Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Dbrown98 wrote:
These people just wanted an excuse.

They are so unlike most of us in the West.

ya in the west we just riot and kill people based on how our sports teams did, or how a trial case ended (LA riots for the kids), or just having a bad day in school. Yep were just so totally unlike each other.

sirlynchmob wrote:

Dbrown98 wrote:
These people just wanted an excuse.

They are so unlike most of us in the West.

ya in the west we just riot and kill people based on how our sports teams did, or how a trial case ended (LA riots for the kids), or just having a bad day in school. Yep were just so totally unlike each other.

Truly, the west is civilized...

We don't generally shoot RPGs at each other, much to my dismay.

 Frazzled wrote:
We don't generally shoot RPGs at each other, much to my dismay.

Blame gun control laws

RPG rockets zipping by is not fun. Trust me.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
We don't generally shoot RPGs at each other, much to my dismay.

Blame gun control laws

heh... funny...

Back OT: This can't be true... right?
http://freebeacon.com/reports-marines-not-permitted-live-ammo/

U.S. Marines defending the American embassy in Egypt were not permitted by the State Department to carry live ammunition, limiting their ability to respond to attacks like those this week on the U.S. consulate in Cairo.

 whembly wrote:

So if we did that... what would happen?

Wouldn't Russia/China step into the void? Is that a bad thing though? The ME is practically in their backyard and I don't think they want the situations to get out of hand any more than we do.

Let them. Russia and China are natural enemies, especially now that their international economic interests are competing beyond Asia major. The Russians are wonderfully bad at quelling insurrection (see Afghanistan and Chechnya) and the Chinese are starting to make waves at becoming an international power (see anti Piracy deployments to Africa). It is in our interests for China and Russia to engage in mutually destructive military and political conflict. And it's not as if Russia haven't supported the Arab league in the first place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
We don't generally shoot RPGs at each other, much to my dismay.

Blame gun control laws

I do. Daddy needs a tank.

 whembly wrote:

Back OT: This can't be true... right?
http://freebeacon.com/reports-marines-not-permitted-live-ammo/

U.S. Marines defending the American embassy in Egypt were not permitted by the State Department to carry live ammunition, limiting their ability to respond to attacks like those this week on the U.S. consulate in Cairo.

Pretty sure I called that a few pages back.

Marines can only defend certain areas within the embasy building. they cannot engage in combat operation outside the buildinig. If so they got the blessing of God himself to make it happen.

 Seaward wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Back OT: This can't be true... right?
http://freebeacon.com/reports-marines-not-permitted-live-ammo/

U.S. Marines defending the American embassy in Egypt were not permitted by the State Department to carry live ammunition, limiting their ability to respond to attacks like those this week on the U.S. consulate in Cairo.

Pretty sure I called that a few pages back.

Sorry... I missed that. That just doesn't seem right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
Marines can only defend certain areas within the embasy building. they cannot engage in combat operation outside the buildinig. If so they got the blessing of God himself to make it happen.

It make sense that they would have a strict rules of engagement...

But being unarmed? I really hope that report is wrong.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
We don't generally shoot RPGs at each other, much to my dismay.

Blame gun control laws

heh... funny...

Back OT: This can't be true... right?
http://freebeacon.com/reports-marines-not-permitted-live-ammo/

U.S. Marines defending the American embassy in Egypt were not permitted by the State Department to carry live ammunition, limiting their ability to respond to attacks like those this week on the U.S. consulate in Cairo.

Highly believable.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
We don't generally shoot RPGs at each other, much to my dismay.

Blame gun control laws

heh... funny...

Back OT: This can't be true... right?
http://freebeacon.com/reports-marines-not-permitted-live-ammo/

U.S. Marines defending the American embassy in Egypt were not permitted by the State Department to carry live ammunition, limiting their ability to respond to attacks like those this week on the U.S. consulate in Cairo.

That might have been for the best, Egypt is an armed society and nothing inflames local tensions worse than body bags. They burned a flag, it was an insult, but in egypt at least it didn't go much farther than that. A lethal defense of the embassy (while fully within our rights) would likely have had disastrous results.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Back OT: This can't be true... right?
http://freebeacon.com/reports-marines-not-permitted-live-ammo/

U.S. Marines defending the American embassy in Egypt were not permitted by the State Department to carry live ammunition, limiting their ability to respond to attacks like those this week on the U.S. consulate in Cairo.

Pretty sure I called that a few pages back.

You called that for libya.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

You called that for libya.

Nope, I called it for Egypt. I know you've had trouble discussing more than one at a time, so I forgive you.

Incidentally, it's been confirmed that at least three of the Americans killed with the ambassador in Benghazi were American security personnel - two Marines, one private contractor.

From what I understand the Egyptians didn't breach the walls, thus they were not fired upon. There's a difference between donkey-caves being donkey-caves like in Egypt and a mob covering an attack like in Libya.

Have the Benghazi counter protest photos been linked here yet? It was rather uplifting to see normal citizens coming out and saying "feth you, murder is not the way of Islam nor does it represent us."




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

You called that for libya.

Nope, I called it for Egypt. I know you've had trouble discussing more than one at a time, so I forgive you.

Incidentally, it's been confirmed that at least three of the Americans killed with the ambassador in Benghazi were American security personnel - two Marines, one private contractor.

I thought it was four Americans total were killed. The ambassador, two Marines and an FSO. (Foreign Service Officer that is)

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
From what I understand the Egyptians didn't breach the walls, thus they were not fired upon. There's a difference between donkey-caves being donkey-caves like in Egypt and a mob covering an attack like in Libya.

Most descriptions I've seen say they scaled the walls - that's close enough for government work, far as I'm concerned.

I thought it was four Americans total were killed. The ambassador, two Marines and an FSO. (Foreign Service Officer that is)

Nope. Latest reports I've seen has it up to five now. Boston Globe confirms one of them was a (former SEAL) contractor, CBS News says two Marines, we all know about the FSO and the Ambassador, which brings us to five.

 Seaward wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

You called that for libya.

Nope, I called it for Egypt. I know you've had trouble discussing more than one at a time, so I forgive you.

Incidentally, it's been confirmed that at least three of the Americans killed with the ambassador in Benghazi were American security personnel - two Marines, one private contractor.

Yeah, and the consulate was manned with Libyan security personnel. I know you have trouble reading posts, including your own, but you argument was first that the consulate was an embassy (it wasn't). Then it had marine security personnel (it didn't). Then the ambassador was the one with marine security personnel (sure). I'm sure you'll eventually be right about everything because you've changed what you said every time you've been caught wrong.

 Seaward wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
From what I understand the Egyptians didn't breach the walls, thus they were not fired upon. There's a difference between donkey-caves being donkey-caves like in Egypt and a mob covering an attack like in Libya.

Most descriptions I've seen say they scaled the walls - that's close enough for government work, far as I'm concerned.

Good thing you are not in charge then.

Marines should only fire to protect lives in direct danger. Not to protect walls or flags.

In somewhat related news:

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/12/slain-ambassador-warned-in-08-about-extremists-near-benghazi/?hpt=hp_t2

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Yeah, and the consulate was manned with Libyan security personnel. I know you have trouble reading posts, including your own, but you argument was first that the consulate was an embassy (it wasn't). Then it had marine security personnel (it didn't). Then the ambassador was the one with marine security personnel (sure). I'm sure you'll eventually be right about everything because you've changed what you said every time you've been caught wrong.

I went back to look for my first posts regarding the ambassador's security. Here's what I came up with:

 Seaward wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:
The CONSULATE was defended by local Libyan security personnel. Not Marines. And go ahead, find a prayer mat. It'll get you out of this thread for a few days while you search. It'll improve the tone of the conversation and at least one more person will stop coming in here with bunk facts and child like reasons for wanting to nuke billions.

The article linked at the top of this thread stated that the diplomat was killed by smoke inhalation, along with two security contractors.

You think we leave the protection of our diplomats entirely up to foreign nationals in unstable regions? Really?

Of course not. The two dudes with him - I'm sure there were more - were likely whatever Blackwater's calling itself now. I'm pretty sure they got the big State Department contract a few years back.

 Seaward wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:
The Article was one of the first up and has several facts wrong.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19570254

Here's a more recent one, you should learn to update your sources when discussing breaking stories. Yes, I do think we'd leave protection of our diplomatic staff up to foreign nationals. It's customary in small scale operations with very few personnel (such as this minor consulate). That there was an ambassador there at all was a strange and unfortunate coincidence. That's not where he did his work.

That article contradicts nothing at all of what I said; it adds another death.

I didn't ask about diplomatic staff. I asked about diplomats. Ambassadors. If you think we let those guys just wander around places like Libya without security details, you're absolutely out of your mind. It does not happen. He had Americans with guns with him, precisely because the record of indigenous security forces in that region? Not so hot lately.

Care to try again?

 d-usa wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
From what I understand the Egyptians didn't breach the walls, thus they were not fired upon. There's a difference between donkey-caves being donkey-caves like in Egypt and a mob covering an attack like in Libya.

Most descriptions I've seen say they scaled the walls - that's close enough for government work, far as I'm concerned.

Good thing you are not in charge then.

Marines should only fire to protect lives in direct danger. Not to protect walls or flags.

In somewhat related news:

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/12/slain-ambassador-warned-in-08-about-extremists-near-benghazi/?hpt=hp_t2

Fair enough...

Doesn't this "make us look weak" now though? Now the world knows that they can scale the wall and drag down our flag... don't you think they'll try pushing it more?

And I think something needs to be said of the Egyptian Government... it's their job to help protect the embassy... so, this is implicit approval from the government that this is acceptable. Probably the best response right now is to leave Egypt and kick the Egyptian consulate here in America out for awhile (you're grounded!).

 Seaward wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Yeah, and the consulate was manned with Libyan security personnel. I know you have trouble reading posts, including your own, but you argument was first that the consulate was an embassy (it wasn't). Then it had marine security personnel (it didn't). Then the ambassador was the one with marine security personnel (sure). I'm sure you'll eventually be right about everything because you've changed what you said every time you've been caught wrong.

I went back to look for my first posts regarding the ambassador's security. Here's what I came up with:

 Seaward wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:
The CONSULATE was defended by local Libyan security personnel. Not Marines. And go ahead, find a prayer mat. It'll get you out of this thread for a few days while you search. It'll improve the tone of the conversation and at least one more person will stop coming in here with bunk facts and child like reasons for wanting to nuke billions.

The article linked at the top of this thread stated that the diplomat was killed by smoke inhalation, along with two security contractors.

You think we leave the protection of our diplomats entirely up to foreign nationals in unstable regions? Really?

Of course not. The two dudes with him - I'm sure there were more - were likely whatever Blackwater's calling itself now. I'm pretty sure they got the big State Department contract a few years back.

 Seaward wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:
The Article was one of the first up and has several facts wrong.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19570254

Here's a more recent one, you should learn to update your sources when discussing breaking stories. Yes, I do think we'd leave protection of our diplomatic staff up to foreign nationals. It's customary in small scale operations with very few personnel (such as this minor consulate). That there was an ambassador there at all was a strange and unfortunate coincidence. That's not where he did his work.

That article contradicts nothing at all of what I said; it adds another death.

I didn't ask about diplomatic staff. I asked about diplomats. Ambassadors. If you think we let those guys just wander around places like Libya without security details, you're absolutely out of your mind. It does not happen. He had Americans with guns with him, precisely because the record of indigenous security forces in that region? Not so hot lately.

Care to try again?

You know I was quoting you right? The part you left out? The part where you were wrong about it being an embassy and having it's own marines? You can't really backpedal that well when everyone can scroll back and see it.

 d-usa wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
From what I understand the Egyptians didn't breach the walls, thus they were not fired upon. There's a difference between donkey-caves being donkey-caves like in Egypt and a mob covering an attack like in Libya.

Most descriptions I've seen say they scaled the walls - that's close enough for government work, far as I'm concerned.

Good thing you are not in charge then.

Marines should only fire to protect lives in direct danger. Not to protect walls or flags.

In somewhat related news:

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/12/slain-ambassador-warned-in-08-about-extremists-near-benghazi/?hpt=hp_t2

Clearly you've never been on the other side of a defensive wall with people attacking over it then... you don't wait till they come up and try to knife you into the guts. Me personally I would have been all for clearing them off the walls the hard way. That said, that is why we have ROE. To keep us (Marines) from doing the logical and combat effective thing and instead doing the politically relevant and effective thing. This usually results in Marines getting killed, but that thankfully that was not the case this time.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
From what I understand the Egyptians didn't breach the walls, thus they were not fired upon. There's a difference between donkey-caves being donkey-caves like in Egypt and a mob covering an attack like in Libya.

Most descriptions I've seen say they scaled the walls - that's close enough for government work, far as I'm concerned.

Good thing you are not in charge then.

Marines should only fire to protect lives in direct danger. Not to protect walls or flags.

In somewhat related news:

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/12/slain-ambassador-warned-in-08-about-extremists-near-benghazi/?hpt=hp_t2

Fair enough...

Doesn't this "make us look weak" now though? Now the world knows that they can scale the wall and drag down our flag... don't you think they'll try pushing it more?

And I think something needs to be said of the Egyptian Government... it's their job to help protect the embassy... so, this is implicit approval from the government that this is acceptable. Probably the best response right now is to leave Egypt and kick the Egyptian consulate here in America out for awhile (you're grounded!).

Despite the glorification and worship of it by certain parts of our population, it is just a piece of cloth and even if they took a dump on it and burned every single flag ever made in a fire this country will endure.

 ShumaGorath wrote:
You know I was quoting you right? The part you left out? The part where you were wrong about it being an embassy and having it's own marines? You can't really backpedal that well when everyone can scroll back and see it.

You're welcome to dig it up, if you like. You'll have to do some pretty creative editing.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
From what I understand the Egyptians didn't breach the walls, thus they were not fired upon. There's a difference between donkey-caves being donkey-caves like in Egypt and a mob covering an attack like in Libya.

Most descriptions I've seen say they scaled the walls - that's close enough for government work, far as I'm concerned.

Good thing you are not in charge then.

Marines should only fire to protect lives in direct danger. Not to protect walls or flags.

In somewhat related news:

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/12/slain-ambassador-warned-in-08-about-extremists-near-benghazi/?hpt=hp_t2

Clearly you've never been on the other side of a defensive wall with people attacking over it then... you don't wait till they come up and try to knife you into the guts. Me personally I would have been all for clearing them off the walls the hard way. That said, that is why we have ROE. To keep us (Marines) from doing the logical and combat effective thing and instead doing the politically relevant and effective thing. This usually results in Marines getting killed, but that thankfully that was not the case this time.

I hope you have helicopters firing up then. Because if you think that killing the guys on top of the wall is the "logical" thing to protect yourself you can be sure that you will be overrun by the giant mop of pissed of people outside.

 d-usa wrote:

Despite the glorification and worship of it by certain parts of our population, it is just a piece of cloth and even if they took a dump on it and burned every single flag ever made in a fire this country will endure.

The issue isn't protecting the flag, the issue is being unable to predict what those guys are going to do once they've gotten over the walls.

Also I seem to recall the building in Bhenghazi was a "Cultural outreach center" or some BS like that.

I ended up having a pretty loud argument with the old man over this one. He said we should have bombed Bhenghazi. Even if we had the ROE to do that, who the hell do you bomb in a decent sized city to punish them for a mob (who were possibly acting as cover for terrorist elements) attacking something? Pick five random buildings? This is the problem with any form of COIN operation, you have to make sure you're primarily killing bad guys, and it's really goddessdamn hard to find the bad guys.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
From what I understand the Egyptians didn't breach the walls, thus they were not fired upon. There's a difference between donkey-caves being donkey-caves like in Egypt and a mob covering an attack like in Libya.

Most descriptions I've seen say they scaled the walls - that's close enough for government work, far as I'm concerned.

Good thing you are not in charge then.

Marines should only fire to protect lives in direct danger. Not to protect walls or flags.

In somewhat related news:

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/12/slain-ambassador-warned-in-08-about-extremists-near-benghazi/?hpt=hp_t2

Fair enough...

Doesn't this "make us look weak" now though? Now the world knows that they can scale the wall and drag down our flag... don't you think they'll try pushing it more?

And I think something needs to be said of the Egyptian Government... it's their job to help protect the embassy... so, this is implicit approval from the government that this is acceptable. Probably the best response right now is to leave Egypt and kick the Egyptian consulate here in America out for awhile (you're grounded!).

Despite the glorification and worship of it by certain parts of our population, it is just a piece of cloth and even if they took a dump on it and burned every single flag ever made in a fire this country will endure.

Its not the flag, its the Egyptian government permitting the attack to occur in the first place. their lukewarm repsonse (replete with the MB contiuing to stir more protests) reaffirms how Egypt should be treated at this point.

 d-usa wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
From what I understand the Egyptians didn't breach the walls, thus they were not fired upon. There's a difference between donkey-caves being donkey-caves like in Egypt and a mob covering an attack like in Libya.

Most descriptions I've seen say they scaled the walls - that's close enough for government work, far as I'm concerned.

Good thing you are not in charge then.

Marines should only fire to protect lives in direct danger. Not to protect walls or flags.

In somewhat related news:

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/12/slain-ambassador-warned-in-08-about-extremists-near-benghazi/?hpt=hp_t2

Clearly you've never been on the other side of a defensive wall with people attacking over it then... you don't wait till they come up and try to knife you into the guts. Me personally I would have been all for clearing them off the walls the hard way. That said, that is why we have ROE. To keep us (Marines) from doing the logical and combat effective thing and instead doing the politically relevant and effective thing. This usually results in Marines getting killed, but that thankfully that was not the case this time.

I hope you have helicopters firing up then. Because if you think that killing the guys on top of the wall is the "logical" thing to protect yourself you can be sure that you will be overrun by the giant mop of pissed of people outside.

Belt fed weapons and walls are a surprisingly useful crowd control device. You'd be amazed at how long a defensive position like an embassy could hold out. You seem to be under the odd impression that people scaling and potentially coming over the walls just want to give you a hug or something, and that defending the lives of everyone inside the walls is the least healthy of the two potential options. Again, this turned out for the best and it's something we should all be thankful for. But it could have very easily gone the other way.

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Despite the glorification and worship of it by certain parts of our population, it is just a piece of cloth and even if they took a dump on it and burned every single flag ever made in a fire this country will endure.

The issue isn't protecting the flag, the issue is being unable to predict what those guys are going to do once they've gotten over the walls.

You might be unable to predict what those guys are going to do on top of the walls.

We can however predict what will happen once you open fire on them.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Also I seem to recall the building in Bhenghazi was a "Cultural outreach center" or some BS like that.

I ended up having a pretty loud argument with the old man over this one. He said we should have bombed Bhenghazi. Even if we had the ROE to do that, who the hell do you bomb in a decent sized city to punish them for a mob (who were possibly acting as cover for terrorist elements) attacking something? Pick five random buildings? This is the problem with any form of COIN operation, you have to make sure you're primarily killing bad guys, and it's really goddessdamn hard to find the bad guys.

I wouldn't consider this event to be indicative of an insurgency. We're not even occupiers and they didn't attack their own state.