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

[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 b)... 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...matic_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 b)... 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

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.