Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: John O

Failure of a host nation to stop a pre-planned mob attack upon an embassy constitutes an act of war.

The Flag of the United States was allowed to fall into enemy hands without casualties to defend it. Why? If the Ambassador does not wish to utilize deadly force to defend the soil of the United States Embassy and the nation’s symbolic flag, then why should the American taxpayers permit any further expenditures for a U.S. Marine Corps security detail which is denied to fulfill their mission?


41 posted on 09/11/2012 1:19:11 PM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]


To: WhiskeyX

Obama and his girlfriends will accuse us of being “alarmist.”

And as Mark Steyn would reply, “If this doesn’t alarm you, then nothing will.”


43 posted on 09/11/2012 1:23:54 PM PDT by tumblindice (Sic Semper Tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]

To: WhiskeyX

According to one article I read, supposedly, the diplomatic staff had been removed prior to the attack. They had been forewarned of a demonstration by protestors. The article also said “U.S. security guards” fired a volley of shots as a warning to the crowds outside the wall. Wouldn’t those guards have been Marines? Haven’t heard anything about any further shots being fired, and it appears none were if the scumbags were able to breach the wall and take down our flag. Frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised if they replaced our Marines with muzzie guards.


55 posted on 09/11/2012 1:40:28 PM PDT by mass55th (Courage is being scared to death - but saddling up anyway...John Wayne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson