Headline is Pushed to Include the Word 'Issues': Deceased Ambassador Stevens, Correlations; and Missile Strikes

Any time an Ambassador of the United States is killed as a rule, it puts Americans to the defense.  As an isolated incident, if Americans do not know anything about the personal life of the person, then there is a principal, just as if a piece of land was attacked, or an embassy {or consulate} with no one in it.

Pictures, of what appears to be moments just before or just after his death, show in the science that deals with physio-biological effects of certain thematic topics that might have been at thresholds of what was occurring to the mind --whether they were carried out in the practical level or not is another story-- might not be ones that are directly approved of by the people there, indirectly.

Whether he did, was, is, had a history of the behaviors, rumors circulating, so on so forth, that is not something that straight minded authors feel inclined to investigate into.

Rounding up, incidents such as what occurred surrounding Ambassador Stevens, puts a strain on two camps.

The level of security [i.e. embassy or consulate].  Was it lax? Or was it strong enough according to some technicalities, then deemed lax after the fact?  The bottom line is, whatever the level was, it did not result in blockading the attack.

All the way over in Washington DC, pointing the blame to senior level officials in business attire, may also have contradictions of laws that were set in place as long ago as the Founding Fathers, for a more extensive and complex set of reasons.

Positive directive in intention/ camp 1: is protective of the Embassy/consulate staff and the security team, comprised of positions that are close to heart

Positive directive in intention/ camp 2: protective of all senior level officials and ambassadors, embassy and consulate staff, notably those that are credited by some to be at the high echelons regarding the conditions of embassies

When camp 1 is so fueled about that aspect, it can have disagreements with camp 2.

Altogether, the abovementioned paragraphs hit upon issue 1.

Issue 2, without going into detail, as it is still early in the moments after the missile strikes that just occurred in Palestine to make a more comprehensive statement that is based on all the facts involved, is, how justified was the method of a missile strike, and how far it is or is not adherent to international rules of treatment of one another?

In the previous post, it was stated that missile were being fired as a generality, the type of strikes a separate subject, as what was going in the area, meaning Syria-Turkey border, Palestine, and Israel occupied areas.

Issue 3, is the 'name game', reference events like those surrounding the 'Innocence' film earlier this year.  The writing you are reading right now is a blog, not a report being officially submitted that requires investigations for word for word fact finding.  The name game is played by so many deviant people for many things.  Blog writers are going to make the effort to set the or their point, and little gambit strategies of perpetrators in the wrong doing does not detract from it.


Long term strategies looking back, -- ; short term actions ???