US ambassador 'killed in Libya'. US consulate Benghazi stormed. 4 US officials "dead"

Come on my American friends. You ought to be thinking about controlling the anti-American propaganda being broadcast by our enemies.

It should be possible for the European companies who set up the NileSat satellites (there are about 4 satellites, 2 companies) to change the ground control station from which the NileSat satellites take their uplink TV signal feeds. Of course they will need pressure from the European governments before they will do that. So there is a diplomacy job for the US State Department to speak to European governments to get them to apply governing, legal, financial (and if all else fails military) pressure to require the satellite companies such as Astrium and Eutelsat to take control of those satellites out of the hands of the Egyptians and into maybe NATO hands.

So I would appoint a good US diplomat to take on that task to get Europe fighting terror instead of broadcasting it. However, if Europe fails to take action to confiscate control of the NileSat satellites then by all means the US President should hand the matter over to the US military Space Command to take those satellites out by all means necessary.

I have taken some time to draw up this map showing the main players in the NileSat terror broadcasting situation. I hope this explains what is going on.



The map of Egypt's NileSat satellite TV terror TV - LARGE 1222 x 812 pixels

 

Here is a random summary of responses on this forum to the events of the past week:

The main action required is to secure military bases:

It is Salafist's fault:

It is the current president’s fault:

It is Holland’s fault:

It’s the current president’s fault AND the Saudi’s fault:

It (911) was the fault of inaction (not an unreasonable conclusion regarding a secondary cause)):

It’s the fault of Egyptian Muslims:

It is the movie's fault:

Then someone spots the silliness of all of this but draws an irrelevant conclusion:

And then some common sense prevails:

… but in my view is spoiled by attempts to address the symptoms and not the cause:

Why such a shotgun scatter of "reasons"?

Why would these recent attacks, so clearly commemorating 911, not have the same primary origin as 911, and have nothing fundamentally to do with secondary issues such as base security, random religious sects, American president’s actions last week, etc.

 

What is your problem with Poles, and what on earth do they have to do with the issue in hand-that your religion promotes paedophilia? It's written in your holy book. I suppose you read it? http://www.truthtellers.org/alerts/pedophiliasecret.html
So, yes, the accusation of your hypocrisy stands. You have a link, now disprove its veracity or ****. Thanks for your co-operation.

 

Libyan rebel militiamen waiting to confront the US Marines they heard Obama is sending and showing off their latest amphibious craft

 

Thanks to this post by Krew - http://www.politicalforum.com/lates...orists-w-white-phosphorus.html#post1061716855 - I can add to the "Big Picture" motivations for the recent attacks, the following:

 

Savages.

 

Your naivete is appaling... Three Million Jews were extreminated in Poland during the II WW with the distinct cooperation of Poles with the Nazis and you have the temerity to deny this fact... Thee Million Jews!!! hmmm how many Brits died in Battle during the some war..
England was a country of Fifty million and the Jews of Poland were 3 and half Millions... what an assymetry? I have not problem with Poles today but I am forced to rely on their hypocritical behavior during WWII...

Again your Naivete is appaling Ted Pike (I cannot call him reverend) a reverend does not lie... This fellow has defective chromosomes, he as an inclination to defame Jews because they are not Christians today... He is a natural anti Semite, a lying coward, and everyone in general knows that he is a defamer of Israel except you of course...

Pedophilia is in the QUR'AN click on the following link ...

http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/heaven.html

 

Your naivete is appaling... Three Million Jews were extreminated in Poland during the II WW with the distinct cooperation of Poles with the Nazis and you have the temerity to deny this fact... Thee Million Jews!!! hmmm how many Brits died in Battle during the some war..
England was a country of Fifty million and the Jews of Poland were 3 and half Millions... what an assymetry? I have not problem with Poles today but I am forced to rely on their hypocritical behavior during WWII...

Again your Naivete is appaling Ted Pike (I cannot call him reverend) a reverend does not lie... This fellow has defective chromosomes, he as an inclination to defame Jews because they are not Christians today... He is a natural anti Semite, a lying coward, and everyone in general knows that he is a defamer of Israel except you of course... How many priests are in prison for such behavior? I personally know of very many cases.

Pedophilia is in the QUR'AN click on the following link ...

http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/heaven.html

 

I would like to go further to suggest that the reasons for these recent attacks are memories that are a lot longer than ‘the day before yesterday’. The quotes on this forum discussed here http://www.politicalforum.com/lates...med-4-us-officials-dead-6.html#post1061714418 all look for the short-term ‘secondary’ cause for these incidents. Does that represent sound analysis? Do you folk remember some prominent terrorist figure in 2004 saying “People of America, ask yourselves why?”.

He answered his own question (Wiki quote): “His remarks, in Arabic but addressed to citizens of the United States, instruct them that "the best way to avoid another Manhattan" (a reference to the September 11, 2001 attacks), is to not threaten the security of Muslim nations, such as Palestine and Lebanon.”

Let me jog our collective memories with a few of many examples:

Maybe this time we should really "Ask ourselves why" and not be satisfied with the trivial "day before yesterday" answers that we saw earlier in this thread. The above examples would fire me up far more if I were a radical Muslim.
What would get your elastic more wound up?

 

.
Well I say, know your enemy - an ungoverned, unregulated Cabal

It is in the interests of the powers that be in America
to establish, fund & incite MidEast terrorist fanatics
................................ & JackBoot dictate regimes

It gives that
Criminal Cabal & its Military Industrial CompleX its Raison D’Etre
......... to come down upon the area with a Ham fist & a Heavy boot

................................

................................In order to accomplish their stated aim
................................of Full Spectrum regional & resource Dominance & Hegemony

.

 

You are being quite polite calling in "naivete."

Its more like sheer moronic stupidity

 

This is good information... in fact this information is worthless for the readers... the question that is asked by the progressive readers is the following... Why is Zawahiri still breathing?

 

A few more items and details for my presidential to-do list.

• Sack and replace the Under Secretary of State for Management (Patrick F. Kennedy) with someone who will sack incompetent security officials and appoint competent ones
• Sack and replace the Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security (Eric J. Boswell) with someone who will sack incompetent security officials and appoint competent ones

The competence of the entire Bureau of Diplomatic Security is in question. The senior managers must take responsibility and resign or be dismissed by the president.

"world leader" -

RESIGN!
SACK HIM MR PRESIDENT!

I thought it best to create a diagram to help me to explain what I have in mind to house secure diplomatic quarters for Libya and in other countries with a terrorist problem by defending embassies and ambassadors in a military base.

In my following diagram, the US and allied embassies would be situated in the central base, the green zone.

The features of the diagram are similar for any kind of military base whatever you are defending inside.



Click for LARGER image

This diagram shows my suggested layout for the perimeter defences for a military base.

Explanation of the diagram features.

Base - the green area in the diagram represents the central well-defended area of the military base, where various buildings, vehicles and personnel of the base are normally situated.

Machine-gun emplacements - the red and pink dots which encircle the base at a distance of about 6 miles or 10 kilometres from the edge of the central Base, represent static, armoured fortifications or "pillboxes" for one machine gun and its 3-man team of gunners. The spacing between adjacent pillboxes is about 333 metres or 333 yards.

The plan calls for one team of gunners per pillbox serving on base. The gunners are organised into 3 duty shifts of at least 8 hours and so normally only 1 in 3 of the pillboxes will be manned at any one time. The gunners spend their off-duty time in the central Base where their quarters are situated.

If, when and where the perimeter defences are attacked by the enemy, the off-duty gunners can be called back on emergency duty as required by their officers.

Infantry barriers - barbed wire and anti-personnel mines to stop enemy infantry from advancing into the centre of the base.

Vehicle barriers - obstacles and anti-tank mines which prevent enemy vehicles from advancing into the centre of the base.

Reaction Force Zone - Quick reaction forces deploy in armoured vehicles from the central base into the Reaction Force Zone to fire at enemy attacking forces.

Threat Zone - A circumferential military zone around the perimeter defences where the base defenders may assume a hostile intent on the part of uninvited intruders into the Threat Zone and from where locals are forbidden and variously warned off from intruding upon. This land is occupied or leased to the military base and is closely watched using surveillance technology. Warning shots or sub-lethal rounds may be fired upon suspected innocent intruders and identified enemy forces can be fired upon to kill without warning.

The diagram represents a Threat Zone which extends to 10 miles / 16 kilometres from the edge of the central Base. The plan therefore recommends that it is inappropriate to site a well-defended base within 10 miles of an urban area or a public highway which would cause local people and local traffic to enter into the defined Threat Zone routinely making the early detection of real threats difficult to distinguish.

A large Threat Zone is desirable for security purposes because it makes for a safer perimeter defence but does add significantly to the land requirements of the base therefore the availability of a wide area of undeveloped land is ideal when choosing a location for the construction of a new military base.

Some existing military bases are located close to urban areas where a large Threat Zone cannot be defined and this is likely to make such bases much less secure.

Access road Road to access the base from the surrounding road network.

STOP police control barrier Military police stop traffic wishing to enter the base and perform final checks that visitors and loads are authorised to proceed. The control barriers prevent terrorists driving off the road and prevent vehicles proceeding without permission.

The control barrier fortifications need to be very robust so as to survive an enemy truck bomb.

Trust Zone People, vehicles or buildings in the Trust Zone which is everywhere outside of the Threat Zone are assumed to be trustworthy and non-threatening in so far as the base defenders are concerned.

People in the Trust Zone are assumed to be respecting the base's security and the base defenders treat people in the Trust Zone with the same mutual respect for their own security.

Protestors
Protestors who wish to demonstrate for whatever reason their political viewpoints are allowed to approach the base as far as the Warning Line which surrounds the Threat Zone but it is the responsibility of the local authorities to ensure that protestors do not intrude into the Threat Zone without invitation otherwise a hostile intent may be assumed and defensive actions taken.

Defence force For the smallest bases, this plan calls for a defence force of three serving companies of gunners - one company for each of the 3 shifts.

One company needs at least 200 gunners and their officers so 3 companies total at least 600 gunners and their officers. In addition, military and support personnel are needed for other duties such as policing visitors, cooking, vehicle and plant maintenance engineers, medical, supplies storage & management, camp tidying up, latrine digging, reserves etc.

The defence force required would be of an infantry battalion size of perhaps of about 800 soldiers / marines and support personnel in total and so the base defence force commander would likely be ranked at Lieutenant Colonel or higher.

For larger bases with central Base areas that could be miles wide, such as military air bases that require aircraft runways, the lines of perimeter defences would need to be longer and so more gunners etc would be required.

 

Bin Laden in his taped address to the American people also stated "The war is between us and the Jews. Any country that steps into the same trench as the Jews has only itself to blame." The last time those fighting a war against the Jews were appeased it lead to WWII so perhaps you should stretch your memory just a little longer?

 

I suspect the reason to be as unusual, as savage as the tactics of pro Arabs in this Forum want to trivialize each incident...

” ‘The U.S. ambassador to Libya was raped sexually before the killing by gunmen who stormed the embassy building in Benghazi supposedly protesting against the film made by a loony Copt as offensive to the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).’ The sources said that ‘Ambassador was killed and representation of his body in a manner similar to what happened with Gaddafi, such as murder.’ “

Additional information revealed that Libyan Security personnel may have disclosed the whereabouts of the Ambassador to the attackers after Ambassador Stevens was moved to a safe location.

“Wanis al-Sharef, a Libyan Interior Ministry official in Benghazi, said the four Americans were killed when the angry mob, which gathered to protest a U.S.-made film that ridicules Islam’s Prophet Muhammad, fired guns and burned down the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.”

“He said Stevens, 52, and other officials were moved to a second building – deemed safer – after the initial wave of protests at the consulate compound. According to al-Sharef, members of the Libyan security team seem to have indicated to the protesters the building to which the American officials had been relocated, and that building then came under attack.”

There is a long history of Islamist extremists mutilating their victims. When Pakistani Muslim terrorists attacked the Chabad Jewish center during the devastating terror attacks in Mumbai, India, Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg and his wife, Rivka, were both tortured and raped, and their bodies were desecrated. According to the Mumbai Police, the Rabbi was castrated while still alive. “Even the Rabbi and his wife at Nariman House were sexually assaulted and their genitalia mutilated,” said a senior officer of the investigating team.

Many videos exist of kidnappers reciting verses from the Qur’an before decapitating their victims. The desecration of a victim’s body is justified by Muslim extremists, who base their behavior on Mohammed’s declaration to Muslims to humiliate and subdue non-believers:

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/330504/amb...his-murder-reports-claim/#PM3gYUkczH4rmk40.99

The savagery of Arabs is reminiscent of the outrage of Attila the Hun.

 

The plan calls for something much better than WW2 style pillboxes. We can do much better in this day and age.

There would be a minimum of 180 machine gun emplacements required by my plan.

I would hope that the budget for such an important high-value facility would stretch to maybe, for each,

• a 25mm canon, which typically have a range out to 2.5 km / 1.5 miles with
• a 12.7mm (0.5") or 7.62mm machine gun back-up.

Also I'd want the guns mounted into some kind of swivelling gun turret, with working parts like the gun turret on top of an Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) maybe. In fact the cheapest option might be to buy off-the-shelf turrets which are already in mass production for vehicles like the Bradley IFV with some additional armour capped on top of it because it doesn't need to be light, just very strong against incoming mortar or artillery fire.





The one issue there might be with IVF turrets is that it really needs lower gun elevation than is standard for an IFV turret. IFV guns often don't dip below -10 degrees below the horizontal. That's not ideal because the gun turrets are going to be much higher off the ground than they would be in an IVF and ideally the gunners ought to be able to target the ground beneath them as well as the ground hundreds of metres away.

Naval ship mounted cannons tend to dip lower, down to -20 degrees and that would be better, but naval cannons are not usually well armoured for the gunner's protection.



They do come in remotely operated versions which is an interesting option to consider.



The gun turrets would be mounted in I am thinking probably some kind of massive high-security armoured & reinforced concrete sloping at a pyramid-type-of-angle type bunkers / towers.

Maybe something like this, only not with a sharp top but a gun turret on top.



The idea of gun towers is to give the gunner a good view of the desert terrain which is unlikely to be completely flat and dips in the ground could otherwise provide cover for attacking mortar teams. Gun towers also enable the gunners easily to see over and beyond any obstacles in the vehicle barrier into the Threat Zone. The gun towers should be robust enough so that they could take a number of artillery shells without collapsing.

Low profile

A military base like the one I describe, even with high towers around the perimeter defences, can still be reasonably low profile if it is situated somewhere out of sight and out of mind, such as in the Libyan desert somewhere south of the coastal road between Tripoli and Benghazi.

I'd like to compare my plan for a diplomatic base to the country retreat of the US President - Camp David. Camp David too is a small military base officially called "Naval Support Facility Thurmont" which is staffed by the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Marines. Did you know that?

When one thinks of Camp David, one never thinks of the security there - one just thinks of Camp David as a place in the country for the President to have face to face meetings at. It will be something similar with the embassies base I propose in my plan.

Visitors arriving at this new diplomatic base by helicopter will be 6 miles away from the perimeter defences when they land and there could be an area in the central base as large as Camp David (0.5 km2) with no base guards in that small camp within the central base.

All the base security details described here can be ignored and be forgotten by diplomats. Those details matter only for those who must design, build, staff and run the base. The diplomats will be too busy thinking about diplomacy to think about the security infrastructure of the base. Sure they will see the layout of the base as they come in to land and take off but then never give it a second thought.

Camp Stevens

So it could work like Camp David but the name for this diplomatic base in the Libyan desert should be "Camp Stevens", named after the late much-loved, martyred US Ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens.

 

Do you realize that an embassy with your defense plan would require about 314 square miles of land.

Furthermore, you did not address the access of people visiting the Embassy 10 miles from the gate.

 

Yes, but the Libyan desert has a very low population density. It should be possible to allocate a 20 mile diameter plot of land that it not being used for much now.

Firstly, I will point out, if I have not already done so, that access for embassy staff and VIPs will usually be by helicopter. High-value supplies from the US can also be flown in that way. Supplies can travel by ship to anchor 12+ miles off the Libyan coast then be transferred to helicopter for the final journey to the diplomatic base in the desert.

I presume you mean "10 miles from the central base / 10 miles from the green zone"? The robust STOP police control barrier indicated on the diagram is situated more like 6 miles from the central base, 6 miles from the green zone.

Since you have clearly mentioned "10 miles" I am going to assume in my reply that you are asking "what happens at the 10 miles from the central base point, where the Access Road crosses the Warning Line, at the border between the Trust Zone and the Threat Zone, is there a gate there, if so, who controls that gate?"

As regards visitors by land, the diagram illustrates one access road but there could be more than one access road.

The Libyan authorities may wish to maintain a STOP police check point at the 10 miles from the central base point, where the Access Road crosses the Warning Line, at the border between the Trust Zone (policed by the Libyan authorities) and the Threat Zone (policed by the base defenders). I have not illustrated any STOP police control point there as yet because I did not want to confuse the issue as to where the important STOP police control barrier from a base security point of view would be - which is at the 6 miles from the central base point.

What certainly and usefully could be done at that 10 miles out point is to have a base-run unmanned STOP point, with automatic barrier, traffic light system, road-side telephone with notices asking visitors that if the traffic lights are RED and the barrier down, please do not attempt to proceed, please speak into the road-side telephone, speak to the base military police, please state your name and business and ask for permission to enter the base etc. Thus visitors by road could be interrogated at that 10 miles out point by base military police as easily as one speaks from one's car seat when ordering a meal from a drive-through take-away fast-food outlet.

If there was such a STOP police point at the 10 miles out point, staffed by the Libyan police, or an unmanned STOP point controlled by the base military police, this would be a police-only stop point, rather a 100% guaranteed militarily-enforceable stop point. If uninvited terrorists say driving a truck bomb crashed through a STOP police point at the 10 miles out point to enter uninvited into the Threat Zone, such a truck may get a mile or two but not get all that far as it would be shot up by the perimeter gunners and certainly stopped militarily at the robust STOP police control barrier at the 6 miles out point.

Also permission to proceed on the Access Road past the Warning Line would not imply any permission to enter the base past the STOP police control barrier at the 6 miles out point. Travelling from 10 miles out to 6 miles out one would be travelling on provisional permission only. One could easily be turned back at the 6 miles out point even though one had got permission to proceed past the Warning Line at 10 miles out.

Either way, yes, some thought would have to be given to the procedure to ask permission from the base military police for permission to proceed past the Warning Line on the Access Road through the Threat Zone to the STOP police control barrier at the 6 miles out point. Even if initial permission is given, or assumed and the benefit of the doubt is given, a rigorous policing check, including a search of the vehicle at the 6-miles out STOP police control barrier would be mandatory in each case.

So if that was what you meant to ask, if that was your question then good question!

If that was not your question, or if you want more clarity about my answer, or you wish to ask another question, please do ask away.

 

Nice idea Peter Dow. Thanks for your explantions and ideas about access to the safe zone.

I was really thinking about the burden on people, native to the region, who need to visit the Embassy. Will they have to walk 10 miles or 6 miles? Will they have to pay some rip off bus service to transit the security zones?

Now, I am wondering about the cost of such an operation.

Certainly, it would be far cheaper and easier if the USA left its dishonorable, ugly, cruel ways and took up America's Mandate from the Declaration of Independence “to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them,”and to have “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind”.

Before the US became completely prejudiced in favor of the invading Israelis, America was much respected throughout the Middle East.

We need to drop our national religion of Judaism and at the very least return to Napoleon's version of equality among religious groups:

1. That every "Jew" is religiously bound to consider his non-Jewish fellow citizens as brothers, and to aid, protect, and love them as though they were coreligionists;
2. That the "Jew" is required to consider the land of his birth or adoption as his fatherland, and shall love and defend it when called upon;
3. That Judaism does not forbid any kind of handicraft or occupation;
4. That it is commendable for "Jews" to engage in agriculture, manual labor, and the arts, as their ancestors in Palestine were wont to do;
5. That, finally, "Jews" are forbidden to exact usury from "Jews" or Christians.


Meeting of the Sanhedrin that agreed to the previous 5 points.

 

Thanks Ivan!

There would likely be a longer journey for most Libyans travelling by road to the new embassy base in the desert.

The distance by road between Tripoli and Benghazi is 1015km or 630 miles. Supposing the new embassy base was 50 miles south of the point on the road half-way between the two cities. That means travelling from Tripoli or Benghazi would require a total journey of 365 miles. So you can see that the last 10 miles of that journey of hundreds of miles is the least part of the journey! Perhaps arrangements could be made for most embassy business to be done on the internet, by telephone or by post?

But to answer your specific question about the last 10 miles. For the first 4 of the last 10 miles through the Threat Zone you would simply pause at the Warning Line for permission to proceed and then with permission continue to travel towards the embassy travelling the same way you did to get that far - by your car, bus, taxi or whatever.

Then for the last 6 of the last 10 miles, if I were organising matters, the embassy base would provide and offer a free taxi / free bus service option for the last 6 miles.

This would mean that passenger vehicles could stop and park just outside the vehicle barrier perimeter (coloured blue in my diagram), still in the Threat Zone, and then the passengers only would walk through the STOP police control barriers and be screened there and then go onto the free taxi or free bus for the last 6 miles. This could involve a walk of about a mile or more.

For those who could not walk through the STOP police control point for that mile, for example, disabled people, or those with too much luggage to carry or push on a trolley, then they would need to proceed for a full screening of their car and luggage which would take longer and then they could either use their own vehicle to proceed onwards to the central base or perhaps transfer to the free taxi / bus for the last 6 miles as they wished.

It would cost a lot but then you need to bear in mind that the USA has paid billions of dollars to Egypt and Pakistan and got no security for doing so. At least with my plan, the Americans would get the security they paid for, value for money.

I don't yet have a good estimate of the construction costs of the base. To give you an idea, the new US Embassy in Baghdad cost about $750 million.

So I could spend that easy and more if I had it on my plan so let's say a budget of maybe around a billion dollars, to start with?