US Ambassador to Libya reported killed

[Furrowed Brow]

New in the last few minutes is that the US ambassador to Libya has been killed after the embassy was attacked by crowds in response to a US made film depicting the prophet Muhammad.

If this is true then is very sad and condolences too anyone connected to the embassy and the ambassador.

One BBC reporter described the film by Sam Bacile as highly offensive. There are clips available on youtube

Well in the 13 min clip I fail to see anything that is offensive, and certainly not justification to start burning down embassies. However the film is so bad it feels like watching Monty Python or Mel Brooks. American actors with American accents faces smeared with boot polish and false beards and truly dreadful acting and dialogue. It is up there with Plan 9 from Outer Space.

However, to be true there is a tangible despising of Islam from the makers of the film. Though it is bad, so bad it is funny even, I wonder whether there are too many folk on both sides without a sense of humour.

There will now be more riots across the Middle East I fear.

Is feeling offended the right response to having your religious leader or prophet depicted in a way youdo not approve? Is the right response to shrug the shoulders and say “that was pathetic�. Even those of the Islamic faith who would not resort to violence do you feel angered by such a film or can you shrug it off as just stupid. If Islamic film makes made a film of Jesus in a similar fashion would Christians be offended? Would you shrug it off as pathetic?

[chris_brown207]

Here's another interesting development, it is rumored the Marines in Egypt were ordered not to carry live ammunition.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012 ... ro-Embassy

How stupid is that?

This is not as unusual as it sounds - although makes for convenient political fodder in times like this.

Even stationed in the Gulf, there were times when we were not allowed to carry live ammunition in our weapons. At times of low risk of attack, it was considered a bigger risk to have watch standers (yes, even Marines) walking with "hot" weapons. When the risk increased, the ammunition was issued. I can attest to the risk of live weapons on watch - just about every ship on the peer experienced an accidental discharge of their weapons by watch-standers at one point or another. Put an exhausted sailor or marine behind a live weapon on countless hours of watch, and it is just a matter of time. These decisions were normally made at the command or squadron level.

It would not surprise me at all if these Marines were walking with unloaded weapons at one point or many points during their tours. It also would not surprise me if, as tensions increase, ammo was divvied out. It definitely would not surprise me if a political commentator tried use the times when ammo was not issued to attempt to portray the State Department, in this case, as not allowing the servicemen to protect themselves.

I guess we will have to wait for the official reports to know for certain.

I'm not saying this policy is exclusive to Obama, I seem to remember reading the Marine guards at the Beirut barracks bombing in the '80s had no live ammo, another dumb move. As a concealed carry permit holder, I carry a loaded gun lots of places, why can't a US Marine, especially in a very dangerous part of the world?

Even if those Marines at the barracks had loaded weapons, there is no guarantee they could have stopped the bombing in Beirut. The barracks received dozens of trucks just like it within the span of weeks leading up to the attack. And do you know how many rounds it takes to stop a vehicle in motion, much less one as big as the one that was used? Ask anyone who has stood watch at a check point and has had to do it.

I had a classmate on the USS COLE when it was hit in Yemen. Their watch-standers were carrying loaded weapons. However, they were not able to perceive the threat until it was too late. I can tell you from personal experience, being able to tell the difference between an innocent fishing skif, and a bomb laden terrorist boat is not as easy as I am sure movies today would make it seem. There were a number of times when we almost went hot on some fisherman who didn't make it home to his family that night just because he made a wrong turn, or got a little too close.

Who knows, maybe we did impede a terrorist attack or two. One thing I do know, is the close calls I had to write after action reports on because of accidental discharges. Thank goodness I never had to write a casualty report. When a weapon is loaded, unloaded, switches hands, dry fired for verification, stowed, holstered, unholstered - wash, rinse, repeat - dozens of times in the span of a day, things can happen. Add exhaustion from working 16-20 hour days with no days off in between in extreme conditions, and it is only a matter of time. After a couple of those, and you consider very carefully what situations warrant the carrying of loaded weapons.

As that old saying goes - "walk a mile in my shoes..."

[dianaiad]

Just watching the returning of the bodies and the ceremony there.

What music do they play?

God Bless America.



Ironical.

this is ironic, why?
It's a request, not a statement.

[East of Eden]

Here's another interesting development, it is rumored the Marines in Egypt were ordered not to carry live ammunition.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012 ... ro-Embassy

How stupid is that?

This is not as unusual as it sounds - although makes for convenient political fodder in times like this.

Even stationed in the Gulf, there were times when we were not allowed to carry live ammunition in our weapons. At times of low risk of attack, it was considered a bigger risk to have watch standers (yes, even Marines) walking with "hot" weapons. When the risk increased, the ammunition was issued. I can attest to the risk of live weapons on watch - just about every ship on the peer experienced an accidental discharge of their weapons by watch-standers at one point or another. Put an exhausted sailor or marine behind a live weapon on countless hours of watch, and it is just a matter of time. These decisions were normally made at the command or squadron level.

It would not surprise me at all if these Marines were walking with unloaded weapons at one point or many points during their tours. It also would not surprise me if, as tensions increase, ammo was divvied out. It definitely would not surprise me if a political commentator tried use the times when ammo was not issued to attempt to portray the State Department, in this case, as not allowing the servicemen to protect themselves.

I guess we will have to wait for the official reports to know for certain.

I'm not saying this policy is exclusive to Obama, I seem to remember reading the Marine guards at the Beirut barracks bombing in the '80s had no live ammo, another dumb move. As a concealed carry permit holder, I carry a loaded gun lots of places, why can't a US Marine, especially in a very dangerous part of the world?

Even if those Marines at the barracks had loaded weapons, there is no guarantee they could have stopped the bombing in Beirut.

They would have had a much better chance than being essentially unarmed.

The barracks received dozens of trucks just like it within the span of weeks leading up to the attack. And do you know how many rounds it takes to stop a vehicle in motion, much less one as big as the one that was used?

One to the driver. Very doable with a loaded automatic weapon.

I had a classmate on the USS COLE when it was hit in Yemen. Their watch-standers were carrying loaded weapons. However, they were not able to perceive the threat until it was too late. I can tell you from personal experience, being able to tell the difference between an innocent fishing skif, and a bomb laden terrorist boat is not as easy as I am sure movies today would make it seem. There were a number of times when we almost went hot on some fisherman who didn't make it home to his family that night just because he made a wrong turn, or got a little too close.

Who knows, maybe we did impede a terrorist attack or two. One thing I do know, is the close calls I had to write after action reports on because of accidental discharges. Thank goodness I never had to write a casualty report. When a weapon is loaded, unloaded, switches hands, dry fired for verification, stowed, holstered, unholstered - wash, rinse, repeat - dozens of times in the span of a day, things can happen. Add exhaustion from working 16-20 hour days with no days off in between in extreme conditions, and it is only a matter of time. After a couple of those, and you consider very carefully what situations warrant the carrying of loaded weapons.

Yes, people in the military die from a number non-combat related causes, but I hope we can agree from now on that Marines in embassies of Muslim nations should be armed.

[chris_brown207]

One to the driver. Very doable with a loaded automatic weapon.

So says the voice of experience. How many times have you been in that situation?

I am not arguing that if the threat hadn't been better understood, the men shouldn't have been armed - I am saying that history has repeatedly shown from the USS COLE, to Afghanistan, to Iraq, that even armed check points at highly secure blockades have not been completely successful against LVBIEDs.

Things may seem crystal clear when viewed on the nightly news from the comfort of one's couch, but they tend to get a tad more complicated when one finds themselves in the middle of it.

Yes, people in the military die from a number non-combat related causes, but I hope we can agree from now on that Marines in embassies of Muslim nations should be armed.

Thank goodness we have wise and experienced soldiers, sailors, and airmen who will be making that call....

[dianaiad]

One to the driver. Very doable with a loaded automatic weapon.

So says the voice of experience. How many times have you been in that situation?

I am not arguing that if the threat hadn't been better understood, the men shouldn't have been armed - I am saying that history has repeatedly shown from the USS COLE, to Afghanistan, to Iraq, that even armed check points at highly secure blockades have not been completely successful against LVBIEDs.

Things may seem crystal clear when viewed on the nightly news from the comfort of one's couch, but they tend to get a tad more complicated when one finds themselves in the middle of it.

Yes, people in the military die from a number non-combat related causes, but I hope we can agree from now on that Marines in embassies of Muslim nations should be armed.

Thank goodness we have wise and experienced soldiers, sailors, and airmen who will be making that call....

The same wise and experienced commanders who declared that the military should go unarmed at Ft. Hood?

.........................just asking. I have problems understanding why any member of our military should be unarmed at any point, or in any place.

[micatala]

Here's another interesting development, it is rumored the Marines in Egypt were ordered not to carry live ammunition.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012 ... ro-Embassy

How stupid is that?

You should know by now that anything that comes from Breitbart should automatically be considered suspect. Now, perhaps this particular assertion is true, but you need to find another source before you expect reasonable people to take this seriously.

Ad hominem. If you know of a perfect source that has never made a mistake, let me know. Certainly not Paul Krugman who you have cited in the past.

Your comment is wrong on several counts.

First, and ad hominem would be bringing up a characteristic of the person that was irrelevant to the claim or argument. Credibility is not irrelevant. It is entirely reasonable and not at all fallacious to ask for another source when the only one provided has a track record of blatant unreliability.

Second, what Breitbart engages in are not "mistakes." In the Sherrod case, the Obama Administration made a mistake by jumping to conclusions too quickly without knowing all the facts.

Deliberately and dishonestly and with pre-meditated intent taking a film and cleverly editing it to give a completely false portrayal of Mrs. Sherrod was not a "mistake." It was intentional and egregiously dishonest character assassination.

Nonsense, unless you're a mindreader, you have NO way of knowing what Breitbart's intentions were.

It is quite obvious from the actions he took that he knew the film clip he distributed was not truthful. One does not have to be a mind reader to see that.

If I walk into the kitchen and see my son's face full of cookie crumbs and he tells me he did not take any cookies and he has one behind his back as he says it, I do not need to be a mind reader to know he is not telling the truth.


There is no reasonable way to characterize Breitbart's actions as anything but egregious and flagrant dishonesty. His actions indicate that without a doubt.

Thirdly, your reference to Krugman is a cheap shot, especially since you left out most of the information related to that exchange from where I cited Krugman.

I had posted a number of sources for the points I was making in that thread. YOU IGNORED THEM ALL except for the one that involved information from Krugman.

You then engaged in what actually was an ad hominem attack, criticizing Krugman for his ideology, which is different than reliability.

Go ahead and cite Krugman, he's easy enough to refute, I was just playing your game of having a journalistic standard of perfection.

That is a laughable false equivalence.

You repeatedly cite untruthful sources.

I cited Krugman once and allowed he had a liberal bias.

Idealogical bias does not equal untruthful.


This is a pretty pathetic rebuttal on your part.

Have you shown Krugman to be unreliable? No.

In the instance I cited, very much so. You know the one where he blamed the shooting of Rep. Gifford on the Tea Party and Rush fans, when in fact the shooter was a reader of Karl Marx. No retraction came. I guess that was an intentional distortion, right?

I'll accept this, assuming it is correct, as an instance of Krugman making an unfounded accusation.

I have already said I will avoid citing Krugman.


Will you do the same for Breitbart and wnd.com?????

Or will you continue to base your positions on demonstrably unreliable sources?

Did I repeatedly reference Krugman? No. Just the once that I recall.

Uh, I don't think I quote Breitbart all that often.

Will you avoid doing so in the future or not?

You however repeatedly have cited a source that is well-known to be dishonest and have no journalistic integrity. It is certainly your right to continue to do so, but again, don't expect anyone to take what you have to say seriously if that is your only source.

Back at you, o fan of the distorter Krugman.

Again with the false equivalence.

I will avoid citing Krugman.

Will you avoid citing Breitbarta and World Net Daily or not?


If not, what is anyone to conclude other than you care not whether the sources you cite are reliable?

Now, I am not saying Breitbart personally or the group that still flies under his banner always lie or are always wrong. I am saying a reasonable person should not give any credence to what they say unless there is a corraborating source.

Why don't you drop the attacks and address the fact I posted, if we can even remember it after this sideshow?

I will not feel compelled to address assertions made when the only source is a blatantly unreliable and dishonest person or organization.

There is no reason to consider what breitbart publishes as factual until it is backed up by a more reputable source.


Can you fine a more reputable source or not?

"Well, I haven't seen the film. I don't intend to see it. I you know, I think it's dispiriting sometimes to see some of the awful things people say. And the idea of using something that some people consider sacred and then parading that out a negative way is simply inappropriate and wrong. And I wish people wouldn't do it. Of course, we have a First Amendment. And under the First Amendment, people are allowed to do what they feel they want to do. They have the right to do that, but it's not right to do things that are of the nature of what was done by, apparently this film. [...]

"I think the whole film is a terrible idea. I think him making it, promoting it showing it is disrespectful to people of other faiths. I don't think that should happen. I think people should have the common courtesy and judgment -- the good judgment -- not to be -- not to offend other peoples' faiths. It's a very bad thing, I think, this guy's doing."


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- ... ing-wrong/


So, if the original statement was disgraceful, what is this?

By your standards, isn't CBS an unreliable source? You remember when Dan Rather used forged documents in his attack on Bush, and was forced to retire early?

CBS has not engaged in anything close to the repeated dishonesty practiced by Breitbart. I grant there are isolated instances of a very probalematic nature. Note that in this case, the organization took action and essentially acknowledged the transgression which is another difference between a reputable news organization and breitbart.



However, since you object to CBS, here are several more sources.


http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/ ... sition.php

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics ... ore/56876/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezr ... t/?print=1


http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... tt-romney/


Can you provide similar sources for your breitbart based claim or not??


Will you now address whether Romney's statement is disgraceful or not??

Finally, it is not particularly productive, fair, or accurate to suggest everyone in Egypt or Libya or even a majority agree with the actions of the small number of protestors in those locations.

Here are some photos of Libyans expressising sympathy, even apologizing, for the actions of their country, or disagreeing with the actions of the mob. Those who have trouble determining what is an actual apology or an actual expression of sympathy might want to take notes.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jtes/12-photos- ... ng-to-amer

What is that supposed to prove, and how can we be sure they are there on their own volition?

It shows that not everyone in the Muslim world is a rabid anti-American, as you seem to believe.



How can we be sure they are there of their own voltion??

Is that a serious question??? You might recall that Gadaffi has now been overthrown. Can you point me to anyone in Libya today who could force people to be carrying such signs?


Really, that is a ridiculously pathetic response.

I'm sure not everybody in Nazi Germany supported Hitler either. Yours is a straw man argument, nobody said all agreed with the radicals, but enough do to give us a huge problem on our hands.

Fair enough. I agree there are racidals in Muslim countries. I agree there is probalby more sympathy with some of the beliefs or radicals there than there are with our radicals here.

I reject the notion that we should treat entire countries as if they are all radicals. When you suggest we engage in the knee-jerk reaction of pulling aid immediately, then you are at least implicitly putting the whole country in the radical camp, blaming them for the actions of the few.

My point is the few are not necessarily representative of the many.

Yes, the few are significant and can have an impact. We need to take into account that reality. We do not need to further alienate those who are not radicals by painting with an overly broad brush. If we are going to continue to successfully fight terrorism, we are going to need the cooperation of governments in the Middle East. Bush realized that and so does Obama. I am not sure Romney does at this point.

This opinion piece discusses the global problem that Hilary and Obama refuse to face, instead referring to ' a tiny number of people':

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/ ... bal-jihad/

Well, let's consider this opinion piece.

It says in part.

Madam secretary, it is time for you and your boss to wake up and smell the global jihad.

There are people in this world—and not a small number of them—who share the vision bin Laden had and have the will and means to act. No amount of apologizing for America, embracing our adversaries or mistreating our allies will change that.

Mr. Whiton's opinion is quite at odds with reality.

Obama and Clinton are well aware of global jihad and have been rather successful in taking out al-Qaeda operatives. Mr. Whiton seems not to be aware of those facts or chooses to ignore them.

Secondly, perhaps you should provide the full text of one these alleged "apologies" that are being referred to here.

Whiton claims the following.

It was there that he apologized for critical steps American officials took in the Middle East to defend against the Soviets eight years before Obama was born. It was there that he criticized his own nation’s response to 9/11.

I am not sure this is an accurate characterization of what Obama said, anymore than your characterization of what the embassy and Obama have said in the current situation. Describing the reality of a situation that includes missteps by the United States is not the same as apologizing for our values.

Secondly, to point to a couple of statements, even if one accepts the biased characterization, and ignore the reality of the actual actions taken is itself a huge mischaracterization.



Under whose watch have more al-Qaeda operatives, especially those at a high level, been killed or captured? Bush or Obama?


And, while we are speaking of attacks on embassies, is it not true that a number of diplomatic installations were also attacked under Bush?



Whiton says this:

While the groups are diverse and at times antagonistic toward each other, their hatred of America unites them, and they work toward a generally common goal. Behind them is a large body of people who cheer on and support Islamists—a minority of Muslims, but hardly a body of people we should ignore.

I see no evidence that either Clinton or Obama do not understand this. Again, they have done as much as anyone to fight terrorism. They are certainly not ignoring the problem.



Whiton begins and ends his article by criticizing other trips CLinton has taken.

This is ludicrous. It is as if Clinton should ignore every other country on the planet and set aside every other international issue and interest the U.S. has.


Now, you can argue with the language of a 'few' and how many that is. That is a pretty petty issue frankly. Using the word 'few' or even 'tiny' however does not equate to ignoring the problem or not understanding its scope.





I see no evidence that "talking tougher" has or would have much of an appreciable effect. Radicals who have already decided the U.S. is "the great Satan" and who are willing to commit suicide attacks are not going to be dissuaded by any amount of chest-pounding on our part. They might not even be persuaded by our killing their comrades in arms.

However, those who are more moderate may be amenable to dialog. Many in the region (as noted in my pictures from Libya) are frustrated if not outraged by the violence committed by some of their co-religionists. If we continue to practice targeted actions against specific perpetrators, and simulataneously engage in diplomatic efforts to increase productive interactions with governments in the area, we might have a chance of reducing this threat in the long run.

HOwever, we should not live in a fantasy world where by simply "talking tough" and beating our breasts we can prevent violent mobs from engaging in attacks.

[chris_brown207]

One to the driver. Very doable with a loaded automatic weapon.

So says the voice of experience. How many times have you been in that situation?

I am not arguing that if the threat hadn't been better understood, the men shouldn't have been armed - I am saying that history has repeatedly shown from the USS COLE, to Afghanistan, to Iraq, that even armed check points at highly secure blockades have not been completely successful against LVBIEDs.

Things may seem crystal clear when viewed on the nightly news from the comfort of one's couch, but they tend to get a tad more complicated when one finds themselves in the middle of it.

Yes, people in the military die from a number non-combat related causes, but I hope we can agree from now on that Marines in embassies of Muslim nations should be armed.

Thank goodness we have wise and experienced soldiers, sailors, and airmen who will be making that call....

The same wise and experienced commanders who declared that the military should go unarmed at Ft. Hood?

.........................just asking. I have problems understanding why any member of our military should be unarmed at any point, or in any place.

The military was armed at Ft. Hood, just as they are at any American base. You have a security force that number in the hundred. They have immediate access to weapons and ammo. The combat troops stationed at these bases have access to weapons and ammo as well. The situation at Ft. Hood was no different then any recent civilian shooting - it takes precious minutes to stage an effective response to a threat.

[East of Eden]

One to the driver. Very doable with a loaded automatic weapon.

So says the voice of experience. How many times have you been in that situation?

I am not arguing that if the threat hadn't been better understood, the men shouldn't have been armed - I am saying that history has repeatedly shown from the USS COLE, to Afghanistan, to Iraq, that even armed check points at highly secure blockades have not been completely successful against LVBIEDs.

Things may seem crystal clear when viewed on the nightly news from the comfort of one's couch, but they tend to get a tad more complicated when one finds themselves in the middle of it.

Yes, people in the military die from a number non-combat related causes, but I hope we can agree from now on that Marines in embassies of Muslim nations should be armed.

Thank goodness we have wise and experienced soldiers, sailors, and airmen who will be making that call....

The same wise and experienced commanders who declared that the military should go unarmed at Ft. Hood?

.........................just asking. I have problems understanding why any member of our military should be unarmed at any point, or in any place.

The military was armed at Ft. Hood, just as they are at any American base. You have a security force that number in the hundred. They have immediate access to weapons and ammo. The combat troops stationed at these bases have access to weapons and ammo as well. The situation at Ft. Hood was no different then any recent civilian shooting - it takes precious minutes to stage an effective response to a threat.

From Wikipedia:

"Lt. General Cone stated: "As a matter of practice, we do not carry weapons on Fort Hood. This is our home."[114] Military weapons are only used for training or by base security, and personal weapons must be kept locked away by the provost marshal.[115] Specialist Jerry Richard, a soldier working at the Readiness Center, expressed the opinion that this policy had left them unnecessarily vulnerable to violent assaults: "Overseas you are ready for it. But here you can't even defend yourself."

Again, why can I carry a loaded gun to church but soldiers on a military base cannot? These killers may be criminals, but they aren't stupid. I'll also note the shooter at the recent CO episode chose the one theater in the area that did not allow concealed carry.

[East of Eden]

One to the driver. Very doable with a loaded automatic weapon.

So says the voice of experience. How many times have you been in that situation?

If I was, I would rather be armed than defenseless.

I am not arguing that if the threat hadn't been better understood, the men shouldn't have been armed - I am saying that history has repeatedly shown from the USS COLE, to Afghanistan, to Iraq, that even armed check points at highly secure blockades have not been completely successful against LVBIEDs.

You're making a straw man argument, who said being armed would be completely successful? They at least have a chance when armed, they have no chance when unarmed.

Things may seem crystal clear when viewed on the nightly news from the comfort of one's couch, but they tend to get a tad more complicated when one finds themselves in the middle of it.

Thank goodness we have wise and experienced soldiers, sailors, and airmen who will be making that call....

My son in the 101st Airborne agrees with me, as would my retired Navy Captain/fighter pilot uncle, a vet from WWII-Vietnam, and former commanding officer of NAS Barber's Point, HI. One of his friends at his retirement facility in San Diego was a former Vice-Commandant of the Marine Corps. Does my uncle count as an experienced sailor? He often said that military officers above a certain rank are just politicians, doing the bidding of civilian leaders no matter how dumb the policy.

[dianaiad]

One to the driver. Very doable with a loaded automatic weapon.

So says the voice of experience. How many times have you been in that situation?

I am not arguing that if the threat hadn't been better understood, the men shouldn't have been armed - I am saying that history has repeatedly shown from the USS COLE, to Afghanistan, to Iraq, that even armed check points at highly secure blockades have not been completely successful against LVBIEDs.

Things may seem crystal clear when viewed on the nightly news from the comfort of one's couch, but they tend to get a tad more complicated when one finds themselves in the middle of it.

Yes, people in the military die from a number non-combat related causes, but I hope we can agree from now on that Marines in embassies of Muslim nations should be armed.

Thank goodness we have wise and experienced soldiers, sailors, and airmen who will be making that call....

The same wise and experienced commanders who declared that the military should go unarmed at Ft. Hood?

.........................just asking. I have problems understanding why any member of our military should be unarmed at any point, or in any place.

The military was armed at Ft. Hood, just as they are at any American base. You have a security force that number in the hundred. They have immediate access to weapons and ammo. The combat troops stationed at these bases have access to weapons and ammo as well. The situation at Ft. Hood was no different then any recent civilian shooting - it takes precious minutes to stage an effective response to a threat.

That's right; it was no different, because the soldiers at Ft. Hood WERE NOT ARMED. Had they been armed, it would have been a very different situation.