When i saw tath movie at the end i made me a question?¿if the embajassy was attacked by houndreds of people all with ak-47,pistos,molotovs coktails etc etc,and the soldiers open fire an kill 87 people?¿why any soldier didnt see any gun in the dead bodies of the people?its impossible that no one of the 100 rangers didnt see anything¿maybe blind?
shareI asked my wife the same question a couple of hours ago. We just watched it. That's why I'm on the message board(for general purposes). I wondered the exact same thing. Somebody would have saw something when they stood up.
"Another tv crew arrived and they went inside. Wouldn't ya know it. The one night I don't perform."
Some clarifications:
The embassy was being pelted with rocks.
A handful of snipers began shooting when they saw the Marines arrive.
There were no pistols.
83 civilians were killed.
None of the protesters were carrying weapons.
There were no U.S. Army Rangers present.
The U.S. Marines did not number 100.
Have you seen the movie until the end??
Regards
Peter
did you see the tape that sokles destroyed, it showed the crowd firing
shareCouple of things.
1. The Marines were tasked with 1 mission...to evacuate the embassy. When the crowd fired and the Marines returned fire they were within the frame of military law.
2. The Marines, after suppressing the situation outside the embassy then would have immediately loaded back up on their choppers and disembarked the embassy. They would not have walked out the front door to look at the weapons in the crowd. The reason for this is very simple. An embassy in a foreign country is actually considered to be the property of the country that inhabits the embassy. So the Chinese embassy in the United States is actually considered Chinese soil. Just as the U.S. Embassy in Yemen in the movie is considered American soil. So...armed Marines in the US embassy in Yemen isn't a problem. Armed Marines walking out the front door of the embassy in Yemen is a MAJOR problem. Armed soldiers on foreign soil without permission is an act of war, and most certainly would have been seen that way by the Yemeni government.
So no, the Marines on top of the embassy wouldn't have been able to go out and inspect the bodies and see the weapons. Nor would they have stood up to look over the edge of the wall to look for the weapons...remember they were still in a hostile environment with an unknown number of snipers present. Standing up to look for a weapon would have certainly been signing your own death certificate.
My only complaint is this. As Childers was taking cover he ordered his men to "engage hostile targets as they appear" which was a good order. He then repeated his order as "waste the *beep* However, the Marines then IMMEDIATELY opened fire on the crowd below. Meaning that those Marines had recognized the hostile targets in the crowd and had opened fire. Why were these Marines not called to testify in the trial that they had infact engaged the hostile targets? Remember..."engage hostile targets as they appear" and then the Marines fire into the crowd...meaning those Marines had identified crowd members with weapons.
Interesting? I certainly think so..
Spartan- Sorry, the initial poster is still correct about the 'hole' in the plot. Whether they were 'examining' the dead bodies for weapons or not, they were standing up, shooting into the crowd, and then when they stopped shooting, they could still see the crowd. You don't have to 'examine' the bodies to see all the weapons around them.
Also, you'll remember that the 2nd in command of the unit asked Childers, "do you want us to fire into the crowd" to which childers replied, "waste the *beep* In the context of the dialogue, it seems a very poor order. Had he only said "engage hostile targets as they appear" there would not have been as much of a problem.
Paredes- What are you talking about? I think almost all of the crowd had weapons...Did you watch the whole movie or turn it off somewhere inbetween the begining and the end?