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.

 

US to close embassies over security fears

page: 4
20
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Seriously? You too?

Yes, let's leave them open, so that the hundreds of innocent people trying to get in to conduct whatever business they need to can be killed if there's an attack, just so we don't appear weak. By all means, let's add to the almost 300 people killed in attacks on embassies and consulates since 1998. All so "they don't win" or "we don't appear weak".


It's clear that this is an anomaly, something very unique, different and "very serious". I have not seen or heard such urgent concern being expressed about a "credible and "serious" terror threat since post 9/11/01.

Then after the Benghazi debacle (just as a reference point), obvious mistakes were made, intelligence was known and not acted upon. That information is all behind closed doors and via recent reports about the CIA's attention about insiders talking about it, I doubt we will ever learn the full truth of that horrible incident. And to this day, there has been NO response from the U.S. (militarily) on this matter.

Anyway, it sounds like a lot of energy, resources, etc. are focused on this potential threat. I for one am grateful and pleased that we have the Intelligence network that we do. It may not be perfect, nothing is, but I'm glad we have the skill, resources and technology available hopefully to prevent or minimize this potential "serious" threat!




posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ItDepends
 


I am of the better safe than sorry crowd, after all the times that they've not taken steps, and something has happened. I used to go to the Philippines, and there were a few hundred people lined up outside the embassy, every day. Some had been there camped out for days.

Someone in another thread said the embassies have the ability to protect themselves, so they should stay open. My reply to them fits here too. So did the Marines in Lebanon and look how many of them died in one attack.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ItDepends

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Seriously? You too?

Yes, let's leave them open, so that the hundreds of innocent people trying to get in to conduct whatever business they need to can be killed if there's an attack, just so we don't appear weak. By all means, let's add to the almost 300 people killed in attacks on embassies and consulates since 1998. All so "they don't win" or "we don't appear weak".


It's clear that this is an anomaly, something very unique, different and "very serious". I have not seen or heard such urgent concern being expressed about a "credible and "serious" terror threat since post 9/11/01.

Then after the Benghazi debacle (just as a reference point), obvious mistakes were made, intelligence was known and not acted upon. That information is all behind closed doors and via recent reports about the CIA's attention about insiders talking about it, I doubt we will ever learn the full truth of that horrible incident. And to this day, there has been NO response from the U.S. (militarily) on this matter.

Anyway, it sounds like a lot of energy, resources, etc. are focused on this potential threat. I for one am grateful and pleased that we have the Intelligence network that we do. It may not be perfect, nothing is, but I'm glad we have the skill, resources and technology available hopefully to prevent or minimize this potential "serious" threat!


This is what I quite frankly do not understand. Throughout the news articles especially the BBC article this is a "major threat" or "worldwide threat" the worldwide travel alert for the US doesn't expire until the 31st so why are they acting like the embassies are going to be closed for one day?!



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ValentineWiggin
 


& why give us an end date? Why the end of the month? The September 11th anniversary is right around the corner, might as well just extend it to then.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ValentineWiggin
 

I think the situation is very fluid. I don't think the embassy's and consolates will be closed for one day. It will be on a country by country basis.

As for as the UK, they have asked their citizens to leave many of the countries like Eygpt, Yemen and others....the potential targets are expanding....Even Jordan is a potential target because it has sympathized with the refugees of Syria.

So the timetable will fluctuate....but the immediate week ahead is something to keep an eye on beginning tomorrow. Then, depending on the 'chatter' and intelligence, timelines will be adjusted accordingly.

Unfortunately, this is the world we live in today. There are fanatics out their committing acts of terror against peaceful people in the name of their God, and these fanatics will not stop, they are broad, scattered across continents and only a fully concerted effort by the civilized countries of the world to extinquish this threat will bring some resemblance of peace. Probably Decades away now!!



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 06:40 PM
link   


& why give us an end date? Why the end of the month? The September 11th anniversary is right around the corner, might as well just extend it to then.
reply to post by concernedcitizen519
 


I kind of found that odd too! So at the end of the month we're in the clear? What prevents terrorists to attack us after the end of the month? Nothing like giving terrorists a heads up. They must have a crystal ball.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by ItDepends
 


I am of the better safe than sorry crowd, after all the times that they've not taken steps, and something has happened. I used to go to the Philippines, and there were a few hundred people lined up outside the embassy, every day. Some had been there camped out for days.

Someone in another thread said the embassies have the ability to protect themselves, so they should stay open. My reply to them fits here too. So did the Marines in Lebanon and look how many of them died in one attack.

Zaph, I agree with you. You and I have communicated before, And this situation is very fluid. There is a chance that nothing will happen at all in the next 10 days due to the ATTENTION it is being given. But always, better SAFE than sorry, I only wish that Benghazi was handled that way. We will never know the truth about that. But a major breakdown in chain of command, and the hesitancy of this administrations view to get into any new battles, even if it means lives......IMHO. Obviously, this current announcement is a direct result of that failure, and now All Hands ON Deck!! Something is going on, just what? Well our drone attacks in Yemen recently took out a key Al Qaeda member that had been released from Guantanomo to Saudi Arabia where he escaped, fled to Yemen, and we took him out. Time will tell. I think right now....we are right on the mark!!

edit on 2-8-2013 by ItDepends because: grammatical correction

edit on 2-8-2013 by ItDepends because: sentence structure



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ValentineWiggin
 

My feelings exactly if they plan some sort of attack are they going to say 'Sunday is the day, if we don't go on Sunday then the plan is off, we'll just take a Chill Pill!!! and be done'????

Maybe the bigger plan has to do with the price of oil, did the US not say they were not going to buy mid-east oil. How did the oil markets do today?

Gas Prices, Local: 2 Aug, 2013
Gas prices expected to rise 1 cent Aug. 3
Gas Prices
According to En-Pro, gas prices are expected to rise 1 cent Aug. 3, to an average price of 132.4 cents/litre at most GTA gas stations.

Please note: Gas prices have become very volatile because of a change in the way oil companies set their prices, thus making it more challenging to predict gasoline prices.

This is Canada eh, and of course this Alert has nothing to do with us. Sarcasm intended, as if we would never be a target but our government would never tell us.




National Post
OTTAWA — Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird encouraged Canadian travellers and diplomats in North Africa and the Middle East to exercise added caution Friday after the United States issued a major terrorism and travel alert for the region. “It’s not for me to discuss the nature of the elevated risk that causes them (the Americans) to take these decisions,” Baird said. “Having said that, when a close friend and ally has made this determination, obviously at a bare minimum it puts us at elevated risk, and we’re encouraging a higher degree of caution.” Baird said Canada has no plans — yet — to close its diplomatic missions on Sunday, a regular work day in the region, as the U.S. has done.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Well, if we wanted to not simply give the impression of being weak but remove all doubt to the world? This does that very effectively.

US Embassies have been under some level of threat since the 1960's when terrorism properly came into being with the '68 hijacking of an Airliner by the PLO. They were blown up entirely a couple times in the 80's and 90's. Yet Reagan, Bush and Clinton did not deem the display of outright FEAR to be a productive response to terrorist threat. Nor have many, IF ANY other major world powers outside of active or soon to be active war zones.

When we start shutting down full Embassies out of fear, like children hiding under the covers? We might as well close up shop around the world. Everyone now knows it's not a question of IF the US will turn tail and run. It's only a question of what circumstances need to be created so it's the EASIER option left open.

I swear...South America as a place to spend my final decade or two is starting to look better and better. The only thing worse for Americans than a rogue nation, running across the world shooting people is a WEAK one with as much to take and plunder as we have. ...Of course, no one cares right now. It's about politics. We're SO screwed.
edit on 1-8-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



Are you serious?? they took the strong approach in libyia and we are still talking about how bad that was handled.

they do the opposite now and people still talk crap...

you can't please people on the net.. damned if you do and damned if you don't



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by concernedcitizen519
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


Yes, the U.S. said yesterday that it would affect all embassies in the Middle East.


Small wonder
. Show the muslim we are weak by not defending our outpost, then show them we are even weaker and afraid by closing our M.E. embassies. I imagine Obama must be prostrating with his head shoved right up his Allah's ass.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by whatnext21
 


Wow, I am just amazed at the soft approach of your Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird, although he does suggest a higher degree of caution....thank goodness.

Your points on the oil and the prices....all very valid...anytime an incident occurs in the Middle East throws a blimp into the fear of oil being with held. So, that is a consideration for sure.

Although, I just sense this is something a little different and perhaps has some validity to it. I guess in the end we plain 'ol folks will never really know the truth. But I do hope for the safety and well being of all people in that area of the world. Just a shame to be under constant threat. Peace!!



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Seriously? You too?

Yes, let's leave them open, so that the hundreds of innocent people trying to get in to conduct whatever business they need to can be killed if there's an attack, just so we don't appear weak. By all means, let's add to the almost 300 people killed in attacks on embassies and consulates since 1998. All so "they don't win" or "we don't appear weak".


Now we do agree on most things, not on this? Weakness isn't something to show lightly. Weakness invites strength to fill the vacumm left and strength rarely waits long to storm in and make itself right at home. This shows profound weakness from a mindset of paranoia and extreme reactionary decision making.

Lebanon in the 1980's saw the Embassy there not simply threatened, but blown up. TWICE. Did we run? Nope... The New Jersey, in part, sent our reply to those who would attack our diplomats ..and how many years was it before anyone else tried destroying a U.S. Diplomatic facility overseas?

Tanzania and Kenya in 1998. They weren't threatened. They were quite literally obliterated as any functional building or facility. Did Bill Clinton show a yellow streak and start back peddling from Africa? Nope. I don't think his response was terribly effective, but he HAD a response and one befitting a major world power under attack. It wasn't to "play it safe" or to put it another way, tell the enemy exactly what level they needed to reach to cause us to act how they want.

Now with this? The enemy both now and in the future know that mere threats ...So VAGUE in fact, a region of the world cannot even be determined to announce, is enough to get the whole US State Department in a tizzy and just about messing their slacks in fear. That's outright pathetic.

I can see dismissing local workers in specific locations...but just wait a stinkin' minute here. The U.S. put BILLIONS of dollars into reinforcement and enhancement of defenses and structures at every State Department facility requiring it, world wide after 9/11. (Some got that after the Africa bombings) If that was NOT done so we didn't have to close up shop like we were running from our own shadow, then I want a refund! That was enormous outlay of resources and money ...for what? What? Nothing whatsoever to go by this. Not one thing was gained by it all.

edit on 2-8-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by votan
 


Are you serious?? they took the strong approach in libyia and we are still talking about how bad that was handled.

they do the opposite now and people still talk crap...

you can't please people on the net.. damned if you do and damned if you don't


Strong approach in Libya? HUH?! We must have read entirely different sets of documents on the operations of the Benghazi Dipo compound before it was over-run and destroyed. We showed the same weakness there...and MORE of it, than now and weakness DID attract strength in that case. A fatal example of that rule playing out.

I have no idea where your info comes from to suggest anything but pure weakness was shown in Libya but I'll admit, these documents are getting harder and harder to locate through a search engine. (I tried before going to my favorites indexes).

Official Documents, Cables, Message Traffic and Security Reports for Benghazi, Libya

^^^ That package consists of over 100 pages of original documents, not media spun reports of them, to show precisely what did and DID NOT happen in the many months leading up to the murder of our Ambassador. Within those pages you will find the security reports of a steadily failing situation in Benghazi. You'll find the detailed reports of the attack on the Compound which blew out the side wall...Long before the fatal night we all hear about. You'll even read, in detail, how the "private security" could write all that information about the attack. They STOOD there and WATCHED the guy walk up, plant the bomb, get into his truck and drive off.

Oh... Wonderful Security we had....and THESE are who you will read in those papers U.S. Marines were denied to replace. Benghazi was told the local Militia contracted to secure the facility would be plenty. :shk: .....One of the dead that night texted before he died that he recognized one of THOSE security men as being among the people overrunning the compound.

It took me the better part of a day to get through all of the pages and read it well enough to recall details as needed, but it blows the crap out of what the Media spins it to be and contradicts, outright, what some of the Administration claims have been about what happened, NOT just that night, but the whole period leading up to it.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
The enemy both now and in the future know that mere threats ...So VAGUE in fact, a region of the world cannot even be determined to announce, is enough to get the whole US State Department in a tizzy and just about messing their slacks in fear. That's outright pathetic.


So you'd have them give up sources too? There is a reason the threat hasn't been announced, which is a good idea, if they want to use that source in the future.

US Embassies have been closed in the past due to threats, and they'll be closed in the future. It doesn't matter who is in office, they've been closed if a specific credible threat is made.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 

I'd have them be SUBTLE... A word this President and his people seem to have just erased out of their word processors entirely. It must be in the White House system's profanity filter, for how it seems a totally foreign concept.

Yes, we've had short term Embassy closures in the past. Somewhat similar. Have they been vague across at least two continents and 3 independent regions of the PLANET? No... I can't ever recall the US State Department gazing at it's world maps and considering whole swaths of the world, too dangerous to stay open for. Even for a "set" period. Which isn't set at all, of course. It'll be 'reevaluated'.

I'm cynical and absolutely have NO trust, whatsoever, for this Administration. Things like Libya have shown that even the most basic assumptions and predictable action of our nation? Aren't anything like that anymore. So who knows what this is really about, if it isn't actually what they say, which it COULD be?

The little boy calling wolf has become a near weekly occurrence though... I really don't believe a thing about their wild, paranoid declarations anymore. Perhaps if they'd make the cries for being under attack and siege about half as much as they've come to seem enjoying the impact it has on the public?? I'd believe them...perhaps. Now though?

Well, Zaphod, they could tell me the Ocean was wet. I'd jump in before feeling I could be certain of that fact. The sky is blue? It isn't until I see out a window to confirm that, if it came from these people in a statement. It's gotten that bad in my personal view.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

Now with this? The enemy both now and in the future know that mere threats ...So VAGUE in fact, a region of the world cannot even be determined to announce, is enough to get the whole US State Department in a tizzy and just about messing their slacks in fear. That's outright pathetic.


Like many, I have been watching this story since it broke into the public domain. "There is a significant threat in the Middle East and Africa" is what the U.S. State Department has made known to the public. Additionally, Gen. Martin Dempsey; Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff has stated: "..that yes, it is an Al Qaeda and affiliates threat"., He further stated in the interview with ABC News correspondent, Martha Raddatz that the 'intent is clear' to attack "Western" not just American locations in the region.

Further reports and comments state:

Specific threats to Western targets in Muslim countries have prompted the closure of a number of U.S. embassies and consulates after a terroristic threat made by an al Qaeda branch was deemed active and credible, U.S. officials said. The threat, made by al Qaeda fighters in the Arab Peninsula, has forced 21 embassies spanning 5,000 miles from Algeria to Bangladesh, to close their doors on Sunday. Officials intercepted electronic communications this week between senior al Qaeda leaders in which they discussed attacks in the Middle East and Northern Africa, according to a senior U.S. official in the region.

Source

"It is more specific and we are taking it seriously, which I think you'd expect us to do," " "There is a significant threat stream and we're reacting to it."


So, I would describe your description that this is "VAGUE" is unsupported by what we already know that has been shared. Let's face it, the U.S. is not going to specifically say 'everything' it knows. Doing so would reveal, sources, methods, covert operations and other Intelligence methods.

This is a THREAT!! Unequivocal!! By declaring that we know this, and have expressed warnings at the 21 locations which have been discussed along with the announced travel warnings is a sign of WEAKNESS???

Unbelievable!!! There is no question that we have 'actionable' intelligence and we are not broadcasting it for the reasons articulated above, we are not going to reveal our capabilities, but we will announce and try to protect innocent people from this potential threat. Which by the way, may already have been deterred, deferred or hopefully in the process of being terminated. As we speak, UK, Germany, France, Canada, to name just a few have followed the U.S. lead and have issued similar warnings about travel and closing sites in an effort to protect their citizens and any residual innocent people near the designated areas.

I agree, Benghazi was a botched operation right through the full chain-of-command. So, hopefully this is an indication that we have learned a valuable lesson on that mistake. Bottom line, IT'S ALWAYS BETTER TO BE SAFE, THAN SORRY!! And with that said, we all know there are no guarantees. All It takes is one fanatic with bombs strapped all over his body to walk in the Sheraton Hotel in Yemin, where Westerners stay and blow himself, the building and everyone in the vacinity up. If that should happen, I hope you wouldn't be one that would gloat over this, it would be a travesty and amplifies the sickness that we are dealing with. Fanatical Islamic Militant unemployed punk thugs who are using misinterpreted visions of the Quran to pick up guns, knives and bombs in the name of Allah and kill the Infidels (anyone who doesn't believe in their twisted beliefs).



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I'm cynical and absolutely have NO trust, whatsoever, for this Administration................. I really don't believe a thing about their wild, paranoid declarations anymore.


Ok fair enough. You just don't believe or have trust and are cynical. That's absolutely your right to have those feelings and you have your own reasons for believing them. Fine!

But for many of us, we are just fine with this type of notification if it has to be made. We live in a world that has terrorists plotting everyday, someway to destroy, kill, maim and disrupt the everyday lives of innocent people.

So in my opinion, we should stop at nothing, use every asset, every weapon that is necessary to stop and terminate the threat, wherever and whoever!!!!



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ItDepends
 



This is a THREAT!! Unequivocal!! By declaring that we know this, and have expressed warnings at the 21 locations which have been discussed along with the announced travel warnings is a sign of WEAKNESS???


Okay, step back for just a second here and consider this in a larger context. The rest of the world sure sees it that way. It wasn't a year ago that this Government was all but proudly declaring Al Qaeda was siginificantly reduced as any threat, the wars were not the biggest focus any longer and even Afghanistan was just a loose end to tie off and get out of. Indeed... You'd have thought the world was a safer place.

Now.... We're painting these people as being capable of launching major attacks to the level of actually shutting down full service Embassies in so many locations across the globe in what would sound to be coordinated action to read the threat reports.

Hey, these same folks told us the protests during and after Benghazi were purely spontaneous across the region too. Coordination wasn't possible across the whole region, at the same time and for single purpose like that. Err...but now they can launch a multi-national, multi region offensive on a dime and have us scared enough to declare the fact, world wide?

Yeah.... and people wonder WHY I don't believe a thing they say. Which is it? Al Qaeda is on it's way out and taking a pasting with these endless drone strikes across several nations...or they are MORE powerful now than they've EVER been before to do THIS scale of offensive? It's one or the other and Politicians need to pick it. Their credibility is about that of what my dog leaves in the grass until they stop trying to play both sides as convenient.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
It wasn't a year ago that this Government was all but proudly declaring Al Qaeda was siginificantly reduced as any threat, ...... You'd have thought the world was a safer place.

Now.... We're painting these people as being capable of launching major attacks to the level of actually shutting down full service Embassies in so many locations across the globe in what would sound to be coordinated action to read the threat reports.

Hey, these same folks told us the protests during and after Benghazi were purely spontaneous across the region too. Coordination wasn't possible across the whole region, at the same time and for single purpose like that. Err...but now they can launch a multi-national, multi region offensive on a dime and have us scared enough to declare the fact, world wide?

Yeah.... and people wonder WHY I don't believe a thing they say. Which is it? Al Qaeda is on it's way out and taking a pasting with these endless drone strikes across several nations...or they are MORE powerful now than they've EVER been before to do THIS scale of offensive?


I do see your point, and as I indicated in my previous response, I recognize you have reasons for feeling the way you do.

Now, In your latest response above, which I parsed just a bit, spells out a story that I agree with almost 100%.


I do not disagree one bit, that the current Administration, in the time/year(s) leading up to this last election in November painted a picture indicating that the world was much safer, that Al Qaeda was severely neutralized and gave the impression that our war on terror had made substantial progress. That's how I understood by the words and actions leading all the way up to the election.

You are correct, and I agree again, THAT ALL CHANGED on September 11, 2012. Even now we don't have the full set of facts surrounding that failure. But it is sure damn evident that months leading up to that event, information, intelligence, and requests were made to review and provide additional security and protection for our Embassy in Benghazi. No question, major failure, break down in chain-of-command and agreed an unprepared "Rapid Response Force" to respond in some manner to prevent or reduce the loss of life at the Embassy.

So I could see where you (don't want to put words in your mouth) would be skeptical, disappointed, cynical and full of disbelief on anything this Administration may be stating. So, as I said, I get all of that, and I don't disagree with most of your facts.

NOW, that brings us 11 months down the road to where we are right now. I do have some knowledge in this area and I believe without a DOUBT that there has been a complete review, revision and new measures put into place to prevent if at all possible or respond differently after the lessons learned in Benghazi. Today, they have already reported a substantial buildup in three key geographical areas surrounding North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula Area.with regards to Rapid Response Forces.

Based upon what we have been told:

Officials intercepted electronic communications this week between senior al Qaeda leaders in which they discussed attacks in the Middle East and Northern Africa, according to a senior U.S. official in the region. "It is more specific and we are taking it seriously, which I think you'd expect us to do," Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsy told ABC News during the interview for "This Week." "There is a significant threat stream and we're reacting to it."


So, understanding this along with understanding our previous failure (obviously the Administration will never admit to this) it is not unreasonable, but rather extremely prudent to be announcing as much as they can regarding this threat and the additional precautions centered around overseas travel.

Lastly, and this is where we differ slightly, but not so much. Our war on Terror. I believe we have made progress and that Al Qaeda has been diminished greatly. However, what we are seeing is that within the Muslim world, it is full of Fanatical, Militant, Islamic Terrorists that have nothing in there lives to live for except their distorted visions of the Quran. And due to their uneducated, unemployed, selfless lives they can only be saved by a misconceived notion of killing the Infidels (that's you and me and everyone else who do not believe in their fictitious notion of Allah) and are willing to continue this terrorism throughout all parts of the Middle East, Africa and parts of Asia.

However, as I indicated, in my previous post, there are no guarantees. All it takes is a bomb laden terrorist to create death and destruction. Therefore, we are told that we HAVE actionable intelligence..I think we are being prudent with the information and warnings we are releasing, and more and more Allies are also doing the same thing...so it is Worldwide. Just my feelings and how I see it!! We shall see..or maybe not!!
edit on 3-8-2013 by ItDepends because: grammatical correction



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


It doesn't have to be major though. A pair of truck bombs at two embassies, and wham there you go.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join