Consider the source, but if true a head needs to roll

[kage69]

That would be like the Pratorian Guard brandishing training swords instead of a trusty gladius just for show only.

Not the best example, training swords are deadly too! Not sure why people consider blunt weapons less deadly than sharp and pointy ones, the wounds were harder to deal with back then too. Google Miyamoto Mushashi, check out all the guys he did in with bokken (practice sword).

Hell, he killed the Emperor's sword instructor with a boat oar.

 

[woolfe9999]

I'm not sure if this is an "outrage" even if the story is essentially true. Did the marines have rubber bullets, tear gas, pepper spray? Did they have live ammo available on short notice? The details are very sketchy. Clearly there must be rules of engagement for marines protecting an embassy from civilian protestors in a foreign country. So far as I know, no one has been hurt at the Egyptian embassy. What are we alleging the alternative outcome should have been had the RoE specified by the ambassador been different? The American flag not being shredded but several dead Egyptians instead? And the next day, the number of protestors multiplies 20 fold?

Honestly, some of you haven't the slightest clue about what "diplomacy" even is, let alone how to conduct it properly. I view this as of a piece with the criticisms of conciliatory statements made by the embassy. Here we have a bunch of diplomats under siege in a foreign embassy, and we want to criticize them for trying to tamp down down the hostilities. Maybe you guys need to experience being on the ground in that very situation first before criticizing the diplomats for how they handle their own fucking security. Sorry, but I'm becoming increasingly irate at the arm chair second guessing of every decision made in crisis like this, not least of which is politically motivated nonsense.

- wolf

 

[Smoblikat]

If this is true I am sure our dear leader knew nothing about it and shall remain blameless.

Much like his apology about the incident and the fast and furious scandal. He had nothing to do with them.

 

[Thump553]

1) As OP properly said right up front, consider the source. All kinds of bs conspiracy theories tend to float around at times like this.

2) The basic consensus of the talking head "experts" I've seen on TV in the last few days (again consider the source) is that all embassies depend on the local authorities for security, the marines are there to protect/destroy the classified docs. Real life is not a video game and embassies are business buildings, not fortresses-a relative handful of Marines is not going to wipe out thousands of rioters.

On the positive side, look how bad Eygpt has f*cked themselves. Their economy was comatose. It depends a great deal on tourism and outside investment, both of which were just starting to come back from the grave. I wonder how many billions of dollars and how many jobs this religious hissy fit will cost Eygpt going forward? It will make the billions of aid we give them even more important, could be a good sign for Israel and the US in the long run.

 

[Emos]

Not the best example, training swords are deadly too! Not sure why people consider blunt weapons less deadly than sharp and pointy ones, the wounds were harder to deal with back then too. Google Miyamoto Mushashi, check out all the guys he did in with bokken (practice sword).

Hell, he killed the Emperor's sword instructor with a boat oar.

Yeah I know it's not the most accurate of analogies, just trying to make a point. even though it's fiction it makes me think of Game of Thrones when Syrio was fending off Lannister soldiers armed with sharp steel with a wooden sword...took out quite of few of them too!

 

[a777pilot]

The First Rule is to question. That means that this may be untrue or even deliberate deceit.

Given that caveat, if this is indeed factual, then the Ambassador needs to be cleaning raw sewage pits.



Link to article

I've already addressed the issue of this being false or misleading so if that's the case then the ambassador is cleared of wrongdoing, however if this is indeed what happened it's unforgivable. You do not put people in harms way with the responsibility for the protection of others and remove the means to do so. You don't do it. While the host nation has primary responsibility the marines are there because that does not always turn out as we'd expect or like as was the case here.

I want to know what happened. If the facts are that this is false, then the scorn falls on the writers of the article. If true the ambassador is a disgrace.

Speaking as a retired Marine Corps officer, this is totally believable. This has happened before in our history. But I am surprised it has happened again after the 241 dead in Lebanon.

 

[PokerGuy]

One doesn't need ammo to apologize.

Truth.

 

[kage69]

Yeah I know it's not the most accurate of analogies, just trying to make a point. even though it's fiction it makes me think of Game of Thrones when Syrio was fending off Lannister soldiers armed with sharp steel with a wooden sword...took out quite of few of them too!

Nice! He sounds quite Musashi-esque. Iirc, Musashi did something similar when he was 15, poor guy had a whole school come hunt his ass down. I think he was using steel that time, killed a few of them and then hid up some trees or bamboo to escape the rest.

Not going to ask about Syrio's outcome. The wife just got me Season 1. At this point I have no knowledge of the series but I'm really looking forward to it given all I've heard from the critics I personally know who love the series.

 

[thraashman]

This thread is a great example as to why a Republican should never again be in charge of this country so long as foreign relations and diplomacy are a thing. Pretty much every conservative in this thread thinks that the marines at the embassy should have just opened fire killing dozens. Because I'm sure that would make the local governments so happy that we start killing their citizens in their country.

 

[jackstar7]

I simply don't find it plausible.

 

[spacejamz]

This thread is a great example as to why a Republican should never again be in charge of this country so long as foreign relations and diplomacy are a thing. Pretty much every conservative in this thread thinks that the marines at the embassy should have just opened fire killing dozens. Because I'm sure that would make the local governments so happy that we start killing their citizens in their country.

yup...we should just let them kill our citizens and burn down our building instead when their citizens start attacking sovereign US soil....

 

[BD2003]

The difference between a training sword and a real sword with obvious, but you can't tell a loaded gun from an unloaded one by looking at it. Its still a major deterrent.

If this is a common practice, it's probably a pragmatic one. A soldier firing into a mob can spark a war or rebellion that leads to far more casualties than a few ambassadors or marines, America should know that better than anyone else. See: Boston massacre.

 

[SS Trooper]

I would assume falling back into a secure part of the compound would be a better solution then a few armed marines. Saves lives on both sides, but it would also be dependant on support being able to reach the embassy within the timeframe that the secure part of the compound could be compromised.

Making embassy workers safe must not matter. Crowds of people aren't exactly hard to stop with some extra steel and concrete and some provisions.

 

[thraashman]

yup...we should just let them kill our citizens and burn down our building instead when their citizens start attacking sovereign US soil....

The only time recently that citizens of the Arab world attacked sovereign US soil was 11 years ago and we toppled 2 countries as a result. We respond when US sovereignty is threatened.

In Egypt no one was hurt or killed at the embassy. Opening fire would likely have changed that.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I would assume falling back into a secure part of the compound would be a better solution then a few armed marines. Saves lives on both sides, but it would also be dependant on support being able to reach the embassy within the timeframe that the secure part of the compound could be compromised.

Making embassy workers safe must not matter. Crowds of people aren't exactly hard to stop with some extra steel and concrete and some provisions.

Falling back is perfectly reasonable. Having marines not shoot is too. Removing defensive options? That doesn't seem too bright. There is a difference between firing into a crowd and having the ability to defend in confined spaces where no other options exist. Diplomacy does not require martyrdom.

 

[davmat787]

The only time recently that citizens of the Arab world attacked sovereign US soil was 11 years ago and we toppled 2 countries as a result. We respond when US sovereignty is threatened.

In Egypt no one was hurt or killed at the embassy. Opening fire would likely have changed that.

Maybe missed something, but I don't think anyone is advocating that the Marines should have started mowing down the protesters. Just because they have ammo does not change any rules of engagement set by the Ambassador. However, now that it known they were basically not armed at all perhaps allows for protesters to be more bold in the future. And should that happen, maybe the RoE will be different and they Marines fully armed and loaded.

In short, had the Marines been locked and loaded does not mean they would have opened fire. It would mean they had the option to should the situation demanded it, perhaps if the protesters broke into the embassy and started trying to behead employees. Fortunately no one was killed, at least not yet and at least not in Egypt.

 

[BD2003]

Falling back is perfectly reasonable. Having marines not shoot is too. Removing defensive options? That doesn't seem too bright. There is a difference between firing into a crowd and having the ability to defend in confined spaces where no other options exist. Diplomacy does not require martyrdom.

Building an embassy like a fortress kind of sends the wrong message. And given that this is diplomacy, messaging isn't a trivial concern, it's the the whole point.

You'd think there'd at least be some sort of panic room though, especially in a region we know is volatile towards us. Who knows, maybe there was, and they just couldn't get there in time.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Building an embassy like a fortress kind of sends the wrong message. And given that this is diplomacy, messaging isn't a trivial concern, it's the the whole point.

You'd think there'd at least be some sort of panic room though, especially in a region we know is volatile towards us. Who knows, maybe there was, and they just couldn't get there in time.

We just don't know yet, but something didn't go right somewhere. Embassies cannot be invulnerable but considering the state of unrest the region is in extra precautions should be in place. Perhaps they were and were overwhelmed. What is not in question is that we need to learn from this and provide better security.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Looks like is BS as usual.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/egypt-embassy-marines-live-ammo

Ignore the source, refer to letter at the bottom.

 

[bfdd]

Falling back is perfectly reasonable. Having marines not shoot is too. Removing defensive options? That doesn't seem too bright. There is a difference between firing into a crowd and having the ability to defend in confined spaces where no other options exist. Diplomacy does not require martyrdom.

this

 

[Northern Lawn]

Well aren't Marines forbbiden to have ammo even on Army bases based in America? I mean, thats' how that muslim guy killed all those soldiers a few years ago till the MPs got there.. I think.

But I agree, it's fucking retarded and irresponsible. I would like to see auto turrets on the wall like in that movie Aliens.

 

[davmat787]

Looks like is BS as usual.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/egypt-embassy-marines-live-ammo

Ignore the source, refer to letter at the bottom.

Good news. And if true, this shows the Marines acted professionally and responsibly by apprehending the 6 individuals who entered Embassy grounds (read: US soil) without firing a single shot and turning them over to Egyptian officials.

And they did this with apparently loaded weapons.

Had the chosen to open fire, I am sure the situation would have escalated quickly with hundreds of more protesters jumping the fence and perhaps storming the building.

I am sure that as part of Marine Embassy Security Group training that the ramifications of using deadly force is discussed in detail, especially in a country like Egypt and with hundreds or thousands of protesters watching.

 

[woolfe9999]

Looks like is BS as usual.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/egypt-embassy-marines-live-ammo

Ignore the source, refer to letter at the bottom.

What a surprise. It's enough to contend with ill-founded opinions. These days, it's a like a full time job of whack-a-mole to just address the factually wrong garbage floating around the conservative echo chamber. What amazes me is that, no matter how much of this crap gets refuted, more is always on the way, and it's always believed. It's like a form of collective amnesia where it doesn't matter that you were debunked 100 times already, the 101st time will still be the charm.

 

[Brainonska511]

Good news. And if true, this shows the Marines acted professionally and responsibly by apprehending the 6 individuals who entered Embassy grounds (read: US soil) without firing a single shot and turning them over to Egyptian officials.

For the record, an embassy is not US Soil. The land belongs to the host country. The protections an embassy is provided are a diplomatic courtesy.

 

[Rainsford]

What a surprise. It's enough to contend with ill-founded opinions. These days, it's a like a full time job of whack-a-mole to just address the factually wrong garbage floating around the conservative echo chamber. What amazes me is that, no matter how much of this crap gets refuted, more is always on the way, and it's always believed. It's like a form of collective amnesia where it doesn't matter that you were debunked 100 times already, the 101st time will still be the charm.

It's not really amnesia so much as it's that there are absolutely no consequences for being absolutely full of shit. Nobody ever really gets called on it, certainly not by people on their "side". So why not just repeat every unsubstantiated thing you hear and see what sticks? If it turns out you're wrong, no need to even apologize, just move on to the next thing. I give the OP some credit for prefacing a totally unsubstantiated, fairly suspicious story with "consider the source", which is notable mainly because you hardly ever see that sort of thing.