It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

TA-THREATS: FBI Reports Suspicious Activity on Inauguration Route

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 01:27 PM
link   
The FBI's Washington field office has issued a warning to government officials regarding suspicious activity along and near the planned inauguration route. The report contains notations that individuals and groups of people have aroused suspicion by taking photos of the route and buildings nearby and writing "descriptive notes" of the same locations. In addition, a letter was sent to US officials in Kenya threatening suicide bombings during the event. Domestic anarchist groups have also made public statements indicating their intent to disrupt the ceremony. President Bush's re-inauguration will take place on January 20th, and will be the most secure in US history.
 



FoxNews.com
The federal government is receiving reports of "suspicious activity" around buildings where presidential inaugural events and a parade are scheduled to occur Jan. 20 in Washington, FOX News learned Friday.

FOX News obtained an intelligence bulletin sent this week to law enforcement by the FBI's Washington field office, which is coordinating the security for next week's inaugural along with the U.S. Secret Service.

An FBI official confirmed the authenticity of the bulletin and said, "there is no credible threat information but we are looking at everything and anything out of an abundance of caution."

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


There have been no "credible" threats made regarding Thursday's ceremony. Intelligence agencies are taking these noted behaviors and statements seriously, however.

This story is still developing.


[edit on 14-1-2005 by Banshee]




posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 01:30 PM
link   
I tell you what Banshee, I would not be surprised if all these "activities" will lead to a total banning of any citizens along side of the road or even near the inaugural extravaganza.

Right now I am totally in awe as what our country has become since this president has been in power.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 01:33 PM
link   


Right now I am totally in awe as what our country has become since this president has been in power.


It's very sad isn't it?

I just hope that nothing happens. I'm not a Bush fan, but I tremble to think what would happen if Cheney got the position.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 01:38 PM
link   
The threats will be swarming in. The law enforcement agencies will have a nightmare chasing each and every one down. Everyone knows that quite apart from assasination, this will be the perfect time to embarrass the daylights our of Bush or America. Yes, it is sad that things have come this far.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 01:39 PM
link   
While this needs to be takken serious, I think the innugration will not be a target. I just don't get that feeling.

Maybe something else that same day



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 01:43 PM
link   
The best solution, clearly, is to subject presidential inauguration to the same standards as courtrooms of old: Sketches only. No publicity and no pictures.

The Bush-Christians would presumably say, "Yet another sign of what terrorists have done to us."



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by phreak_of_nature
While this needs to be takken serious, I think the innugration will not be a target. I just don't get that feeling.

Maybe something else that same day


You may be right after all in such important day all eyes will be in the capital city and we may have some lack of security on other parts of the country.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Right now I am totally in awe as what our country has become since this president has been in power.


Don't you mean since we were attacked by Muslim extremists?

What exactly does this warning make the country Marg?.... Or making sure nothing happens at the president's inaguration?
Are you not allowed to bash, yell we are in a dictatorship, and blame Republicans like you always do?



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 02:08 PM
link   
muaddib go find another dog to scratch and please target with better post than the one you just got there.

It seems that your president is losing his mind when standards of behavior has to be follow by anybody that will attend his Inaugural extravaganza and coronation.

I though you hate totalitarian governments after all you left your homeland because of one, but you don't see to recognized the behavior of the one we have in the white house.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 02:09 PM
link   
My Opinion:
Cancel the "Extravaganza". Have a little party in the White House, save some tax-payer money, and Don't make yourself an open target.

I don't think any President during a time of War, went all out on His inauguration, and being as this is his second term, it shouldn't have any novelty to it.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickmastertricK
My Opinion:
Cancel the "Extravaganza". Have a little party in the White House, save some tax-payer money, and Don't make yourself an open target.



I tell you what, what happened to the days of picnics in the white house lawn and the drunk parties.

It was a time when the presidents used to have their doors open to the littler people that elected them and everybody used to enjoy themselves in peace.

The inauguration ceremonies are for the people no the president they are the way in which the citizens of this country celebrate how democracy is done.

Our inaugurations are just more of a show in which presidents are the main attraction and more and more they are becoming just the celebration of the elite, not the regular people.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
muaddib go find another dog to scratch and please target with better post than the one you just got there.

It seems that your president is losing his mind when standards of behavior has to be follow by anybody that will attend his Inaugural extravaganza and coronation.

I though you hate totalitarian governments after all you left your homeland because of one, but you don't see to recognized the behavior of the one we have in the white house.


No Marg, if you don't want people to respond to your "wild claims" then do not make such wild claims. Do tell me, what exactly does making sure nothing happens at the inaguration have to do with this country becoming what you call a dictatorship?....do you want to approach Bush and hug him?...no?..
You want to be free enough that you can walk to him and yell and bash at him?...do tell me when that was allowed to be done to previous presidents...

I would recongnize a dictatorship exactly for the point you made, because i was in one... and the US is no totalitarian government Marg.....the same thing happened when you "claimed" that Condolezza Rize stated that she wants WWIII...
i proved you wrong didn't I?....

The president is not going insane, you are too paranoid, that's the problem.


[edit on 14-1-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Don't you mean since we were attacked by Muslim extremists?.........
Are you not allowed to bash, yell we are in a dictatorship, and blame Republicans like you always do?


Well actually, according to groups like ANSWER, the increased security at the innauguration and parade routes are there to make it difficult to voice their protests. Security in 2001 caused them to file a law suit and this year is even tighter.

story here

I was also invited to the parade route by a friend who is a member of an organization who's name escapes me at the moment. Their plan is for all members present to turn their backs on the President simultaneously at a given signal.

This is a time of failing support from the world, including other world leaders. But according to the mass media, the people of the US are behind their President. I wonder just how embarrassed the administration will be to see on national and international media, large numbers of people turning their backs on the newly (not, as some say) elected president.

Perhaps a bit of the over-security is to protect more than the physical well being of the President. So, it would appear that some are NOT permitted to "bash, yell we are in a dictatorship, and blame Republicans" as you so eloquently put it.

[edit on 1/14/05 by HarmoniusOne]



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickmastertricK
I don't think any President during a time of War, went all out on His inauguration, and being as this is his second term, it shouldn't have any novelty to it.

But the novelty is that he accomplished something his daddy didn't. He got re-elcted.

There's that and the, "If we give in to terrorist, they win", damn the torpedos, full speed ahead.
I don't care if he has his innauguration, just don't have it at the expense of Social Security.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 02:58 PM
link   
I wonder if the Bush administration has some explanation as to WHY there is so much danger centered around GWB's innauguration and why, for the first time in history, such extreme measures absolutely need to be taken just to protect the president.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 03:03 PM
link   
ANSWER International?....
of course they would do this....when is it that they don't?...try to see if they make any demonstrations when socialist/communist countries do worse things. For example when French forces opened fire against disarmed civilians in the Ivory coast last year, killing disarmed women, men and children... i even posted a photo of a French soldier sneering and standing close to the body of a disarmed child they had just shot at... where was ANSWER International?.... where were their demonstrations against what the French forces and the UN are still doing in the Ivory Coast?....

ANSWER International has one goal, socialism/communism, so they would attack any country that is not socialist or communist.

Try to find exactly what demonstrations did ANWSER International do because of the Tiannanmen Square massacre....or what their parent organization and sponsor did...

I did a piece on ANSWER International some months back. I will post the link when i find it, probably after all the transfers are done to the new server.

Anyways, ANSWER International is one of the front groups and is sponsored by the Worker's World Party. Let me put an excerpt as to what ANWSER International is.


A.N.S.W.E.R. was an outgrowth of another organization headed by Clark, the International Action Center (IAC). Founded in 1990 during the run-up to the First Gulf War, IAC was the successor to the People's Anti-War Mobilization (PAM), and the Vietnam-era organization Youth Against War & Fascism (YAWF). All of these groups were sponsored by (and served as fronts for) the Worker's World Party (WWP).

The neo-Stalinist WWP broke away from the Trotskyite Socialist Worker's Party (SWP) in 1959 over a ?difference of opinion? concerning the Tibetan Uprising (the SWP sided with the Tibetan Buddhists, while the WWP supported the Chinese military action to crush the revolt). The WWP later distinguished themselves from other Marxist groups by opposing popular uprisings in Czechoslovakia (1968) and Poland (1981). They defended the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre in China, and would side with the KGB in the failed coup against Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1991.

Under the leadership of Ramsey Clark, the IAC was the only major "anti-war" group that refused to condemn Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Indeed, Clark actually flew to Baghdad and met with Saddam Hussein in November 1990, returning home with a handful of Saddam's "guests" (diplomats' families held hostage) as a token of the Iraqi dictator's goodwill.


Excerpted from.
www.lt-smash.us...



[edit on 14-1-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 03:05 PM
link   
I will said that a very loved, wanted and admired president here in the US and abroad, would be more than safe in his own country and his own soil.

Obviously Mr. Bush lacks all, even his followers are starting to see that their beloved choice for leader is not so smart and after all.

I bet that before the elections the "activities" are going to be so dangerous that people will not be allowed to even gather for the inauguration for security reasons.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
I will said that a very loved, wanted and admired president here in the US and abroad, would be more than safe in his own country and his own soil.

Obviously Mr. Bush lacks all, even his followers are starting to see that their beloved choice for leader is not so smart and after all.

I bet that before the elections the "activities" are going to be so dangerous that people will not be allowed to even gather for the inauguration for security reasons.


You mean the same way that President Kennedy was safe when he was killed?....or the same way that President Reagan was safe when he was shot?.....

Love can not stop a bullet....no matter how much you love or hate a person....

[edit on 14-1-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by phreak_of_nature
I don't care if he has his innauguration, just don't have it at the expense of Social Security.


Well right now it is proposed to come out of the Homeland Security Grants D.C. has received over the last three years. I'm all for Him 'celebrating', but at the expense they are talking about, and situations around the world, Just as a 'PR' move, I would tail it back. Thats just me though..




*Spelling

[edit on 14-1-2005 by TrickmastertricK]



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 03:22 PM
link   
That is funny I was in Washington for Clinton Inauguration but because my husband was just back from the gulf and we were not Democrats followers we decided to ignored the celebrations.

Hey Muaddib I bet you and some others here in ATS have some VIP first row sits.

Remember not to the left and not eye contact either and by not means do not do any sudden movements Mr. Bush does not like that at all.




[edit on 14-1-2005 by marg6043]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join