the well-armed protesters. It was not immediately clear whether the Marines were part of Stevens' security detail. The American whose death was confirmed on Tuesday also died of a gunshot wound. He was identified by the State Department on Wednesday as Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith.

This is a shame indeed............

 

[geezer]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162...cluding-u.s-ambassador-j-christopher-stevens/

Al-Sharef said two U.S. Marines sent to Benghazi when the clash erupted were shot and killed by the well-armed protesters. It was not immediately clear whether the Marines were part of Stevens' security detail. The American whose death was confirmed on Tuesday also died of a gunshot wound. He was identified by the State Department on Wednesday as Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith.

This is a shame indeed............

I agree. This is a shame and atrocity. However, whereas some are already jumping to conclusions, I can wait till the crisis is over (protests and attacks at US embassies and other locations are continuing at the present) and more facts are known before condemning anybody.

As far as Bill Mattocks comments in post #19, I admit that I had a similar gut reaction at first. However, after hearing more about Ambassador Stevens personality and character, I wouldn't be surprised if the relatively light security at the consulate in Benghazi was partly or in whole due to his wishes. If that is the case Bill, I'm afraid the "responsible party" has been executed, and not for treason, but for caring too much about the Libyan people. A tragedy for us and them.

Hey guys, it looks more and more like these were not protests but planned attacks by our enemy, Al Qaida. They deserve the blame. Not our people.

 

[Sukerkin]

My emotional reaction is the same as BillM's :nods:.

I do agree that larger political concerns always have a role to play and that that role all too often costs the lives of loyal soldiers but, in instances like this, it has to be remembered that the embassy grounds represents the soil of the country it is from. It is not quite the same as the absolute rule that covers the decks of ships but it is similar (I believe that the treaty arranging the embassy has to specifically state the embassy is sovereign soil for it to be so). That being the case, an attack on the embassy 'stands in place of' an attack on the country that embassy is from - as I said elsewhere, I know what the reaction would have been for a British embassy of the C19th ... rifle fire is a pretty direct message.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I was serving on active duty in the US Marines when the barracks in Lebanan was blown up, killing 241 of my brothers and sisters. It was blown up by a group calling itself "Islamic Jihad," and this was in 1983. We have had more experience with Islamic military terrorists than many realize. At that time, the Marine enlisted men's club on the small base we had in Lebanan was called the "Can't Shoot Back Saloon." Know why? Because the Rules of Engagement (ROE) were so strict that the Marines effectively COULD NOT DEFEND THEMSELVES for fear of offending this group or that group. It was political. We were sent it to serve a political and diplomatic mission, but we were nothing but targets. Before the barracks was blown up, we were taking sniper fire daily; it was only due to the poor marksmanship of the enemy that more Marines were not killed by sniper fire.

http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/beirut-1983-have-we-learned-lesson

With the benefit of hindsight, it has become apparent that the Beirut bombing was a failure of intelligence, a clear failure of command and control, a failure of effective rules of engagement (ROE), a failure of clearcut mission orders, and a failure in Washington to understand the Middle East, and Lebanon specifically.

It was not, again with 20 years of hindsight, a failure of the 24th MAU and its commander, Col Timothy J. Geraghty. His only fault may have been to bunch too many Marines into one building, creating an attractive target for terrorists.

This writer jotted down a sign at Echo Company, BLT 2/8:
They sent us to Beirut, to be targets who could not shoot. Friends will die into an early grave, was there any reasons for what they gave.3

This was not too far from the "Can't Shoot Back Saloon.''4 The Root Scoop-the six page newspaper of the 24th MAU-on 22 September 1983 published a cartoon showing a Marine in a foxhole with incoming artillery from all directions. The Marine, on the radio, asks, "Yes Sir, it's hard to tell if we're the target. Do I draw?"

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...FjkgAAAAIBAJ&sjid=3WEEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6913,342124



We send our Marines into harm's way. And that is fine, it's our job, it's what we sign up for. We are willing to risk all for God, Country, and Corps.

Not for *******S in Washington who do not understand that our job is not to be passive targets who cannot engage the enemy and defend our own lives.

I get angry beyond belief when I see American lives held so cheaply by our "Dear Leaders" in Washington. Last time around, it was Ronald Reagan to blame for it. This time? I don't see anyone stepping up as a LEADER does and saying "I am responsible for this."

I'm so angry over this I can hardly think straight.

Sorry for the diatribe, but I have some skin in this game. I lost brothers and sisters to this crap; and here we go again. If you send Marines in, let them at least defend their own lives.

 

[cdunn]

If they represent a threat (and that is for the Marines on duty to decide, not you, not me, not some politician in Washington), then they should fire their weapons. It is not acceptable that a US Embassy be 'overrun' or 'captured' or anything else by angry citizens of that country, armed or not. If the Marine officer in charge of the situation sees that they are unarmed and do NOT present a threat (in his or her opinion), then fine. If he or she decides they do, then those protesters made a fatal mistake. I do not care if they are unarmed if the Marines on the scene feel they pose a threat and kill them based on that. Too bad for them. Being stupid around US Marines has consequences.

The Marine officer in charge would, I hope, also consider his mission and its nature, and the actual tactical situation at hand. In Yemen and Egypt, facing a largely unarmed mob numbering in the hundred to thousands, ceding the outer limits of the compound and taking shelter in an actually defensible position is a course of wisdom. A marine outnumbered five hundred to one, in the open, is a dead marine, with no positive to the outcome - just letters to wives and parents and a pissed off host country to boot.

The boys in Libya.. That's another matter. They came ready to rock, with HMGs and RPGs, and because we haven't had an embassy in Libya for decades, caught our men in building much less defensible than a real embassy building. No matter what your ROE was, in that ****** of a situation, you run the risk just by being there. I hope they dig them out, and dangle them at the end of a rope, like the common criminal scum they are. Shooting them in open combat legitimizes their cause far too much.

Oh, and yeah, not everyone over there supports the criminals, for those of you that need at least one feel-good.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The Marine officer in charge would, I hope, also consider his mission and its nature, and the actual tactical situation at hand. In Yemen and Egypt, facing a largely unarmed mob numbering in the hundred to thousands, ceding the outer limits of the compound and taking shelter in an actually defensible position is a course of wisdom. A marine outnumbered five hundred to one, in the open, is a dead marine, with no positive to the outcome - just letters to wives and parents and a pissed off host country to boot.

The boys in Libya.. That's another matter. They came ready to rock, with HMGs and RPGs, and because we haven't had an embassy in Libya for decades, caught our men in building much less defensible than a real embassy building. No matter what your ROE was, in that ****** of a situation, you run the risk just by being there. I hope they dig them out, and dangle them at the end of a rope, like the common criminal scum they are. Shooting them in open combat legitimizes their cause far too much.

Oh, and yeah, not everyone over there supports the criminals, for those of you that need at least one feel-good.

I agree, and thank you for that link. Thanks very much. This is why "kill 'em all and let Allah sort them out" is not my response to this kind of thing, tempting though it may be. However, if they scale the walls, I don't care what they have in their hands, open fire. I take your points about the situation, though.

 

[Instructor]

I am a serviceman and will politely sidestep the political debate.

Americans serving in the middle east are always in danger, whether they be military or atache or work in an embassy. I've been over there a couple of times and just missed getting killed myself when a car bomb destroyed one of the khobar towers in Dhahran.

I just want to extend my prayers to those who survive the victims. The senseless loss of life in that part of the world has been going on for centuries and shows no signs of letting up.

We always look back on tragedies such as these and wish we had prepared better to stop the people who attacked us.

The last thing I want to impart is my pride for my country and my fellow servicemen who go over there and work hard to serve us all. Dying in the service of others is noble and we should all be proud that our people have the courage to be that strong.

 

[WC_lun]

The Lybian compound was a "safe" house for the US Embassy...actually it is four, one level building in the compound. Having seen a walk through of that compound I am really impressed that the Lybian and US security forces were able to fight as long as they were, basically making it too costly to get to them so the attackers left. I think those security forces saved a ton of lives.

Benghazi has been the location of many terrorist attacks within the last year, including an IED being set off next to the wall surrounding the very same compound attacked this week. Not suprising considering the geographical closeess to Darnah. For those that do not know, Darnah has the dubious honor or being where most of the foriegn fighters in Iraq where from. Chris Stevens knew this. It is one of the reasons he spent so much time in Benghazi. Might be time for a couple of Tomahawks to land in Darnah from those two new US destroyers in the area.

 

[Master Dan]

billcihak's comment on the US Marines not being present is the only one in this thread that goes to the heart of the matter. When I heard about the attack, my first thought was "Oh no! I wonder how many Marines went down trying to protect the Ambassador and his staff?" Turned out none, because they were not there.

That is not the fault of the Marines, we go where we are told. One of our many missions is to protect US assets abroad, including US Embassies and their staff members. We do our jobs; we pay with our lives if we must.

For someone to have skipped that necessary step is an act of utmost dereliction. If it was done for political reasons, I personally would like to see the person responsible for this lapse to be tried, and if found guilty, executed for Treason. Yes, I feel that strongly about it. We cannot protect US citizens if not sent in to do so in the first place.

I do not hope that others will continue to attack US Embassies abroad (as it appears they are), but if they do, I do hope that our US Marines have ROE that allow them to send the terrorists directly to their respective Valhallas. Do not pass 'go', do not collect 200 dollahs. They scale the fence waving signs and carrying weapons, and we hose them down with sustained .50 caliber heavy machine-gun fire from the rooftop. Let them die as they wish. The penalty for attacking US assets is death. Always. Politicians and other scum who tie the hands of our fine military and prevent them from doing exactly what they are designed to do are beneath my contempt.

Thank You lets bring up two good points I have been screaming about that was confirmed yesterday on MSNBC.
1. Current Intel should have warned of possible threats to the Benghazi consulate and security like Marines should have been there or staff removed like we are doing currently in other areas?
2. Very good intel of the past showed that one of the largest Terrorist training multiple camps are in a town just outside Benghazi that in fact they supplied more insurgents to the Iraq war than any other place in the world. That the Head of AQ announced its intent to do violence on 9/11 and that the AQ group outside Benghazi area had carried out numerous previous attacks and had the information of our Amassadors trip to Benghazi to plan the attack which started before and completely seperate of any demonstration.

Our Ambassador also knew of this group had traveled there previous years to do intel on thier activiites so both big mistake on his part and our government/military not providing adaquate security fo him.

Last I heard a real crap statement of dealing with demonstrators storming our Embassy's tearing down our flag and doing damage should not be touched or shot. If we are not going to defend our soveriegn soil inside the fence then we should close the facility and I agree pull all foreign aid to all countries who refuse to honor international law regarding diplomats.

Let them protest peacfully all they want outside? We need to have a good Drone or Cruize missle strike on the AQ town outside of Benghazi.

I agree with you someone needs to be in trouble over this mess the Amassador knew better I think he thought he was protected by friends made a mistake but Marines should have been there he should have been removed like it or not.

This whole world wide ISMOB demostrations is no more than Free Rodney King!! Heh lets go down death to America and loote rob comitte mayhem we can all go back watch ourselves on JIZUM TV.

Military on tv right now praying over the bodies comming home man do we need to do Veitnam all over again our guys cannot tell friend from foe over there not allowed to engage put at risk at every point by even people they train and arm? Bring the troops home put them to work here let the tribal savages in these countries eat each other and if they send any of it here we bomb them into the stone age. screw tourism screw the oil.

Our ambassador did not need to die could have been prevented was he a political pawn sacrificed for a purpose with in our state department or military??

How could Rachael Madow and MSNBC know more than our Intel? Not true they knew they stood back let it happen. I hope this issue is not burried and forgotten and just left to flag waving and more votes for someone??