JMS's Chronology of the Bengazi Raid and "cover-up"

[twa]

Yeab I think you are loosing sight of the whole diplomat thing...

..

and I think they lost sight of the whole security thing

of course it wasn't they at the consulate....since THEY were WANTING more security

when you have someone at a US consulate openly wondering is tonight the night I die....we need to look at change

as far as Fast,RTT ect, ....providing security to a compound and eliminating threats from defensive positions is much easier than their other tasks:evilg:(which is why it is usually left to others)

the real question is do you want security

[Thiebear]

Not that i'm shocked this conversation has devolved into this I'll leave it at this.

You need to read up on the 16 member special forces STS team.

You need to read up on the 6 member elite team.

Then see if you think they could from a home location be 'slightly' better than 150 "JMS's" attacking them.

Hell, I spent 11yrs in the Army and i'm 100% positive they could snipe 100 of me without breaking a sweat and I have far better training than people on the film shown us.

And its not hypothetical because they were stationed there up to 30days before the attack with the multiple requests not to "take them away" right before 9/11. with multiple requests before that.

And a request the day of the attack.

[twa]

interesting

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/02/exclusive-classified-cable-shows-benghazi-consulate-considered-suspending/#ixzz2BBbS3ks7

[Redskins Diehard]

interesting

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/02/exclusive-classified-cable-shows-benghazi-consulate-considered-suspending/#ixzz2BBbS3ks7

I don't like the idea of classified cables being released so freely. Or maybe these were some of the ones that were recovered laying around the consulate? Seems that it may have been a decent idea to send someone there who's primary mission was to secure classified information and who's secondary mission would have been to protect US citizens and property.

So the throw stuff against the wall and see what sticks folks at Fox are walking in on what I believe to be the questions that need to be asked and answered. Not whether or not someone watching a Predator feed gave an order to stand down or not. And not whether or not there was inconsistency in describing it as a protest or terrorism. But were security concerns communicated. What was done to address those concerns. Were there conops in place to address the increasing likelihood of something like the attack happening.

In my cynical mind the only way this stuff is addressed in the long term is if President Obama wins on Tuesday. If he loses Fox won't care anymore because they accomplished their goal. If he wins then they will continue to dig and sling and dig and sling. And maybe will find something out in the process.

[JMS]

NOT only would a detachment of Marine Security guards execute their secondary mission of providing protections for U.S. citizens but in fact could have pursued the threat off of the consulate grounds.

The yellow highlighted statement is just fantasy. So you have infromation security monitors, who's secondary job is defend the embassy from hundreds of armed terrosits coming over the wall? That's what you are suggesting? I know what you are thinking... Marines, Guadal Canal, Iwo Jima, Leyte Gulf... The problem is on one hand you are talking about divisions of guys equiped for battle, on the other hand you are talking about a hand full of guys who are not. And to suggest you could "turn loose" your detachement of marines on a host countries city as they take the fight to the terrorists, is about as preposterous a scenario as I've heard.. Like the Marines could, would, or even should take the initiative when outnumbered 20-1 in Benghezi. I mean WTF?

No, I don't think 1200/300 = 4 people per facility. Not sure where you come up with the nugget that roughly half of the embassies have MSG...unless you use consulate and embassy interchangeably? Is that the case? And I would think...would HOPE...that resources are allocated based on threat. So no, not an even distribution across the world. But more likely increased resources where perhaps the Marines may have to perform both their primary and secondary duty.

Yes it's your total # of MSG / Total number of foreign service offices which we protect.

Sure you can hand a MSG detachment riffles and they are Marines.. sure.

My point is MSG are not the way we secure our embassies, and consulates. It's not just because their aren't enough ( i.e. 4 MSG per diplomatic facility we need to protect roughly)... It's because that's not their job. Places which need more security don't get more MSG. Places which have large IT staffs like embassies and consulates in Europe have the most Marine detachements. 36 MSG detatchemnts operate in Europe for example or about 30% of all our MSG detachements. Why? Because a lot of our allies in Europe engage in IT survalence and espionage for economic reasons.. AND THAT'S WHAT THE MSG ARE THERE TO HELP STOP. not people coming over the gate, certainly not 150 guys coming over the gate although that support was not immediate..

MSG Region ------------------------------------# of MSG detatchments per Region

• Eastern Europe and Eurasia --------------20
  
• Western Europe and Scandinavia ------16
  
• India and the Middle East -----------------18
  
• East Asia and Pacific -----------------------18
  
• North America and the Caribbean ------14
  
• South America ---------------------------------13
  
• North Africa and West Africa -------------12
  
• East Africa --------------------------------------11
  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Security_Guard#Responsibilities

You keep switching between Kabul and Baghdad. If there was an attack and no embassy personnel were hurt then I would say that the embassy security did it's job.

I'm trying to put your critism into a historical perspective which is a good way to look at these types of events to my mind. I apologize if it's confusing.

If you feel the Kabul securty team did their job, then what is all the fuss about, If seven people dead and 19 wounded to your mind is the Embassy security doing it's job against 9 terrorists then 2 people dead at the consulate facing 150 insurgents must be an example of even better performance!..

And was able to withstand itself in the face of the attack.

Yes it was, thanks to a crack embassy security team in Kabul, and more than 100,000 American troops on the ground in country, and probable half as many NATO and allied troops, and of coarse a multi billion dollar sustained US budget for building the security forces of Aghanistan over the last 10 years, I'll leave it up to you which was the most helpful. Now remember the fire fight took around 19 hours to finally be complete. So basically full support from the host government including air and ground forces.

I would think that in some security risk assessment when some decision maker somewhere would decide that those posts with the highest threat would also receive the resources.

And that is exactly my point... What diffeentiates an Embassy attack which is sucessfully defended and one in which the embassy is over run?

• U.S. Embassy and NATO headquarters in Kabul, Afghanistan, Sept. 13, 2011Seven people were killed and 19 wounded after Taliban insurgents with suicide vests and rocket-propelled grenades launched a co-ordinated attack on both the U.S. Embassy and the NATO headquarters in the Afghan capital. The ensuing firefight with NATO and Afghan troops lasted for 19 hours and resulted in the death of nine Taliban members.
  
• U.S. Embassy in Sana’a, Yemen, Sept. 17, 2008Nineteen people died and 16 were injured after a group of militants, dressed as police officers and armed with rocket-propelled grenades, rifles and car bombs, stormed the U.S. Embassy in the Yemeni capital. Islamic Jihad of Yemen, an affiliate of al-Qaeda, claimed responsibility.
  
• U.S. Embassy in Belgrade, Serbia, Feb. 21, 2008Several hundred demonstrators attacked the U.S. Embassy compound in the Serbian capital of Belgrade. Hours later, a charred body was found inside a torched office at the embassy.
  The swarm of rioters had broken away from a massive rally held earlier in the day to protest against Washington's recognition of Kosovo's declaration of independence.
  Crowds of masked young men broke into the compound and used metal bars to smash into the first floor of the building. A few demonstrators climbed the building and set the U.S. flag on fire as others used a door to ram the metal-barred windows.
  
• U.S. Embassy in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, Dec. 6, 2004Five consular employees were killed and four other local staff members were injured after militants stormed the U.S. consulate. Saudi police killed four of the assailants, who were members of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). In an internet post claiming responsibility for the attack, AQAP wrote, “this operation comes as part of several operations that are organized and planned by al-Qaeda as part of the battle against the crusaders and the Jews, as well as part of the plan to force the unbelievers to leave the Arabian Peninsula.”
  
• U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Aug. 7, 1998In a co-ordinated operation, car bombs exploded outside the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, on Aug. 7, 1998. The attacks killed 224 people, including 12 Americans. About 5,000 were injured. Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, the leader of al-Qaeda in East Africa, had a $5 million US bounty on his head for allegedly planning the attacks. In June 2011, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton publicly confirmed his death in Somalia.
  
• U.S. Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon, Apr. 18, 1983A Hezbollah suicide bomber drove a van up to the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing 63 people, including at least 17 Americans. The act also destroyed the Middle East bureau of the CIA.
  That same year, an attack on the Beirut headquarters of American and French forces killed 298 people. The United States withdrew all diplomats from Beirut in September 1989 and did not reopen its embassy until 1991
  
• U.S. Embassy in Tehran, Iran, Nov. 4, 1979Islamic students and other militants stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, taking hostages and launching a diplomatic crisis. They were demanding extradition of the Shah of Iran from the United States, where he had gone to seek medical treatment. Fifty-two hostages were held for 444 days. A failed rescue attempt resulted in the deaths of eight U.S. soldiers. Thirteen hostages were released about two weeks after the crisis began, and another was freed months later. After the signing of the Algiers Accord on Jan. 21, 1981, the day of Ronald Reagan's inauguration as U.S. president, the remaining hostages were released.
  

Hint, the size of the US Security detail was irrelevent. The difference maker was whether the host country assisted in protecting the consulate in a timely fashion.. Embassies are entirely dependent upon host country support when they come under serious attack. No embassy could long sustain itself without assistance from the host country when faced even with a relatively small group of insurgents, much less 150 coming over the wall..

Most host countries also don't allow pickup trucks, or relief columns as you called them, to drive through their streets with armed people aboard. Libya is not most countries.

See the above list... alot of them do, and we have embassies and consulates in most countries; even the ones where folks ride in pickup trucks while armed.

[Thiebear]

JMS: They had the security for 30 days before the attack. so telling us how many in other regions isn't that relevant considering Amb. Stevens HAD the security forces, that were removed against his wishes.

[JMS]

JMS: They had the security for 30 days before the attack. so telling us how many in other regions isn't that relevant considering Amb. Stevens HAD the security forces, that were removed against his wishes.

So they were their when the country was in civil war. which makes sense; but they weren't there to defend against a large scale attack nor a sustained mortar attack..

Theibear, The security they had 30 days before the attack wouldn't have helped them against 150 terrorists coming over the wall or a sustained mortar attack. No embassy much less a consulate is going to stand up to either ( not including Iraq during the war there, the Iraqi embassy was an exception to some of these rules, (1) because we were at war in Iraq, (2) because we were the civilian authority there. (3) because we used it as a military and intelligence center to run that war. (4) because we have a half decade of experience with that "embassy" coming under attacks... ).

To stand up against a mortar attack you need to have a CRAM system ( land based phalanx ... You ever seen one of those? It's like a truck, and the consulate didn't have one of those 30 days ago or ever. ( Iraq embassy in Baghdad got one after Bush's re-election, but I don't think it has one today.).

To guard against 150 guys ( minimum ) you need heavy weapons and a kill zone around the consulate. Neither of which are standard fair for consulates. I mean if you are thinking there is going to be an attack like that, you basically abandon the post, you don't try to fortify a diplomatic post

like you would a military fire base, nor do you put twice as many guards and military for protection, into a consulate than embassy people. If you have to do that your foreign service officers won't be able to do their job anyway.

[JMS]

the real question is do you want security

They had security. I would say the real question is how much security is reasonable. It all comes down to what kind of thread should a consulate's security team be able to protect against?

[visionary]

They had security. I would say the real question is how much security is reasonable. It all comes down to what kind of thread should a consulate's security team be able to protect against?

And whether or not they have sharp pair of scissors.

[JMS]

Then see if you think they could from a home location be 'slightly' better than 150 "JMS's" attacking them.

That's rather offensive.

Hell, I spent 11yrs in the Army and i'm 100% positive they could snipe 100 of me without breaking a sweat and I have far better training than people on the film shown us.

If you are right, that means 50 guys would still get through and outnumber them about 4-1. But you aren't right and with all deference to your 10 years in the military; name a single example where 16 people successfully defended an embassy or consulate against 150+. I've named a half dozen historical examples where many more than 16 failed to stop many fewer than 150. I would think if you are 100% positive of something you should have at least a few examples demonstrating your certainty else it's really just bluster... And no the movie the Magnificent 7 doesn't count.

1. 2008 attack on the US Embassy in Yemen, Six attackers kill 19, injured 16 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------( 1 of my 6)
   
2. 2008 U.S. consulate in Istanbul attack, Three attackers kill 3 at the consulate.
   
3. 2004 Jeddah U.S. Consulate, gunmen penetrate the consulate ground and shoot into the buildings, 5 embassy personnel killed 10 injured.
   
4. 2002 Karachi U.S. consulate attack, 1 attacker, 12 people dead, 51 injured.
   
5. 1998 Nairobi, U.S. Embassy bombing Tanzania, 212 people dead, more than 4000 injured, ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------( 2 of my 6)
   
6. 1998 Dar es Salaam, U.S. Consulate, 1 attacker killed 11 and wounded 85, ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------( 3 of my 6)
   
7. 1983 Kuwait US Embassy attacked, 1 attacker 6 dead ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------( 4 of my 6)
   
8. 1983 United States embassy Lebanon 1 suicide bomber attacked, 63 dead, 120 injured ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------( 5 of my 6)
   
9. 1979 U.S. embassy burning in Islamabad Pakistan, 2 dead embassy destroyed.
   
10. 1979 U.S embassy Tehran, Iran, 9 dead, 53 Americans taken hostage, embassy destroyed. (more than 150 attackers though). ----------------------------------------( 6 of my 6)
    
11. 1968 U.S. embassy Vietnam, 19 attackers, attack, penetrate and occupy US embassy for 6 hours, ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------( 7 of my 6)
    killing at least 3 but total casualties go unpublished.
    

Here hope this helps with your research..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_on_diplomatic_missions

And that's just the United States.

[twa]

They had security. I would say the real question is how much security is reasonable. It all comes down to what kind of thread should a consulate's security team be able to protect against?

barely, most VIPs have more than they did.....and there were no mortars used against the consulate itself were there?

of course they best thing would to not be where the host is incapable of helping and unwilling to allow you to do so.

[JMS]

barely, most VIPs have more than they did.....and there were no mortars used against the consulate itself were there?

of course they best thing would to not be where the host is incapable of helping and unwilling to allow you to do so.

I don't know if mortars were used against the consulate for certain but I thought that's what killed the ambassador and his aid.

I do know they were definitely used against the CIA annex because that is what has widely been credited with killing the two former Navy Seals.

I agree if they suspected such an attack the people should have and likely would have been removed. But then the terrorists would have targeted another isolated US consulate.

[visionary]

I don't know if mortars were used against the consulate for certain but I thought that's what killed the ambassador and his aid.

I do know they were definitely used against the CIA annex because that is what has widely been credited with killing the two former Navy Seals.

I agree if they suspected such an attack the people should have and likely would have been removed. But then the terrorists would have targeted another isolated US consulate.

Didn't Stevens die of smoke inhalation?

I do remember seeing reports of mortars a day or so after the attack, although there's been so many different updates or versions of the events it's hard to figure out the real details.

[Thiebear]

So they were their when the country was in civil war. which makes sense; but they weren't there to defend against a large scale attack nor a sustained mortar attack..

Theibear, The security they had 30 days before the attack wouldn't have helped them against 150 terrorists coming over the wall or a sustained mortar attack. No embassy much less a consulate is going to stand up to either ( not including Iraq during the war there, the Iraqi embassy was an exception to some of these rules, (1) because we were at war in Iraq, (2) because we were the civilian authority there. (3) because we used it as a military and intelligence center to run that war. (4) because we have a half decade of experience with that "embassy" coming under attacks... ).

To stand up against a mortar attack you need to have a CRAM system ( land based phalanx ... You ever seen one of those? It's like a truck, and the consulate didn't have one of those 30 days ago or ever. ( Iraq embassy in Baghdad got one after Bush's re-election, but I don't think it has one today.).

To guard against 150 guys ( minimum ) you need heavy weapons and a kill zone around the consulate. Neither of which are standard fair for consulates. I mean if you are thinking there is going to be an attack like that, you basically abandon the post, you don't try to fortify a diplomatic post

like you would a military fire base, nor do you put twice as many guards and military for protection, into a consulate than embassy people. If you have to do that your foreign service officers won't be able to do their job anyway.

You keep saying this

And I keep pointing out the opposite

Do you think they could kill 150 of you.

I know they could kill 100 of me and again

I'm better trained than the attackers.

Yes/no - could you take the consulate against

The forces there 30 days earlier?

For the person keeping the timeline

You are being obviously dense on what happened and when

And you doubt our own troops abilities

After what you've heard of the few that we're there?

Of the examples you posted

Put the special forces inside at the time

Also it was 9/11 so its not a surprise attack

[JMS]

Didn't Stevens die of smoke inhalation?

I do remember seeing reports of mortars a day or so after the attack, although there's been so many different updates or versions of the events it's hard to figure out the real details.

The state dept hasn't released the cause of death... I'm not sure, but I thought I read mortars, grenade launchers and heavy machine guns were used against the consulate, I could be wrong though. But mortars were used against the two former seals who died on the roof of the annex, according to several reports the annex came under sustained mortar attack.

---------- Post added November-5th-2012 at 03:24 PM ----------

You keep saying this And I keep pointing out the opposite

From my perspective, I keep giving you historical precedent of this, and you keep repeating your unsupported opinion without detailing any rational process to support your belief..

Do you think they could kill 150 of you.

No I don't.. I don't think 16 guys are reasonable security when faced with that kind of onslaught when defending a consulate (not hardened) in the middle of a city, given the rules of engagement suitable for use at an active consulate. I think history supports me on this. I think there is a significant advantage to the attackers because of surprise and the fact they can get near even inside the consulate before an attack and attack they would get to fire first before the defenders ever know what's on them.

I also think guarding a building like a consulate puts the defenders at a disadvantage because there are so many blind spots and no clear fields of fire. Likewise the weapons used put the defenders at a disadvantage. .. mortars, grenade launchers, and heavy machine guns are not likely to be used by a security detail who would have the added need to safeguard innocent civilian lives. Terrorists don't have those concerns, advantage them.

And with such an outnumbered force any single advantage to the attackers could be determinative, but the aggregation of these disadvantages would make it no contest...

I know what you are thinking... why would the state department deploy such a team as security if they had no chance of securing the consulate... Answer, nobody envisioned an attack by 150 terrorists. No security detail would protect against such an attack.

We can guard against normal threats and ideally we can hold out in the case of larger threats long enough for host countries to come to our aid.

Yes/no - could you take the consulate against The forces there 30 days earlier?

Yes, NO DOUBT, No consulate can secure itself when faced by such an attack without the assistance of the host country... NONE... ZERO.. ZIP. 16 guys is not a match fore 150.

For the person keeping the timeline You are being obviously dense on what happened and when And you doubt our own troops abilities After what you've heard of the few that we're there?

What's wrong with the timeline from your perspective and give me your source? and I don't doubt our troops abilities, I think I have a realistic view of our troops abilities. 16 against 150 maybe more is not a fight the 16 can or would win.

Of the examples you posted Put the special forces inside at the time

Again that's opinion. you have no basis for giving that opinion much less being 100% sure as you say.

Also it was 9/11 so its not a surprise attack

:doh: You don't think it was a surprise attack? Now you are just being silly.

[Thiebear]

If you think it was a surprise attack your insane

The dipllomat knew and told people that day

It was 9 /11

The saw them taking pictures

So what training do you have JMS to say you can beat special forces in a seige.

Call of duty doesn't count

[twa]

Didn't Stevens die of smoke inhalation?

I do remember seeing reports of mortars a day or so after the attack, although there's been so many different updates or versions of the events it's hard to figure out the real details.

that is what the Libyan Dr reported,internal bleeding from smoke inhalation...the fire was started from the attackers using fuel canisters foolishly left by his building.

Every report I've seen says RPGs and standard weapons,plus the 50's on trucks

the annex took the mortar fire ,about 8 rounds

JMS ,they came through the gate, not over the high walls w/razor wire....more men with decent arms would likely have prevented the attack or prevailed....quite frankly, the oppositions skills suck in conventional fighting

[JMS]

If you think it was a surprise attack your insane

So you think President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and / or the DoD knew the attack was coming and intentionally left those guys in harms way.... I must be insane because that sounds rather crazy from my warped vantage..

Coarse knowing you can't name any evidence to support your crazy sounding birther type argument I'll decline to seek mental health assistance for myself at this time.

But getting back to your hypothesis.. Let's follow it,.rather than dismiss it as the workings of an addled delusional mind that it is. Let's assume the President, Secretary of State, and \ or General Staff of the DoD were the kind of people to do such a terrible thing, and you clearly think they are, Let's say they did know.. Please name me the advantage they would glean from laying bare our people in Benghazi? Please Please Please ( 3 pleases ) tell me why you think they did this terrible thing, assuming they had the knowledge of the attack, given you have no evidence suggesting they did, and assuming they are callous and morally deficient enough to do such a thing, again knowing you have no evidence suggesting they are.. But putting all that aside, why would they do it, what did they have to gain?

Or to your mind is that just their nature... They don't need a reason, that's just what they do! To your mind is it that the President of the United States knows he's facing an impossible re-election situation, and just wants to kill a few American's before he's swept out of office? Clocks running out and he may not have this opportunity again? putting aside he doesn't actually leave office on election day if he looses, but no matter..

That's what your entire hypothesis comes down to isn't it. In the absence of any knowledge, understanding or reasoning, just assume the absolutely most objectionable position at 3-4 myriad points contributing the the event.

The diplomat knew and told people that day

link? "The Diplomat"? You mean the ambassador? You mean the highest ranking US State department official in the country of Libya? He knew? and "told someone"? He had a security reaction force in Tripoli which eventually did respond.

If he knew, why wouldn't he deploy them ASAP, or better yet leave the consulate?

It was 9 /11

So what about the events of 9/11 would lead you to believe our consulate in Benghazi would be attacked 11 years latter?

The saw them taking pictures

Yes that is hard evidence, I always think attack when I see someone taking pictures from a building window. Coarse we know of that incident with the pictures from a letter wrote by the ambassador that a journalist found still in his residence in Benghazi.. So I put it to you.. If I were the ambassador and I had as you said rock solid conclusive evidence that my consulate in Benghazi is going to be attacked on Sept 11th 2012.. do I...

(1) Write a letter to that effect on Sept 10th, and wait a day to mail it?.

(2) Travel to or remain in Benghazi so I can have a front row seat for the attack?.

(3) Contemplate my defensive assets in total isolation, have supper and turn in to bed for the night without voicing my concerns to the guys watching the gate?

(4) Allow the security team from the consulate to be removed 30 days before 9/11 knowing I'll be there to assist the defenders when the trouble starts?.

(5) Decline to deploy my response team from Tripoli to Benghazi knowing there will be plenty of time to deploy

them after the attack; it only takes them 4-5 hours to get to Benghazi if there is trouble.

(6) ALL OF THE ABOVE..

Ninja answer ( 6 )

So what training do you have JMS to say you can beat special forces in a seige.

Well to be fair you did say I get 150 of me with heavy machine guns, grenade launger and mortors, against 16 of them; and I get to study there defenses, know exactly where they are, shoot first, pick the time and place of my attack, and not worry about collateral damage of surrounding civilians. How could I loose? I could just sit back from a mile away and mortar the hell out of the consulate... Station the rest of me around the consulate to shot them when they tried to make a break for it. Just set up my heavy machine guns to contain them.. Hell I could have a 50 mortars each manned by two of me, and evaporate the consulate with three rounds from each tube before the defense team ever had a chance to react and still outnumber the defenders 3 to one..

I think history and a modicum of common sense is more determinative in these situations all things being equal.. I've been thinking of a historical incident that would support your position, rather than discredit it. The only thing I can come up with "Rorke's Drift" in 1879. 140 British soldiers face off against 4000 Zulu's. that's about 29 to 1 odds. The British weren't special forces but given the defense action is the most decorated military engagement in the history of the British empire, we'll say the British defenders were pretty good. Now 16 vs 150 is only about 10 to 1 odds... Coarse the Zulu's were largely using spears against riffles and attacking a fortified Military location without any element of surprise, the terrorists in Benghazi were heavily armed, had the element of surprise, and the consulate wasn't hardened as a fortress prior to the attack..

In Rouke's Drift neither side had machine guns, in your scenario we can assume both sides would, so that's a wash.

[Thiebear]

You have a great imagination and i'm sure others think they can beat Special Forces based on their elite skills online.

They aren't just brute forces that reacts to an attack, would have had home field advantage and silent communication

your so cute.

[JMS]

You have a great imagination and i'm sure others think they can beat Special Forces based on their elite skills online.

They aren't just brute forces that reacts to an attack, would have had home field advantage and silent communication

your so cute.

Way to not address any of the issues I brought up.

I have a great immagination? You are the one who said I got to have 150 of myself. Now that was imaginative. You did that because you wanted to make this kind of an ego thing.. But it's not an ego thing. 150 terrorists with a clear advantage in weapons, rules of engageemnt, timing, choosing the ground and intelligence would slaughter 16 guys. The 16 wouldn't even know what hit them. Which is probable why the 16 guys typically aren't used as guards but extraction teams where they don't give up so many advantages.

[twa]

we could always change any advantage in weapons ,and attacking a consulate isn't exactly choosing your ground....unless you know it is next to defenseless.

The level of security sucked...period

The response doesn't look too good either(though brave men went above and beyond)

[visionary]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/07/us-libya-usa-training-idUSBRE8A626Q20121107

Americans tour base to recruit for Libya army

U.S. officials in Libya have begun to look for recruits whom they plan to train to form Libya's new army, a former commander of Libyan rebels who toppled Muammar Gaddafi said on Tuesday.

After a wave of anti-American violence in the Arab world in September during which the U.S. ambassador to Libya died in a militant attack, President Barack Obama took measures to improve the security of U.S. diplomatic installations in the region.

A team of about 10 Americans from the embassy in Tripoli visited a paramilitary base in the eastern city of Benghazi 10 days ago to interview and get to know potential recruits, according to militia commander Fathi al-Obeidi.

"The American team asked us for a tour of our base and we granted them permission to walk around freely," he told Reuters.

[Thiebear]

Way to not address any of the issues I brought up.

I have a great immagination? You are the one who said I got to have 150 of myself. Now that was imaginative. You did that because you wanted to make this kind of an ego thing.. But it's not an ego thing. 150 terrorists with a clear advantage in weapons, rules of engageemnt, timing, choosing the ground and intelligence would slaughter 16 guys. The 16 wouldn't even know what hit them. Which is probable why the 16 guys typically aren't used as guards but extraction teams where they don't give up so many advantages.

Mine has been proven all over the world with spectacular results, yours only works when you play online.

continue with your imaginary timeline with imaginary actions and incorrect findings... as stated on page one.

[JMS]

Mine has been proven all over the world with spectacular results, yours only works when you play online.

And yet you can't name a single historical or empiracle precident to support your premise that 16 guys could stand up against 150 man comparable armed team attacking an embassy. And I can and have named a half dozen historical examples where many more than 16 guards were unsucessful in defending against many fewer than 150 where the attackers had the same advantages enjoyed by the attackers in Benghazi.

continue with your imaginary timeline with imaginary actions and incorrect findings... as stated on page one.

Curious you haven't given one addition to the timeline which I haven't made (1) or requested any new omissions. Nor have you restated any general objection twice when asked to support it...

You are just a mess in this thread...

[DaGoonie55]

I see both sides of the arguement JMS. I understand they were grossly overwhelmed. I also know what a team of 6 pissed off Seals can do under duress. (I was not one, but was privelidged to see them in action a couple of times). The are truly gifted in the art of closing with and destroying the enemy.

To answer you JMS - I don't think if a team of 16 SF warriors held off a massive offensive it would be public knowledge. This Seal team 6 raid on Osama is the exception. They operate with absolute secrecy and noone may ever find out what they did for their country. I'm not saying it didn't happen in history - just saying we probably will never know if it occurred.

To answer Thiebear - I have the utmost respect for our men in uniform, especially our SF teams who operate in conditions and endure hardships that video games can't begin to mimic. However, I do not believe that the consulate could have been defended. Given the size and layout of the grounds (from my minimal research) it just isn't a place you can harden to withstand an attack. A Hilton hotel would have been better to defend. Their best hope was exactly what happened. Although I believe the Ambassador lives to scream at whoever was at fault if our boys were there. RIP

Granted - none of this jabbering changes anything that happened - I think this is a great discussion and I look forward to it's continued fervor.

Hail