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

Skip to comments.

State Dept. Confirms: Marines on 9/11/12 Were Protecting U.S. Embassy--in Barbados
CNS News ^ | 10.12.12

Posted on 10/12/2012 3:38:07 PM PDT by Perdogg

When terrorists attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11 of this year and killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans, there were no U.S. Marines deployed in Libya to defend U.S. diplomats, diplomatic facilities and classified information and equipment.

However, says the State Department, a Marine Security Detachment was deployed on that day to carry out those duties at the U.S. Embassy in Bridgetown, Barbados.

(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: 20120911; barbados; benghazi; bhostatedept; diplomaticsecurity; libya; soshillary; usembassy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-65 last
To: Perdogg
The democRATS actually believe they will take the House and hold the Senate. Then it is all swept under the rug. The democRATS know the lamestream will do what they do for their cause. One only has to think how it will play out should the democRATS win to know it will mimic Hades. Want Hades for you children and grandchildren? At this site, people are intelligent enough to know what would happen if the unthinkable happened, and the democRATS won. I pray every chance I get Americans will hold wisdom enough to know what the price will be should this election be lost. May God walk with us. Amen.
51 posted on 10/13/2012 6:27:44 AM PDT by no-to-illegals (Please God, Protect and Bless Our Men and Women in Uniform with Victory. Amen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rockinqsranch
Title is “Did Obama deliberately try to stage a hostage taking in Benghazi as an “October Surprise”

Because hostage situations work so well for incumbent Presidents? Huh? Ask Jimmy Carter about that.

52 posted on 10/13/2012 6:54:49 AM PDT by Alter Kaker (Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: AFPhys

The trouble is that even when a government is openly hostile, they use proxies instead of doing it themselves.

This goes all the way back to the Chinese Boxer Rebellion, and its “Siege of the International Legations”, with the “Dilemma of the Chinese Government”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_the_International_Legations#Dilemma_of_the_Chinese_Government

This is actually fairly typical as to how such scenarios come about.

1) There is some form of armed conflict going on in the country, not directly against the government, yet, but would be a serious threat if it did.

2) The government or its military is too weak to protect the foreign embassies from the radicals, and afraid to do so as it might turn them against the government.

3) Elements of the government support the radicals, and will betray the government to the radicals if it moves against them.

Now this being said, pretty much the same situation developed in Tehran, except the government fully backed the radicals, and as soon as they took over the embassy, the government claimed that it could not drive them out, or they might kill the hostages. The radicals quickly agreed to this idea and made that threat.

The big difference between “55 Days at Peking”,

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056800/

and Tehran and Libya, is that the State Department is today utterly spineless about defending our embassies from mobs, be they independent or working for the government as proxies. They fear that it will offend the hostile government.

But this is strictly policy. By the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (treaty, 1961), we have the full authority to terminate any dirt bag who invades our embassy grounds without permission. Or a whole s-load of dirtbags.

And it doesn’t matter if the host nation says it cannot, and does not, protect our embassy. It is our statement that, “fine with us, we will defend ourselves.”

And a squad of US Marines with serious weapons, in a reinforced, elevated, defensive position are far more dangerous than trying to rape an irate, giant porcupine.


53 posted on 10/13/2012 7:25:21 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy (DIY Bumper Sticker: "THREE TIMES,/ DEMOCRATS/ REJECTED GOD")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

All obama has to do is hold on and stall for another 3 weeks and he’s home free. Then it won’t matter whats’s uncovered no matter which way the election goes.


54 posted on 10/13/2012 8:11:21 AM PDT by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
"...the State Department is today utterly spineless about defending our embassies from mobs, be they independent or working for the government as proxies. They fear that it will offend the hostile government.

But this is strictly policy. By the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (treaty, 1961), we have the full authority to terminate any dirt bag who invades our embassy grounds without permission. Or a whole s-load of dirtbags.

And it doesn’t matter if the host nation says it cannot, and does not, protect our embassy. It is our statement that, “fine with us, we will defend ourselves.”"

Dead on! Thanks for mentioning the treaty that addresses this. I will try to remember that. In my mind, it is very similar in effect to the clauses of the Geneva Conventions which state that ALL combatants who are not garbed in recognizable uniform should be treated as spies - which essentially means they are liable to be executed without trial, as well as not being protected by ANY of the other provisions of the Geneva Conventions. That, again, is part of treaty law where our state department and military have chosen to be without spine.

55 posted on 10/13/2012 10:48:08 AM PDT by AFPhys ((Praying for our troops, our citizens, that the Bible and Freedom become basis of the US law again))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Signalman
This scandal and coverup is far worse than Watergate.

Absolutely - the mismanagement of our ambassador's safety amounts to dereliction of duty, calling into serious question Obama's qualification to be commander in chief. The cover-up is the head on the boil; the scandal grows and festers each day it is allowed to persist. The cover-up rots the soul of everyone associated with it and, in turns, reveals the rot already there, hiding the details of a man's murder in order to hold onto power one more day.

56 posted on 10/13/2012 10:56:12 AM PDT by Puddleglum (http://www.facebook.com/paulhawkinsauthoradventurerexplorer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

I always knew that the embassy in Paris would be well guarded.


57 posted on 10/13/2012 12:56:04 PM PDT by cherokee1 (skip the names---just kick the buttz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Girlene
I had always thought Marines at embassies could/would defend with serious firepower if something like what happened in Benghazi went down. What are they allowed to do?

Not a lot. What people fail to realize is the programmatics behind putting a Marine Detachment in Benghazi. Its not an overnight fix.

Also, a typical Marine Det doesn't have the manpower or hardware to fend off a hundred fighters: particularly when those fighters have mortars.

ALL MARINE DETACHMENTS RELY ON THE HOST GOVERNMENT TO PROTECT THE EXTERIOR OF THE EMBASSY. There are no exceptions to this. Even during a civil war.

The only solution to a host government unable to protect a diplomatic mission, there needed to be an expeditionary task force on the ground. That means a Marine combat unit (not embassy guards): and the State Department didn't ask for it.

58 posted on 10/13/2012 1:25:59 PM PDT by Salvavida (The restoration of the U.S.A. starts with filling the pews at every Bible-believing church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
Barbados? Nobody's gonna be there outside the spring break time.
59 posted on 10/13/2012 1:30:25 PM PDT by johnsondavid841
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvavida

Thank you.


60 posted on 10/13/2012 2:28:44 PM PDT by Girlene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis; All
Why? Which side are Clinton and Huma really on?

Clinton is a useful liberal idiot.

Huma is a Muslim terrorist.

Obama is laughing at Americans. Hussein knows they are too scared, or stupid or sometimes too patriotic to say the obvious. Obama is a Muslim terrorist too.

The most obvious reason Obama lied about the film/terrorist attack is because he is trying to prevent a backlash against peaceful Muslims (sarc). Obama has lied continuously. Has anybody done anything about it?

Remember the work place violence that was really a radical Muslim? Does it make more sense now OR will you wait for the Executive Order declaring Sharia Law is America's new Bill of Rights?

61 posted on 10/13/2012 8:15:31 PM PDT by politicianslie (Obama: Our first Muslim PRESIDENT,destroying America $1 Trillion at a time! And America sleeps)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mdel747

62 posted on 10/14/2012 7:43:43 AM PDT by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: politicianslie
See #62, pass it along.

"The Taliban is inside the building."

(State Dept.)

63 posted on 10/14/2012 7:45:09 AM PDT by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

Since your pictures show it is a matter of treason, why don’t you say that is what is going on?

Obama is working for the Muslim cause, he is a traitor. By enabling the radical left in this country, he does the same thing or worse than any terrorist bomber could.

Clinton and liberal idiots like her are, well, useful liberal idiots.


64 posted on 10/14/2012 7:51:37 AM PDT by politicianslie (Obama: Our first Muslim PRESIDENT,destroying America $1 Trillion at a time! And America sleeps)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: politicianslie

I’m not a lawyer. But that is pretty much what NDCIT means.


65 posted on 10/14/2012 8:40:11 AM PDT by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-65 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

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