Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Exclusive: America 'was warned of embassy attack but did nothing'

page: 7
39
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 02:44 AM
link   
For some reason it appears we are unable to act on warnings. We were warned of Pearl Harbor, we did nothing to rally public support to join WWII. We were warned of 9/11, we did nothing to rally public support to go kill 1 million Muslims. Now reports are coming out that we were warned of the embassy attacks, perhaps we did nothing to rally public support to go kill another 1 million Muslims.




posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by WhatTheory
Could these warnings be the reason why Canada pulled their diplomats out a week ago?
Perhaps the Canadian leadership is a little smarter.

I'd guess the answer to both those questions is .... YES.
A country like Canada or the USA doesn't just pull their diplomats out for no reason.
It had to be something big. And it does indeed look like they handled the intel info better.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by WhatTheory
Well, this is just typical of the Obama administration.


And just what was iconic of the Bush II administration? Oh yeah, the 9/11 attacks, which were incompetently defended against, and the warnings for which were ignored by the Bush regime.

Whereas this administration may have had a 48-hour warning, the Bush one had a three or four month warning, and let some of the flagged hijackers pass through security check points.

The news story attributes the information to senior diplomatic sources. From what country?

Never mind that this just happened and the facts of the matter are still coming in. Just curious, were you criticizing Bush II on Sept 13, 2001, let alone at all for failing to stop those attacks?

FTR, I am no big booster of Obama, but can't tolerate the double standards of people who will blame him for just about everything under the sun, but ignore the failings of their beloved leaders.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 04:54 AM
link   
reply to post by WhatTheory
 


It's not proven that such source exists or that this is true.
Some people said the same thing about 911, that we knew beforehand what was going to happen but did nothing.

The US gov is intelligent but they are not clairvoyant. Neither are you and I.
For example, I could know this guy, who seems like he could harm someone in the future, but given what I know I could not conclude at what place and what time this hypothetical guy might commit a violent act ie: walking down the street passing him by on a Wednesday next to the gas station at noon.

We know that most middle eastern radicals have hostile feelings towards the us. Wait, let me rephrase that. Most of the middle eastern radicals HATE the United States of America - WITH A PASSION But we can't always know exactly when and where an attack will ensue.

It's all hearsay.
edit on 14-9-2012 by unb3k44n7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jeremiah65

I have stated my position many-many times...and just for your edification...I will reveal it again.

I will not vote for Obama...never been a democrat and never will be. I will not vote for Romney...I used to be a Republican years ago and they lost me. I am a Libertarian..I will vote for what is right...



Uh, don't believe "what is right" is on the ballot. So who are you going to vote for, again? I commend you for giving up on the Republicans and I could not, in good conscience, ask you to vote for the "Democrat". So who are you voting for in the presidential election? ZZ Top?



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 05:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by WhatTheory
Here is some more evidence:

Report: Egyptian Intelligence Warned of Embassy Attacks as Early as Sept 4

Could these warnings be the reason why Canada pulled their diplomats out a week ago?

Perhaps the Canadian leadership is a little smarter.


An Israeli source told an Israeli newspaper this, and then Breitbart.com posted it, so CLEARLY it is the truth. *NOT*

Did you notice that in the original article it said there would be an attack against the Israeli embassy in Cairo, too? Did that happen?

And please provide a source for your claim that Canada pulled its embassy staff from Egypt. The only place I know they were pulled from was Iran.
edit on 14-9-2012 by MrInquisitive because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 05:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by reficul
typical obama!?
wasn't bush told about possible terrorist activity before 0/11???!!!
seems like typical govt.! (especialy american!)
rep. + dem. are all the same. when will you people wake up!


Can't argue with you there. But all the Republians, conservatives and Teabaggers can do is hate on Obama, as they got nothing better to offer, and, in fact, what they got to offer is far freakin' worse.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
reply to post by WhatTheory
 


Well.. yeah? I mean.. what proof is there that this was a planned and executed attack?

If this was a planned and executed attack, for what means?

To me this is just political backdoor stabbing..

No matter how incompitent some people WANT Obama to be, if you had 48hrs notice your embassy was going to be attacked and over-run you'd atleast have your men armed and prepared.

People are really looking to hard for every and any excuse to blame Obama.

edit on 13-9-2012 by Agit8dChop because: (no reason given)


First, it's spelled "incompetent" and second, the US embassy was not attacked; it was the US consulate. Consulates aren't as secure as embassy. Third, it seems the same people who are criticizing Obama for not having micromanaged the security of each and every one of the US embassies and consulate are the same troglodytes who like to say Obama didn't get Bin Laden, Seal Team 6 did. Fourth, it might be that the State Department should have been more on top of things, but that is Billary's job. Fifth, both Billary and Obama have probably been a little busy with the current presidential campaign and all; the same can't be said for George W. Bush in the months leading up to the 9/11 attacks, when he was given many warnings of an imminent Al Queda attack on US soil. Sixth, do we know for a fact the US government had 48 hourse notice? You're relying on on newspaper report using anonymous sources for this supposed fact.

And let's say there was 48 hours notice; this happened on a Tuesday, which means the warning may have come in on Sunday, which isn't a working day for everyone, so it might be hard to just up and jump to such a short-term warning, which wasn't necessarily verified. There are likely other security warnings for various US establishments. Should major defensive actions be taken for each one?

Furthermore, it sounds like this attack ws preplanned and that there may have been an intel leak. What a surprise in an unstable country like Libya, which is still getting over a recent civil war. We've had embassies attacked in the past. I remember the one in Pakistan being bombed during Reagan's presidency, but I don't recall him being criticized for not having stopped it. Also speaking of the Gipper, a whole lot of US marines (over 300, I believe) were killed by a truck bomber in Lebanon, where the Gipper had sent the marines. Yet I didn't hear a word of criticism of Reagan by Republicans or conservatives.

There's a continuing double standard. Just think if Democrats started criticizing Bush on Sept. 11, 2001: how would that be taken? I don't think to well. But here we have Romney already trying to make hay of the situations within 17 hours of the attack. And we have all the conservative knuckle draggers here at ATS trying to throw all the blame at the president. I thought during attacks on our nation, we are supposed to rally around the flag and support our president. Seems the Obama criticizers here are being very unpatriotic as well as hypocritical because of their double standards they apply to him but not to very recent Republican presidents and their obvious incompetence.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by frazzle
I know its pretty hard to keep all our enemies straight, there's so many of them alla time. Don't you ever wonder why we have so much trouble getting along with people?


Huh?
Don't know what point you are trying to make. This topic is not about Iran specifically.


Because in your post that he quoted or referenced, you made a statement to the effect that, may be this is why the Canadians pulled their people out of their embassy. This was the Iranian embassy, very far away from Egypt and Libya, and where Sufi terrorists are not. From the context of your post, it would seem you thought the Canadians pulled their people from embassies where these attacks took place. Thus your comment concerning Canada appears very ignorant, and that was the point frazzle was making. Whether or not you know it, your brought Iran into the discussion.

My question to you is: did you even know from which embassy Canada was pulling Its staff, or were you just talking out of your hat?



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by sad_eyed_lady
Another source:
Egypt intelligence warns of attacks on Israel, US embassies
www.jpost.com...


That is the original source, which Breitbart.com and the Independent. They are not independent confirmations of the same information.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 05:56 AM
link   
This is from a civilian source dated 08/27/2012
If they figured it and an and I can look it up why can't the people in Washington do it?
Looks like things having be building for a few weeks.

Date: 08/27/2012
www.ihs.com...

Libya's Interior Minister Resigns over Sufi Shrine Desecration
"The official state news agency LANA reported that Abdel-Al submitted his resignation to interim Prime Minister Abdurrahim el-Keib after members of the newly elected General National Congress accused his ministry of failing to do enough to stop attackers who bulldozed a Sufi shrine and mosque in broad daylight. The attackers, who were identified by local press as Salafists—who adhere to a particularly conservative brand of Sunni Islam—bulldozed part of the mausoleum of al-Shaab al-Dahman in Tripoli a day after a similar attack on the tomb of Abdel Salam al-Asmar—a 15th century Muslim scholar—in the town of Zlitan. Unconfirmed reports suggest that another mausoleum—that of Sheikh Ahmed al-Zarruq—was also destroyed in the western city of Misratah. All three sites are sacred to Sufi Muslims, who adhere to a form of Islam that emphasises mystical traits deemed heretical by hard-line Salafists. Attacks on Sufi shrines have increased in frequency since the ouster of former Libyan leader Colonel Muammar el-Qadhafi in August 2011, in the context of increased insecurity and a resurgence of radical Islamist elements across the country, particularly in the east.

Outlook and Implications
The attacks on the Sufi shrines highlight two negative trends in Libya. First, the increasing power and scope of resurgent armed Salafist groups, which have been blamed for a number of attacks against Sufi sites in recent months, as well as implicated in a number of bombings and other attacks against foreign interests. This ties into a broader trend of radical Islamism that the authorities have struggled to control, highlighted by the increasing activities of suspected jihadi groups, particularly in and around the eastern city of Benghazi. Secondly, the attacks highlight the continued deficit of central government authority in the country, even in the capital Tripoli, as a result of the protracted integration of revolutionaries into the security forces, and the continued integral role of the SSC in directing and overseeing said security forces. While the response of Magariaf and the new congress is a positive reflection of the ideals shared by the majority of Libyans, the disconnect between these ideals and the machinery of state still controlled by opaque and partisan interests represents a continued source of instability."



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 06:14 AM
link   
Is it realistic to immediately blame the currently elected politician for every single problem. It's not as though Obama is the sole control master for the U.S., sitting alone in his spiffy world domination chair, pressing buttons and drinking tea. Doesn't he spend time meeting with members of his administration, advisors, consultants, heads of departments, etc., regarding various matters? Not to mention those behind the curtains, pulling the metaphorical strings, as it were.

How does anybody know if things are as they appear? How do we know he isn't only a puppet for the PTB? A mouthpiece to walk, talk, curtsy, and take the blame. I'm not from the U.S., and I don't follow american politics as much as I probably should, so, forgive any ignorance.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrInquisitive

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by frazzle
I know its pretty hard to keep all our enemies straight, there's so many of them alla time. Don't you ever wonder why we have so much trouble getting along with people?


Huh?
Don't know what point you are trying to make. This topic is not about Iran specifically.


Because in your post that he quoted or referenced, you made a statement to the effect that, may be this is why the Canadians pulled their people out of their embassy. This was the Iranian embassy, very far away from Egypt and Libya, and where Sufi terrorists are not. From the context of your post, it would seem you thought the Canadians pulled their people from embassies where these attacks took place. Thus your comment concerning Canada appears very ignorant, and that was the point frazzle was making. Whether or not you know it, your brought Iran into the discussion.

My question to you is: did you even know from which embassy Canada was pulling Its staff, or were you just talking out of your hat?



Not sure where you got Sufi Terrorists. But you may want to read up on the various middle east factions.
from what I'm seeing the Sufi are not always peaceful but in this case they seem to be the victims of the
Salafi Islamists. At the moment there is no evidence for the Salafi group doing the attacks on the consulate but at the same time I would start looking in that direction.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 06:22 AM
link   
guess it was under our noses the whole time, just no one noticed
But who listens to the BBC anyway?

www.bbc.co.uk...

Libya interior minister quits after Sufi shrine attacks
"Libya's interior minister has quit in the wake of a series of attacks on Sufi Muslim shrines and other violence that has rocked the country.
Fawzi Abdelali resigned in protest at criticism from Congress over his handling of the violence, an aide said.
The latest incidents include attacks on two Sufi shrines that were blamed on ultra-conservative Salafi Islamists.
Attacks on shrines of sects have risen since the end of the eight-month civil war that toppled Col Muammar Gaddafi.
There has also been a recent double car bombing in Tripoli and clashes between rival tribes in Zlitan.
Bulldozers
Fawzi Abdelali's aide said: "He submitted his resignation to protest against congressmen criticising the government and to defend the revolutionaries."
The newly elected General National Congress had accused the interior ministry's High Security Committee of failing to prevent the destruction of shrines.
The committee includes rebels who fought Gaddafi's forces last year and were then integrated into the interior ministry.
On Saturday, a shrine in Tripoli venerating Sufi Muslim saint al-Shaab al-Dahmani was partly destroyed by men with bulldozers.
A day earlier, a group attacked the tomb of 15th-Century Sufi scholar Abdel Salam al-Asmar in Zlitan, about 160km (100 miles) south-east of Tripoli.
Hardline Salafists regard the shrines of the Sufi sect - which practises a mystical form of Islam - as idolatrous.
The destruction in Zlitan followed two days of clashes between rival local tribes there which left at least three people dead.
A week ago in Tripoli, two people were killed by a double car bombing as people celebrated the Muslim feast of Eid al-Fitr."



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by roblot
Is it realistic to immediately blame the currently elected politician for every single problem. It's not as though Obama is the sole control master for the U.S., sitting alone in his spiffy world domination chair, pressing buttons and drinking tea. Doesn't he spend time meeting with members of his administration, advisors, consultants, heads of departments, etc., regarding various matters? Not to mention those behind the curtains, pulling the metaphorical strings, as it were.


Meeting with members and administration? He has to get off of the campaign trail in order to do that.

It's pretty sad when an article gets written on September 10th stating that Obama attends Presidential Daily Briefings on such matters less than half of the time.

How does the Obama administration respond?


MR. CARNEY: He gets it every day, okay? The President of the United States gets the presidential daily briefing every day. There is a document that he reads every day when he is not - well, he always reads it every day because he’s a voracious consumer of all of his briefing materials. And when he is physically here, most days he has a meeting in his office, the Oval one - (laughter) - with participants in - his national security team, including obviously Tom Donilon and others. He also has regular meetings with –


Notice how he starts to say "when he is not here", and tries to reword it?

Then we have, "and when he IS physically here, MOST days he has a meeting".

But here's the kicker. Here's Jay Carney's final response as to whether or not the original article about this matter was misleading...


Question: Do you believe this report was misleading?

MR. CARNEY: I believe the article written about it was amusing.


Obama has been campaigning for half of his Presidency and doesn't take the time to acknowledge such things.

security.blogs.cnn.com...

I think the most we can hope for is that some campaign flunky or assistant is reading his briefings for him and giving him the "highlights" from it while he's going over his next campaign speech in his head.



edit on 14-9-2012 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by WhatTheory
Well, this is just typical of the Obama administration.

Exclusive: America 'was warned of embassy attack but did nothing'




According to senior diplomatic sources, the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and "lockdown", under which movement is severely restricted.


I don't understand. If you had credible information why not warn the diplomats and lockdown the embassy.
It makes no sense unless to further solidify that Obama is clueless and has no understanding of reality. Perhaps Obama is just inept or deep down he agrees with & has sympathy for the criminals.

EDIT:
Here is some more evidence:

Report: Egyptian Intelligence Warned of Embassy Attacks as Early as Sept 4

Could these warnings be the reason why Canada pulled their diplomats out a week ago?

Perhaps the Canadian leadership is a little smarter.
edit on 9/13/2012 by WhatTheory because: (no reason given)


I don't think that's cluelessness. It reminds me of FDR having foreknowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack and not saying anything... or of US intelligence warning that terrorists were about to attack on 9/11, and the government not doing anything. Coincidence? Hmmmm...



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by Jeremiah65
Changing our tune a little now that it is starting to sink in? "IF this article is true"...yeah...back peddling might be wise.

You had better stop deluding yourself or you might hurt your brain.

The only way to have a conversation with you obama juggernauts is to give you a sense that perhaps obama did nothing wrong. Otherwise, instead of having a conversation about the topic at hand, all you get is deny this, deny that and your type of posts.


Argumentum ad Hominem....again.

I will say again...I am not an Obama Juggernaut....You want to continue to listen to the MSM when it suits you and call it a lie and propaganda machine when you don't like what they have to say...you sir...are a hypocrite of the highest order...now good day to you.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by WhatTheory
 

Possible, If he actually attended the security briefings he has missed for the last few weeks. This is not an Obama bash... it is actual fact or do facts count?



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by anon72
Yet another disgraceful act of an incompetent POTUS and Administration.

I feel Hilary is more at fault but that's just me.

Besides, Obama won't get a lick of blame in any way shape or form anyway.

Dark Clouds are over America now-a-days, again.

Edit to add... Of course Obama didn't do anything. He hasn't done squat since he has been in office.

Now, if the MUSLIM EXTREMIST ISLAMIC TERRORIST attack a golf course around D.C. They better be ready to take on Obama. Can't mess with his tee times, now can they>
edit on 9/13/2012 by anon72 because: (no reason given)


Obama IS getting blamed for this foreign policy disaster.

Drudge is showing a poll:

Romney 48%

Obama 45%

They can call off the presidential debates.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Domo1
Am I to believe that Obama is directly in control of all the embassies around the world? That seems... far fetched. Look, I'm no fan but I don't think we can blame the man for something that was probably completely out of his control.


But yet you blame BUSH for personal knowledge of WMD's in Iraq.





new topics




 
39
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join