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.

 

Home of the brave no more; unspecified Threat closes US embassies in Muslim world for day

page: 2
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 
The US gets word of threats from Muslim extremists on a daily basis. If they're going to start shutting down embassies (even partially) every time there is a threat from now on they may as well just close them all down permanently! This sort of reaction is what the extremists want to achieve- it bolsters their group's confidence to go on to bigger activities. What the US should be doing is adding extra security and doing tighter surveillance and show that they wont be bullied.




posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by littled16
 


There are different degrees of threat. Some guy calling in and saying "I'm going to blow up your embassy" is completely different from intel sources intercepting chatter that there's going to be an attack. This threat was considered credible enough to take action.

If they hadn't, people would be bitching that they did nothing.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 
I understand that, but we have the means to protect our embassies and our government chooses gifting large amounts of money to countries that hate us rather than using it for protecting our own people in the Middle East. If you show any perceived weakness to these extremists they run with it! They will perceive this as a major weakness I assure you.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by littled16
 


Maybe that is the plan to appear weak to our enemies. No better position to be in. Bait some sort of an attack , then that will make all Americans Unite , then they will have their reason to over throw Asaad.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Isn't today supposed to be international AL-Quds day? (My spelling may be off.)

Some sort of religious commemoration / celebration for Islam....

Just goes to show how the people in charge would like to equate anything Islam into fear.

M.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by littled16
 


Tell that to the Marines in Lebanon. They had plenty of ability to defend themselves, and were still massacred.

Have you seen how many people line up at an Embassy on any given day? I've been to the Embassy in Manila, when there were people that had been in line for days waiting to get in. Why risk them as casualties? Why take a chance that while you're focusing on one threat, another comes in from a different direction?

Why take the chance at all.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 
Maybe we should close all of our embassies permanently then...just in case? It wouldn't hurt my feelings any- we could use the money for something else. As far as the Marines in Lebannon go- you know the risks when you join the armed forces. If you aren't on board with the possibility of death and still join you are disillusioning yourself.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by littled16
 


So, to make you and others happy, we should put hundreds of innocent people waiting to get into the embassy on routine business, at risk of being slaughtered by a car bomb, or whatever the threat is. Just so we can appear to be brave, and "show the bad guys they can't win". Because that's worked so well in the past right?



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 
Just how often have civilians been killed during routine visits to US embassies in the Middle East? You make it sound like it's a common occurrence when it is very rare. And honestly I could care less if they shut them ALL down permanently, but unless you want to start getting attacked on an increasingly frequent basis showing strength is a necessity. Give ME extremists an inch and they will take a mile. Would you rather they gain confidence by what they consider a sign of weakness and start attacking our embassies on a regular basis?



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by littled16
 


They don't need to make attacks on a regular basis to shut down our embassies. They just need to increase their chatter and give the US the IMPRESSION that they are about to make an attack and watch for the US to blink again.

That's the problem with policies like this; we jump at shadows and they throw more shadows against us. It comes to a point where they no longer have to risk their people's lives with real attacks against us because we have become so conditioned to flinch every time they threaten something.

America is the Pavlov's dog of the world. We're becoming WAY too predictable.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by littled16
 


Look at the previous attacks that have occurred at US Embassies in the Middle East or Africa. In many if not all of them, there were civilians standing in line to get into the building for whatever reason, and a lot of them were killed or injured. So you say we shouldn't show weakness and close them, so you don't care if an attack happens and innocents die or are injured.

en.wikipedia.org...

From 1998 to 2013, 297 people have died in attacks on or near US facilities. But by all means, let's show them how strong we are, and leave it open and add to that total.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


And then comes the time that they DON'T despite the chatter, and a truck bomb drives through the gates, and detonates. But yes, you guys are right. Let's show them all how brave we are. Who cares how many die, as long as we give the impression that we're strong, and brave, and the US of A. That's all that matters!



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
I just want to add (on a more serious note) that as far as social engineering goes, they (government) is doing a great job at instilling unecessary fear.

It's our chief import and export.
edit on 2-8-2013 by beezzer because: (no reason given)


Can this be a way to get approval for more internet snooping that US right now is taking some heat for from their Allies around the world?



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Now us 'pussies' in the UK are joining in.

www.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 04:15 PM
link   
How no one suppose that US will start war against some muslim state? If they are on way to start war against Iran, Syria or Egypt they will close embassies. And in addition on 6.08 is 68 years from bombing of Hiroshima, but i can not understand why will this be connected with AQ..



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by petar258
And in addition on 6.08 is 68 years from bombing of Hiroshima


And? Let me guess, the 68th anniversary of Hiroshima is some magic number that means the US is going to start another war.



posted on Aug, 4 2013 @ 10:52 AM
link   
This really has me thinking this is a fake attack on the part of the "terrorists" to see if the US will blink.


The official described the terrorists as saying the planned attack is "going to be big" and "strategically significant."

"The part that is alarming is the confidence they showed while communicating and the air of certainty," the official said, adding that the group - Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula - appeared to have a media plan for after the attack.

The official also said authorities were stunned that the group broke "operational security" - meaning they talked likely knowing it would be picked up by intercepts.

US Official: Al-Qaeda Messages Indicate Planned Attack 'Big'

They've figured out how to put out fake chatter to get the US to show how cowardly we really are. No way are they going to break "operational security" right on the eve of such a major attack.




edit on 8/4/13 by FortAnthem because:



posted on Aug, 4 2013 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


That makes sense.

It could be a set up.

Just like somebody creating a false police call to the north side of town and then robbing the bank in the south side.

Or it could be a ruse.

How do WE know for sure that the 'chatter' wasn't broadcasted by CIA operatives ?

How do WE know for sure if any 'chatter' even happened in the first place.

It seems every time we actually get an attack, there's never any 'warnings'.



posted on Aug, 4 2013 @ 12:16 PM
link   

"We do not know whether they mean an embassy, an airbase, an aircraft, trains," the official said.

Today on "This Week," Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, D-MD - the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee - said the intercepted communications called for a "major attack."

"We received information that high level people from al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula are talking about a major attack," Ruppersberger said. "And these are people at a high level."


Emphasis on the TRAIN


And also, "people at high level' Remember the boston bombing with that high Arabian dude?



posted on Aug, 4 2013 @ 12:29 PM
link   
It's a good idea to close the embassies if there is a legitimate threat,

It would also be a good idea not to go so public with that intel so as to still have some sort of element of surprise against them.

Where is their intel coming from and just how far does it go?
If they knew something credible why not just drone strike them like they have with any other terrorist that came along to pose a threat?

Is it because of the host nations of these terrorists whom the US knows a drone strike or tactical insertion is off bounds?




top topics



 
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join