4 American diplomats in a dangerous country are killed and everyone goes ape shit about security.
X non-diplolat Americans die and no one gives a fuck. (Where x is a number from 1 to 100,000)
Seriously, what is the big deal? Yes they died but this is no different than any other dangerous assignment where people die due to lack of something.
"Cop died due to lack of backup"
"Soldier died because airstrikes weren't authorized"
"Gang members gunned down from rival gang because they didn't have their guns with them."
"Teens die because they were drinking."
Sucks for their families but oh well. If you can't accept the threat of death, don't go to a war zone full of people who hate you.
That's a pretty nice strawman you've built. The classic "lol people die every day, why care about these four people?" These people were in an embassy that was repeatedly requesting more security. It disturbs me that you don't care to ask why they were denied. I don't know if Clinton had a strict hand in it, but I do care to know who did.
As you said, they repeatedly asked for more security. The US army is both finite and has a lot of mercenaries. At what point does someone say "Ok, that's enough."?
Was it enough? Depends on your point of view. How credible was the threat? How large was the threat? Was there a specific threat or just a general " People hate us" feeling? If you look at every time a stronghold or fortified location is attacked with casualties or damage, security wasn't enough. Or do we say "acceptable losses"? To me, 4 people dying from an attack of over 100 coordinated and armed attackers is pretty damn good. And if it was a high value target, I'd say otherwise, but it was an embassy. Even if everyone inside died, military operations would not be significantly compromised.
So tell me, in your opinion and with hindsight, how much security would have been required for this to have been non-political? For you to not question the judgement of whoever is in charge of security?
Show Posts