Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Biscuit
    replied
    Originally posted by McMax View Post
    That is one of the biggest lies in all human history.
    Way to cut and paste part of a comment. I was careful with my words so as to ensure a factual comment.

    Leave a comment:


  • McMax
    replied
    Originally posted by Biscuit View Post
    I don't know when the Marines stopped guarding our embassies, or why. But I'm pretty sure those lives were more important that the money saved.

    The Marine Corps Embassy Security Group is not at our embassies to protect the ambassador or other personal. They are there to hold the embassy until the CIA station chief and the military attachés destroy all classified material. So if there was a detachment at the embassy in Tripoli they probably wouldn't have been sent.


    I'm from South though. The States' Rights defense for secession and war is so believable to us ...
    That is one of the biggest lies in all human history.

    Leave a comment:


  • Salinator
    replied
    Originally posted by Biscuit View Post
    That's the protocol piece I knew I was missing. I know I'm wrong, but philosophically I don't see a difference. That being said, it would be great if Paul Nichols weighed in. Being informed is never a bad thing.
    There is no difference.

    A Marine Security Guard (MSG), also known as a Marine Embassy Guard is a member of the Marine Corps Embassy Security Group,[3] (formerly Marine Security Guard Battalion), a battalion-sized organization of U.S. Marines whose detachments provide security at American embassies, American consulates and other official United States Government offices such as the United States Mission to NATO in Brussels, Belgium.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Security_Guard

    Leave a comment:


  • Duncan
    replied
    I would prefer a documentary. I am often saddened when production companies turn this kind of thing into a for profit commodity.

    Leave a comment:


  • lynelhutz
    replied
    I saw the movie last night.

    They added a lot of nonsense to the movie that wasn't in the book to make the CIA station chief seem like a clueless jerk. I was a difficult confusing situation for those in the immediate area and that is as much as can be said.

    Also I was a little disappointed in the attack scenes on the annex. Some of the shots were a little too much like cliched "movie combat" and less like the reality described in the book. People standing in the open and in groups after the shooting starts. Nice clear visible targets throughout instead of just muzzle flashes. High velocity rounds throwing people across a room as opposed to slicing or ripping through them etc.

    Leave a comment:


  • Biscuit
    replied
    Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
    H. Bengazi was a consulate and not the Embassy. Embassy usually get the Marine Guards. Paul Nichols can fill us in on those details.
    That's the protocol piece I knew I was missing. I know I'm wrong, but philosophically I don't see a difference. That being said, it would be great if Paul Nichols weighed in. Being informed is never a bad thing.

    Leave a comment:


  • Half Pint John
    replied
    Originally posted by Biscuit View Post
    When I was in Madagascar in '93, their little **** ant embassy had the Marines guarding them. They were excited to meet an women's basketball team from home, we were excited to get a taste of home in the middle of 6 weeks on the road.

    I don't know when the Marines stopped guarding our embassies, or why. But I'm pretty sure those lives were more important that the money saved. I'm also no protocol genius, but I'll be damned to hell before believing that it was ever acceptable to let someone come into our house and violate our flag.

    Thanks for your insight on the book. Given the time that elapsed with no support, I tend to believe that the operators are being honest from their point of view and that if they believed support should have arrived, then it should have arrived.

    I'm from South though. The States' Rights defense for secession and war is so believable to us because we're not overly found of government intrusion or government hacks. Its easy to believe that the CIA, or State Department, could have done more from that view point.
    H. Bengazi was a consulate and not the Embassy. Embassy usually get the Marine Guards. Paul Nichols can fill us in on those details.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sergio
    replied
    Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
    So the local MSM~Lib rag sheet published a reprint of this item from the Chicago Tribune, another "lib rag-sheet" and reviewer Michael Phillips; lambasting "13 Hours, ... " for not expressing the "Liberal" view of the incident. ~

    The local version claims ... " ... full of cliches, distortions" yet it seems Phillips came short of being specific on those "distortions". Not uncommon among Liberal/Leftist movie reviewers, since this one didn't endorse and "glamouris" their heroes BHO and "S"Hillary. M. Phillips tries to be objective, but his liberalist bias shines thru, still will present a couple of excerpts here;

    "But of course "13 Hours" is a movie, and movies owe their subjects and the audience something larger than the facts. The characters refer to other films: "Black Hawk Down," "The Bourne Identity," "Tropic Thunder." At his shrewdest, Bay handles the action swiftly and well. The compound assaults; the perplexing array of Libyan militia fighters (never humanized, barely dramatized) working with, or against, the U.S.; the physical spaces in which the battles take place and the bodies fall, often video-gamer style, with little poofs of red blood hitting the air after the bullets hit the targets' skulls."

    [Obviously, if the "facts" don't jive with the Liberal spin, they aren't "facts" ]

    "Fox News and other conservative outlets are all over "13 Hours" and, judging from many early reports, loving it. Early in the film PresidentObama is heard in voice-over, praising "a new and democratic Libya" in the wake of the post-Gadhafi era. It's a "what-an-idiot!" moment, disproven immediately by a quick montage of chaos and destruction. The other off-screen villain of the movie, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, will no doubt be answering question after question on the campaign trail about the film's inference, largely supported by the historical record, that the U.S. underestimated security concerns before and after the terrorist attacks in Benghazi."

    Right! Need to note the "Conservative" take here as opposed to the Liberal/leftist distortions ....

    ""13 Hours" says one thing — "You can't tell the good guys from the bad guys" — and shows you quite another. Bay and company have no trouble telling the good guys from the bad guys. We are only meant to care about certain deaths, not the vast majority. The key characters are pencil sketches, not flesh-and-blood, but they serve Bay's purposes, as do the performances. They're mythic warriors, not men, really, although their heroism was very real. Never dull, "13 Hours" gives you a little of that, and lot of what most people actually go to war movies for, which is the opposite of reality."

    As if Phillips and the Leftist/Liberals have a real clue on whom the "bad guys" are?! Obviously neither BHO ("The Buck Stops Here"~POTUS, see former Democrat Harry Truman, POTUS) nor his hack "S"Hillary Rodham Clinton, whom couldn't exercise individual leadership in doing the "right thing" in such a situation. ... ~~~
    What a load of bullshit. It talks about the cliches in the film, the style of film Bay makes, what is on display here, how much the characters can be seen as realistic individuals and how it relates to what happened. It also specifically refers to Obama's statements on a the supposedly new and improved Libya as well as Clinton, **** poor security and the ongoing questions she is likely to face.

    Early in the film, President Barack Obama is heard in voice-over, praising “a new and democratic Libya” in the wake of the post-Gadhafi era. It’s a “what-an-idiot!” moment, disproved immediately by a quick montage of chaos and destruction. The other off-screen villain of the movie, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, will no doubt be answering question after question on the campaign trail about the film’s inference, largely supported by the historical record, that the U.S. underestimated security concerns before and after the terrorist attacks in Benghazi.
    http://www.freep.com/story/entertain...view/78762416/

    Saying that characters are not fully fleshed out or that those cliches and portrayals of war is what many people often watch war films for is not 'liberal' bias. He also certainly did not 'lambast' Bay for not portraying a liberal view of the attack or glamourising Obama or Clinton. Your ability to make things up is remarkable - the words he used actually disprove what you claim.

    Leave a comment:


  • Biscuit
    replied
    When I was in Madagascar in '93, their little **** ant embassy had the Marines guarding them. They were excited to meet an women's basketball team from home, we were excited to get a taste of home in the middle of 6 weeks on the road.

    I don't know when the Marines stopped guarding our embassies, or why. But I'm pretty sure those lives were more important that the money saved. I'm also no protocol genius, but I'll be damned to hell before believing that it was ever acceptable to let someone come into our house and violate our flag.

    Thanks for your insight on the book. Given the time that elapsed with no support, I tend to believe that the operators are being honest from their point of view and that if they believed support should have arrived, then it should have arrived.

    I'm from South though. The States' Rights defense for secession and war is so believable to us because we're not overly found of government intrusion or government hacks. Its easy to believe that the CIA, or State Department, could have done more from that view point.

    Leave a comment:


  • lynelhutz
    replied
    I haven't seen the movie but read the book.

    The book was written from the operator's point of view, and as is often in the case in this genre, there was the typical implicit and explicit anger over the alleged timidity of the team leader and above. But based on the information at hand, it seems like a very tough call and even in retrospect, not necessarily wrong.

    Sending the annex operators quickly into an unclear and chaotic situation could have easily resulted in making a bad situation much worse with friendly fire from the untrained locals or even a prepared ambush from the terrorists. Given the subsequent attack on the annex, it seems any real opposition at the consulate or drawn out street fighting could have degenerated into something that would have left all US personal captive or dead.

    The real question what whether there should have been a protocol in place that would have prevented a US ambassador in any middle eastern country from being so exposed.

    Leave a comment:


  • 101combatvet
    replied
    Originally posted by Bow View Post
    I read the original book and it was pretty interesting and from a friend of mine who was in the area when this event went down.....the understanding by other groups was that the poor b######of the American group were hung out to dry by your US State Department who didnt want to interfere in case they offended anybody...
    That sounds like...

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    So the local MSM~Lib rag sheet published a reprint of this item from the Chicago Tribune, another "lib rag-sheet" and reviewer Michael Phillips; lambasting "13 Hours, ... " for not expressing the "Liberal" view of the incident. ~

    The local version claims ... " ... full of cliches, distortions" yet it seems Phillips came short of being specific on those "distortions". Not uncommon among Liberal/Leftist movie reviewers, since this one didn't endorse and "glamouris" their heroes BHO and "S"Hillary. M. Phillips tries to be objective, but his liberalist bias shines thru, still will present a couple of excerpts here;

    "But of course "13 Hours" is a movie, and movies owe their subjects and the audience something larger than the facts. The characters refer to other films: "Black Hawk Down," "The Bourne Identity," "Tropic Thunder." At his shrewdest, Bay handles the action swiftly and well. The compound assaults; the perplexing array of Libyan militia fighters (never humanized, barely dramatized) working with, or against, the U.S.; the physical spaces in which the battles take place and the bodies fall, often video-gamer style, with little poofs of red blood hitting the air after the bullets hit the targets' skulls."

    [Obviously, if the "facts" don't jive with the Liberal spin, they aren't "facts" ]

    "Fox News and other conservative outlets are all over "13 Hours" and, judging from many early reports, loving it. Early in the film PresidentObama is heard in voice-over, praising "a new and democratic Libya" in the wake of the post-Gadhafi era. It's a "what-an-idiot!" moment, disproven immediately by a quick montage of chaos and destruction. The other off-screen villain of the movie, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, will no doubt be answering question after question on the campaign trail about the film's inference, largely supported by the historical record, that the U.S. underestimated security concerns before and after the terrorist attacks in Benghazi."

    Right! Need to note the "Conservative" take here as opposed to the Liberal/leftist distortions ....

    ""13 Hours" says one thing — "You can't tell the good guys from the bad guys" — and shows you quite another. Bay and company have no trouble telling the good guys from the bad guys. We are only meant to care about certain deaths, not the vast majority. The key characters are pencil sketches, not flesh-and-blood, but they serve Bay's purposes, as do the performances. They're mythic warriors, not men, really, although their heroism was very real. Never dull, "13 Hours" gives you a little of that, and lot of what most people actually go to war movies for, which is the opposite of reality."

    As if Phillips and the Leftist/Liberals have a real clue on whom the "bad guys" are?! Obviously neither BHO ("The Buck Stops Here"~POTUS, see former Democrat Harry Truman, POTUS) nor his hack "S"Hillary Rodham Clinton, whom couldn't exercise individual leadership in doing the "right thing" in such a situation. ... ~~~

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Originally posted by Biscuit View Post
    I saw 13 Hours this weekend, and it was really hard to watch. I'll never understand why we would just sit back, let people come into our house, kill some of our people, and desecrate our flag. In reading several articles and interviews afterwards, it seems like the director worked hard to stick to the facts. As best I could remember it stuck to the chronology of events. Having the bladder of a two-year old, sometimes I rate movies by the number of trips to the bathroom. Usually, I make 1-2 trips. I didn't go once during 13 Hours. It's not the standard unit of measure, but it's much more quantitative than the star system.

    There was one question I had about accuracy of the movie:


    Now it's time to read some books. Does anyone have recs? I'm much more interested in accuracy than the entertainment/ease of reading factor that seems to come from books written by investigative journalists, though I'm not ruling those kinds of books out.
    Thanks for this thread and your thoughts!

    I rarely do the theater/cinemaplex thyng, partly because of the costs, partly because the schedule constraints, and mostly because if the story, visuals, and sound don't warrant the "Big Screen" experience, I (and wife) usually prefer comfort of home and our own big screen (@ 54" diag.) where we don't have to endure the others of the audience, can pause when we want, do the "special features" &/or "commentary", etc. Which means that as interested as this theme/subject is to me, I'll hold out until it comes out in DVD, as usual, and likely first do the local library issue before deciding if it's a "keeper" to own.

    That huge caveat aside, this is a film that looks to be important and could have impact beyond the story itself. The subject shows the flaws of not only the current POTUS, put also one of the current potential future POTUS candidates, and as such presents a gravitas all responsible citizens need to see and consider.

    Rather than one long (and likely unread) post, I'm breaking this out into a couple or more to focus upon various aspects of this film and its message/significance.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bow
    replied
    I read the original book and it was pretty interesting and from a friend of mine who was in the area when this event went down.....the understanding by other groups was that the poor b######of the American group were hung out to dry by your US State Department who didnt want to interfere in case they offended anybody...

    Leave a comment:


  • Biscuit
    started a topic 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi

    13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi

    I saw 13 Hours this weekend, and it was really hard to watch. I'll never understand why we would just sit back, let people come into our house, kill some of our people, and desecrate our flag. In reading several articles and interviews afterwards, it seems like the director worked hard to stick to the facts. As best I could remember it stuck to the chronology of events. Having the bladder of a two-year old, sometimes I rate movies by the number of trips to the bathroom. Usually, I make 1-2 trips. I didn't go once during 13 Hours. It's not the standard unit of measure, but it's much more quantitative than the star system.

    There was one question I had about accuracy of the movie:


    Now it's time to read some books. Does anyone have recs? I'm much more interested in accuracy than the entertainment/ease of reading factor that seems to come from books written by investigative journalists, though I'm not ruling those kinds of books out.

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X