Chris Stevens, short time appointed Ambassador of the U.S. to Lybia, died 3 days ago on September 11, 2012, 11 years from the 9-11 attacks.

It's a shame because he loved the Lybian and Muslim people yet he was killed by them not so long from being appointed Ambassador. As well as that it was 9 flippin 11.

R.I.P.

Sad case. The movie is terrible, and the reaction is worse. Two wrongs don't make a right. As far as the movie goes, just because something is legal doesn't mean it's right.

However, it appears that the violent reaction is the work of Al Qaeda who merely jumped on the opportunity to attack without too much public backlash.

There has been some positive after reactions by the Libyan public saying they do not support the actions against the embassy.

At 9/13/12 07:08 AM, Korriken wrote: It would help if we stationed more AMERICAN soldiers to guards our embassies and killed the stupid sons of bitches who try to assault our embassies. Why we're trusting foreign powers to guard our embassies is beyond me.

I think the difference was that it was just a consulate and not an official embassy, where there's always American security. I bet that will change after this, though apparently about 10 Libyan security guards were killed or wounded as they tried to protect the consulate. We have to give them credit for that.

At 9/13/12 10:56 AM, Korriken wrote: true, but there were moles in the police who were taking pictures of the place earlier that day. most likely to help the asshole plan the attack. they knew where the diplomats would be taken in case of emergency.

This is very troubling. Who do we trust? I seriously doubt that very many even support this attack, let alone would help facilitate it.

The problem is that those who would do such a thing are beyond the control of the sane majority, and in many cases they have too much military power to be controlled.

At 9/13/12 02:30 PM, Korriken wrote: it's not hard to figure out WHO did it. it was a pro jihadist militia group. the only way to help prevent this thing of thing from happening again would be to forcefully disarm the militias. trying to persuade them to join the military won't do anything. the only way to disarm them is give them a deadline to hand over their arms, and those who don't hand over their arms will be eliminated.

That runs up against 2 problems. First, the militants often have more military power than the countries they reside in. Second, they also have enough support from the people that such an ultimatum could cause wide spread social unrest.

At 9/13/12 07:08 AM, Korriken wrote: It would help if we stationed more AMERICAN soldiers to guards our embassies and killed the stupid sons of bitches who try to assault our embassies. Why we're trusting foreign powers to guard our embassies is beyond me.

We're not, 2 of the 4 Americans killed were US marines.

At 9/13/12 07:19 PM, Warforger wrote: We're not, 2 of the 4 Americans killed were US marines.

Also, these are embassies and not military bases. While having an entire garrison may protect the embassy staff it will no doubt cloud the goal of the diplomatic embassy.

At 9/13/12 02:31 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Sad case. The movie is terrible, and the reaction is worse. Two wrongs don't make a right. As far as the movie goes, just because something is legal doesn't mean it's right.

Also, a photograph of Stevens' body is posted as well.

Daily News even have it on front page.

At 9/14/12 07:13 AM, Korriken wrote: Given that the attackers knew precisely where the diplomats would be taken in case of an attack, local security forces cannot be trusted and our embassies and consulates need to be protected entirely by American soldiers with the firepower to repel such an attack.

How is that the conclusion you're drawing from this? Given that a) the main consulate building was overrun within 15 minutes of the start of the assault, B) the attacks employed both direct and indirect fire (RPGs, mortars) very effectively, and C) they had a contingency plan/second assault force for attacking staffers who managed to escape the main compound to the safe house, it seems really unlikely that a bunch of amateurs would have managed to put all that together. That being said, more security forces arbitrarily placed at consulates and embassies around the world would not have prevented the assault. These guys knew what they were doing. Regardless, the State deals with diplomacy and espionage, not military strength. It's a different branch of the government.

It's a no win deal all around. You defend your consulate/embassy directly or through local guards and you're going to end up injuring or killing local citizens. You don't defend it, you might end up with what happened to Stevens on your hands, or worse. Either way, it's a shit sandwich. It's a situation designed to result in the worst possible outcome no matter what you choose and it's the working stiffs on both sides who end up on the wrong side of a bullet.

At 9/16/12 05:49 AM, Korriken wrote: EXACTLY! You gotta remember that police and soldiers of unstable nations like Libya, Sudan, Egypt, etc are not the most loyal bunch to their own nation, let alone ours.

This is more true in the case of Yemen than anywhere else. Keep in mind a vast majority of Libyans have lots of support of the United States due to their involvement in throwing out Qaddafi.

those set up there saw as some of the same people who were supposed to be defending the consulate was taking pictures of it earlier that day.

There was an instance of only one guy taking pictures. The problem is this came from one of the tech guys there in an EVE online chat and there was little context of what he actually meant; was the guy taking strategic pictures of the consulate for offensive strategy or was he taking pictures for recreation? We don't know that yet, although I will certainly grant you that it sounds extremely suspicious, considering the attack took place shortly afterwards and the leak of top secret contingency plans (i.e; location of the safe house).

How many do you think that were on duty to defend the consulate fled when the attack began?

Zero.

prevented it? no. stopped it? more likely. it was from report, a force of 20 men. just 20.

And who is to say the number is fixed? Given that the attackers were as smart and well trained as they ostensibly were, don't you think they would wait until they have an appropriate number of forces to commence an assault? The number for armed terrorists isn't magically capped at 20. If they were to think they needed more people to compensate for heavier security, they'd just recruit and train more people.

apparently they don't deal with espionage very well if the location of the safe house was known before the attack.

Any fairly extensive intelligence gathering operation given the right resources and tools and find pretty much anyone/thing. There really isn't anything the United States or any other country can do about that, unfortunately.

it's better than having our ambassadors slaughtered by a bunch of assholes their weak government can't control.

There was this thing called a civil war that Libya literally just finished up with, of course it's weak. Can you think of any quick remedies that can improve the situation there? I'm sure the Libyan people would love to hear it.

It's always better to choose the option that keeps your people safe. diplomacy is hard to do when your diplomats are being routinely killed.

Our ambassadors aren't being "routinely" killed. Stevens was 1 (one) ambassador killed in a terrorist attack. I'm not really what you're expecting here, honestly. Consulates rely on more local level support, unfortunately. It is probably a consequence of the cost and the demands of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. It isn't a single line of protection either, so it just means a layer of protection was compromised in the case of the Libyan consulate attack.

Just curious: how many guards do you think is appropriate? The Marines are the branch of the Military that are selected for Embassy/Consulate stations to guard. The main reason why I am apprehensive about additional guards is the fact that I would hate to see more innocent civilians get killed. Honestly the best way to play this scenario would be to just withdraw embassy staff as we already did in Tunis and Khartoum. There's less innocent people on both sides getting killed that way.

At 9/16/12 06:52 AM, Korriken wrote: perhaps, but how many of them are willing to die for our country? No one has mentioned yet how many security personnel fled when the attack began that i know of.

They're not dying for our country; our embassies are on their soil. It's their duty to protect it. There's no sworn allegiance to the United States.

Think about it. how many people while on duty go around taking pictures of what they're supposed to be guarding for recreation?

Probably a lot more than you would imagine. I mean this isn't exactly a news worthy event, right? The only time any of us had heard of such a thing was due to the attack, right?

then how are there survivors?

Read this article.

perhaps, but a larger force marching on the consulate would be far easier to spot and Libyan military could descend on it. a handful of people can vanish into a crowd. a couple hundred can't.

Not necessarily true. Remember, this attack was completely separate from the protests. They likely were biding their time for the right moment to strike. Highly disciplined and trained insurgents are very patient people. They'll wait as long as they need to. Besides, what constitutes as a larger force? How many people of our Marines are on the ground now guarding our embassies, and how much more do you think it would take to make them safer?

There is one thing. staff the consulate with nothing but american soldiers and not let foreigners in with camera, nor share intel with them.

Yeah, here's the thing: it's us who are the foreigners. This attack wasn't on US soil. You realize what the point of embassies and consulates are, right?

Irrelevant. While there are groups that their government can't control/root out/kill we should not trust the libyans to protect our diplomats

Okay, that's a point worth discussing. The question is how exactly do you think the State Department and the Obama administration should approach this situation? Libya is, in essence, a brand new country right now, which is a pretty extraordinary scenario. Why stop the (arguably justified) paranoia in Libya and apply it to any Middle Eastern country? Should we never employ local citizens as guards and rely only on Marines? Why stop in the Middle East, though? Radical Islamists aren't exclusive to the ME albeit the higher concentration of them. Why not any embassy in any country around the world? All it takes is one weak spot for any terrorist attack to be successful.

Give it time. another consulate/embassy will be hit soon enough. the government wants to send in marines to defend our embassies and consulates and many of the governments are refusing to let us. Hopefully Obama is smart enough to get our diplomats out of said countries if we can't beef up our own security with our own people.

Well, you're hedging on another attack, and there hasn't been one yet. If there is another attack (which I will grant you is more likely due to copycats) then this would have merit. The only country that I know of that's been opposed to American intervention is Sudan, which was a largely political move due to the American pressure on them due to the South Sudan incident and Darfur. Plus Sudan is an ally to Iran, so it's a bit more complicated than you're making it. What other countries are opposed to more Marines guarding our embassies?

I must agree on the best way is to simply remove our diplomats. Barring that for whatever reason, I'd say it depends. i'd say about 30-50 heavily armed marines would be sufficient. apparently when the consulate attacked the number of Marines we had stood as precisely... 0 Also it would seem that many of the guards turned tail and ran when the consulate came under fire. doesn't help that they were apparently lightly armed.

staffing the outside with local guards is fine, but the inside should be staffed with Marines.

30-50 Marines where? Specifically Libya? ME? Everywhere?

At 9/17/12 09:01 AM, Korriken wrote: Precisely. what prerogative do they have to stand and fight when they can flee?

Except that wasn't the case, remember? It was the Americans who were trying to flee to the safe house

I understand the concept of traitors and moles. I also understand the concept of jihadists infiltrating the Libyan police and military. I also understand that its practically impossible to sniff them out if they aren't already known jihadists.

Okay, fair point, but "not letting foreigners in with camera" and "don't share intel with them" I think is already SOP, considering consulates don't official state they're collecting intel in the host nation to begin with.

you mean why not stop the (arguable justified) paranoia? sounds like a great idea to me!

Oh, it's a wonderful idea, good luck trying to do it, though. We'd wind up killing everyone.

Well, I meant that well organized terrorist cells can operate in several countries. My point wasn't that there could be sympathetic Frenchman that would attack an American military base or whatever, the point is that these groups are not stationary to operating in the ME depending on the size, skill and amount of resources. The risk is global.

'yet' being the operational word here.

Well, if there was another attack, would you be happy for being right?

it's better to be prepared for a disaster that never happens than to be caught unprepared. It's much keeping non perishable foods and candles during hurricane season if you live in the south. You might go a few years not needing those candles before your power goes out for a week.

Your scale is wrong. Comparing diplomatic and military preparedness isn't really on the same level as being prepared for a hurricane. I mean, you know ahead of time when a hurricane is coming, right? It's plastered all over the TV with warnings to evacuate and appropriate steps you should take if you're staying behind. Terrorists don't exactly make TV announcements. I mean, I see your point, but the point of successful terrorist attacks is to be one step ahead of the game. It's a horrible game of cat and mouse.

any country with known jihadist groups that are capable of moving around with military grade equipment. so basically the Middle East and Africa. Like I said before, it's all about calculated risk. Setting up a small garrison of marines in France or South Korea would be a waste. Libya, though, it could have saved lives.

Okay, not entirely unreasonable, but the more armed forces you have in a concentrated area, especially in an area where there are protesters, the more likely you are to have innocent people killed.

Also on another note, it would also be of benefit to detain anyone acting suspiciously around an embassy, but that would fall on local governments. There's very few valid reasons for a person to be walking around and embassy taking pictures or recording video. When the man saw the local taking pictures around the embassy, authorities should have been notified and the local with the camera should have immediately been detained, his camera confiscated and photos on it examined, then if nothing much is found, release him and destroy the film with a warning to not try it again.

Again, reasonable, but remember that it's not clear to us yet what exactly the guard was taking pictures of. He may have just suggesting the guards were not very good and more interested in taking pictures of the protest rather than focusing and being prepared for possible attacks, much like you see people pulling out iphones and cameras to film accidents or any other large scale demonstration. It can be interpreted many different ways without the facts out yet.

Does anyone think that maybe the reason for these riots is more than just about that shitty Youtube video?

That maybe this is the culmination of Muslim resentment towards the U.S and other countries?

Does anyone think that Breivik is right and Islam really is a messed up religion with messed up people?

Don't assume that I agree or disagree with any of those statements, but this is a discussion forum and I'm interesting in what other people think

I do think it is a possibility that the youtube video is just a cover/front reason for the riots, and that maybe a lot of the hatred here stems from hate for the U.S, as if this was bound to happen no matter what

perhaps the Jews are behind this and are trying to create a war between Christians and Muslims

okay that last statement was fucking retarded and I've spent too much on Stormfront

At 9/17/12 09:31 PM, Halberd wrote: Does anyone think that maybe the reason for these riots is more than just about that shitty Youtube video?

Yes, absolutely.

That maybe this is the culmination of Muslim resentment towards the U.S and other countries?

Not entirely, but one aspect. It's not about the film. It's about general anger at the West for various reasons more than anything. The video alone didn't do it, it's just more of a unifying thing than drone strikes and all the other bullshit alone. You see images, hear stories of drone strike victims all the time. You are sick of the interference in your life over this crap. Then this shit comes out. "You murder us, you otherize us, you act like you are innocent in all of it, and then, just to add insult to injury, you throw this crap in my face insulting my religion." If there were not serious underlying issues, this never would have been a big deal. Of course, that's something that will be ignored in the media. What's causing these protests and attacks is the inability to disassociate individuals from a larger group of people.

The ease with which groups of humans will ascribe 'us or them' mentality to others is terrifying. On both sides of these conflicts, there are people who view the opposition as simply one uniform mass of evil. And they only have the leisure of doing so because of how removed they are from the front lines of these conflicts.Seeing other people as actual human beings is, regrettably, one of the most difficult things to get society to do.

Does anyone think that Breivik is right and Islam really is a messed up religion with messed up people?

I hope not. It's exactly this attitude that causes very big problems.

At 9/17/12 09:31 PM, Halberd wrote: Does anyone think that Breivik is right and Islam really is a messed up religion with messed up people?

Absolutely not. It's all geopolitical. The areas with the biggest unrest and general unruliness are in Islamic areas of the World. Back in the Medieval times it was completely flipped with the Islamic areas of the world leading civilization and the Christian areas of the world being loaded with violences and religious hyper-fundamentalism.

Meet any Islamic person in the US and they'll shake their head in shame over these extremists. They will be insulted by the movie, and rightfully so, but they'll be equally disgusted by the rioting and violence.

At 9/22/12 12:05 AM, Korriken wrote: can't say I saw that coming.... interesting development!

I knew the sentiment was there, but it's really nice to see the cooler heads actually mustering enough cajones to make some noise themselves.

At 9/22/12 01:33 AM, Korriken wrote: Sentiment without action is meaningless. I find it refreshing to see some action to go with the sentiment.

It's true. However, because of who they're dealing with (extremely violent nutjobs) I don't necessarily blame them for being reluctant to voice their dissent.