US closing all Embassies,Consulates in Islamic world due to unspecified threat
- Thread starter CougarKing
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Ok. This is grim humour but I don't what other agencies getting no clever ideas ;D
Though it be be ideal to get to ' PBR Abdul maintain listening watch till authorized." PBR Abdul come in ... ... ... ... Pbr Abdul where are you?
Though it be be ideal to get to ' PBR Abdul maintain listening watch till authorized." PBR Abdul come in ... ... ... ... Pbr Abdul where are you?
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
???
WTF are you going on about?....Please don't post while on meds.
WTF are you going on about?....Please don't post while on meds.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
This might be useful - reproduced under the fair use provision of the coyright act from Urban Survival
link here http://urbansurvival.com/blog/2013/08/05/countdown-to-terrorism/
Further Terror Threat Analysis
From our resident war gamer:
George,
So a “big al Qaeda attack” is reportedly in the works.
What does this disconcerting news tell us? First, if we hold the reports at face value, al Qaeda was for some reason unusually lax in the operational security (OPSEC). This is interesting from several different perspectives:
(a) The terror group is supremely confident of success, so much so that they disregarded OPSEC in their boastful communications, so sure are they of their imminent success;
(b) al Qaeda is bluffing, either to jerk around American and allied security or they are spoofing to see the measures taken so some yet to be strategic op can counter the observed measures that are taken;
(c) this is a false flag American led operation that either hopes to see how al Qaeda sleeper cells will react (e.g. “Hey, OPSEC is out the door, lets connect with our know assets”), thus outing those deceived cells, or
(d) the administration is simply using the false flag warning to justify the alleged covert tactics and capabilities recently outed by Snowden.
Consider that since the Benghazi news of CIA operatives being on the ground conducting a gun-running operation when the Ambassador and two others were slaughtered, option (e) comes into play – any Middle Eastern attack which may soon occur may have been orchestrated and equipped by U.S. operatives, ala a “Fast and Furious” type of operation.
Any one of the above options is entirely plausible. There may be other possibilities you or Ure readers may intuit. My gut tells me the [descending] order of likelihood is (b) – (c) – (d) – (e) – (a), meaning deception is the hand most likely being played. By which side is the question, and for what strategic and/or political purpose?
Cheers, “
There is another possibility which I’ll table: That is that it’s likely ( c) because there is an increasing public backlash to warrantless surveillance. As pressure mounts on the fools on the Hill to actually do something in response to voter demands, the intelligence community figures it will only have one last window here to try and smoke out all the baddies possible before (pardon this) unwarranted liberties with the Fourth Amendment force changes in techniques which will take time to implement.
link here http://urbansurvival.com/blog/2013/08/05/countdown-to-terrorism/
Further Terror Threat Analysis
From our resident war gamer:
George,
So a “big al Qaeda attack” is reportedly in the works.
What does this disconcerting news tell us? First, if we hold the reports at face value, al Qaeda was for some reason unusually lax in the operational security (OPSEC). This is interesting from several different perspectives:
(a) The terror group is supremely confident of success, so much so that they disregarded OPSEC in their boastful communications, so sure are they of their imminent success;
(b) al Qaeda is bluffing, either to jerk around American and allied security or they are spoofing to see the measures taken so some yet to be strategic op can counter the observed measures that are taken;
(c) this is a false flag American led operation that either hopes to see how al Qaeda sleeper cells will react (e.g. “Hey, OPSEC is out the door, lets connect with our know assets”), thus outing those deceived cells, or
(d) the administration is simply using the false flag warning to justify the alleged covert tactics and capabilities recently outed by Snowden.
Consider that since the Benghazi news of CIA operatives being on the ground conducting a gun-running operation when the Ambassador and two others were slaughtered, option (e) comes into play – any Middle Eastern attack which may soon occur may have been orchestrated and equipped by U.S. operatives, ala a “Fast and Furious” type of operation.
Any one of the above options is entirely plausible. There may be other possibilities you or Ure readers may intuit. My gut tells me the [descending] order of likelihood is (b) – (c) – (d) – (e) – (a), meaning deception is the hand most likely being played. By which side is the question, and for what strategic and/or political purpose?
Cheers, “
There is another possibility which I’ll table: That is that it’s likely ( c) because there is an increasing public backlash to warrantless surveillance. As pressure mounts on the fools on the Hill to actually do something in response to voter demands, the intelligence community figures it will only have one last window here to try and smoke out all the baddies possible before (pardon this) unwarranted liberties with the Fourth Amendment force changes in techniques which will take time to implement.
- Reaction score
- 5,254
- Points
- 1,040
I think this may be a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' scenario. Regardless of what they do, there will always be some folks that don't believe them. There is a whole sector convinced that 9/11 was a US govt conspiracy, so credible or not, guessing those same people will assume this is another govt lie.
And the other side will maintain the chants of 'USA' regardless, so they don't matter either, in terms of convincing them that the prism program is a good one.
I'm personally guessing this is somewhere in between. They may have some kind of information, and are putting on a big over reacting show to validate the program. On a practical note though, the simple fact that it's an across the board reaction would make it difficult for someone that sent up a number of different smoke screens through various channels to try and figure out what kind of comms might actually be compromised, they can't really narrow it down.
I guess this is a current day 'Engima' problem, where the english didn't evacuate cities when they knew ahead of time a bombing run was planned, except that there is no definable enemy country.
Aside from putting together a Stasi like surveillance program that would put Big Brother to shame, not sure how you can effectively prevent internal attacks like the Boston marathon bombing. I don't trust the kind of info collected by CSEC not to filter out to other areas (ie copyright infringement) or otherwise be misused by Dear Leader and his minions, so think this program needs to go.
And the other side will maintain the chants of 'USA' regardless, so they don't matter either, in terms of convincing them that the prism program is a good one.
I'm personally guessing this is somewhere in between. They may have some kind of information, and are putting on a big over reacting show to validate the program. On a practical note though, the simple fact that it's an across the board reaction would make it difficult for someone that sent up a number of different smoke screens through various channels to try and figure out what kind of comms might actually be compromised, they can't really narrow it down.
I guess this is a current day 'Engima' problem, where the english didn't evacuate cities when they knew ahead of time a bombing run was planned, except that there is no definable enemy country.
Aside from putting together a Stasi like surveillance program that would put Big Brother to shame, not sure how you can effectively prevent internal attacks like the Boston marathon bombing. I don't trust the kind of info collected by CSEC not to filter out to other areas (ie copyright infringement) or otherwise be misused by Dear Leader and his minions, so think this program needs to go.
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
Call me cynical, but the timing is somewhat suspicious.
NSA needed a big boost in it's poll numbers since the Snowden Revelations, and we now have a terrorism alert that many from Congress who have been briefed claim that the same programs that are being called into the spotlight are responsible for the latest alerts.
I'm not questioning the validity of the alert, or the call to close embassies and consulates, but it still seems like a convenient boost for the NSA's cause.
NSA needed a big boost in it's poll numbers since the Snowden Revelations, and we now have a terrorism alert that many from Congress who have been briefed claim that the same programs that are being called into the spotlight are responsible for the latest alerts.
I'm not questioning the validity of the alert, or the call to close embassies and consulates, but it still seems like a convenient boost for the NSA's cause.
- Reaction score
- 996
- Points
- 1,160
Agree with cupper.
This threat's magnitude may be "phoney" and "fake"!
This threat's magnitude may be "phoney" and "fake"!
- Reaction score
- 996
- Points
- 1,160
I think the terrorist threat is very real, lethal, but has been continually downplayed by the POTUS for political purposes. His campaign speeches and his recent speech to the National Defence University are examples.
He is IMHO, playing this up currently, to lower the heat. Living in the US, you must know the new presidential buzzwords: phoney and fake.
The documents gained when Osama was killed are reported to give a grim picture for we infidels.
He is IMHO, playing this up currently, to lower the heat. Living in the US, you must know the new presidential buzzwords: phoney and fake.
The documents gained when Osama was killed are reported to give a grim picture for we infidels.
...E.R. Campbell said:
...
Another common form of symbolism utilized in terrorist targeting is striking on particular anniversaries or commemorative dates. Nationalist groups may strike to commemorate battles won or lost during a conventional struggle, whereas religious groups may strike to mark particularly appropriate observances. Many groups will attempt to commemorate anniversaries of successful operations, or the executions or deaths of notable individuals related to their particular conflict. Likewise, striking on days of particular significance to the enemy can also provide the required impact. Since there are more events than operations, assessment of the likelihood of an attack on a commemorative date is only useful when analyzed against the operational pattern of a particular group or specific members of a group's leadership cadre.
...
...
Goals and Motivations of Terrorists
terrorism RESEARCH
http://www.terrorism-research.com/goals/
Shared with provisions of the Copyright Act
J
jollyjacktar
Guest
It's a good start at any rate. Hopefully they won't cave to pressure to take the pressure off with drone strikes.
- Reaction score
- 996
- Points
- 1,160
http://epaper.nationalpost.com/epaper/viewer.aspx
National Post - 10 Aug 13 - Charles Krauthammer in Washington - Washington Post Writers Group
Thou shalt not call a terrorist a terrorist
The words Obama chooses to use make a difference, because truth is a virtue
Jen Psaki, blameless State department spokeswoman, explained that the hasty evacuation of our embassy in Yemen was not an evacuation but “a reduction in staff.” This proved a problem because the Yemeni government had already announced (and denounced) the “evacuation” — the word normal folks use for the panicky ordering of people onto planes headed out of country.
Thus continues the administration’s penchant for wordplay, the bending of language to fit a political need. In Janet Napolitano’s famous formulation, terror attacks are now “mancaused disasters.” And the “global war on terror” is no more. It’s now an “overseas contingency operation.”
Nidal Hasan proudly tells a military court that he, a soldier of Allah, killed 13 American soldiers in the name of jihad. But the massacre remains officially classified as an act not of terrorism but of “workplace violence.”
The u.S. ambassador to Libya and three others are killed in an alQaeda-affiliated terror attack — and for days it is waved off as nothing more than a spontaneous demonstration gone bad. After all, famously declared Hillary Clinton, what difference does it make?
Well, it makes a difference, first, because truth is a virtue. Second, because if you keep lying to the American people, they may seriously question whether anything you say — for example, about the benign nature of NSA surveillance — is not another self-serving lie.
And third, because leading a country through yet another long twilight struggle requires not just honesty but clarity. This is a President who to this day cannot bring himself to identify the enemy as radical Islam. Just Tuesday night, explaining the u.S. embassy closures across the Muslim world, he cited the threat from “violent extremism.”
The word “extremism” is meaningless. People don’t devote themselves to being extreme. Extremism has no content. The extreme of what? In this war, an extreme devotion to the supremacy of a radically fundamentalist vision of Islam and to its murderous quest for dominion over all others.
But for President Obama, the word “Islamist” may not be uttered. Language must be devised to disguise the unpleasantness.
result? The world’s first lexicological war. Parry and thrust with linguistic tricks, deliberate misnomers and ever more transparent euphemisms. Next: armour-piercing onomatopoeias and amphibious synecdoches.
This would all be comical and merely peculiar if it didn’t reflect a larger, more troubling reality: The confusion of language is a direct result of a confusion of policy — which is served by constant obfuscation.
Obama doesn’t like this terror war. He particularly dislikes its unfortunate religious coloration, which is why “Islamist” is banished from his lexicon. But soothing words, soothing speeches in various Muslim capitals, soothing policies — “open hand,” “mutual respect” — have yielded nothing. The war remains. Indeed, under his watch, it has spread. And as commander in chief he must defend the nation.
He must. But he desperately wants to end the whole struggle. This is no secret wish. In a major address to the National defense university just three months ago he declared: “this war, like all wars, must end.” The plaintive cry of a man hoping that saying so makes it so.
The result is visible ambivalence that leads to vacillating policy reeking of incoherence. Obama defends the vast NSA data dragnet because of the terrible continuing threat of terrorism. yet at the same time, he calls for not just amending but actually repealing the legal basis for the entire war on terror, the 2001 Authorization for use of Military Force.
Well, which is it? If the tide of war is receding, why the giant NSA snooping programs? If al-Qaeda is on the run, as he incessantly assured the nation throughout 2012, why is America cowering in 19 closed-down embassies and consulates? Why was Boston put on an unprecedented full lockdown after the marathon bombings? And from Somalia to Afghanistan, why are we raining death by drone on “violent extremists” — every target, amazingly, a jihadist? What a coincidence.
This incoherence of policy and purpose is why an evacuation from yemen must be passed off as “a reduction in staff.” Why the Benghazi terror attack must be blamed on some hapless Egyptian-American videographer. Why the Fort Hood shooting is nothing but some loony army doctor gone postal.
In the end, this isn’t about language. It’s about leadership. The wordplay is merely cover for uncertain policy embedded in confusion and ambivalence about the whole enterprise.
This is not leading from behind. This is not leading at all.
National Post - 10 Aug 13 - Charles Krauthammer in Washington - Washington Post Writers Group
Thou shalt not call a terrorist a terrorist
The words Obama chooses to use make a difference, because truth is a virtue
Jen Psaki, blameless State department spokeswoman, explained that the hasty evacuation of our embassy in Yemen was not an evacuation but “a reduction in staff.” This proved a problem because the Yemeni government had already announced (and denounced) the “evacuation” — the word normal folks use for the panicky ordering of people onto planes headed out of country.
Thus continues the administration’s penchant for wordplay, the bending of language to fit a political need. In Janet Napolitano’s famous formulation, terror attacks are now “mancaused disasters.” And the “global war on terror” is no more. It’s now an “overseas contingency operation.”
Nidal Hasan proudly tells a military court that he, a soldier of Allah, killed 13 American soldiers in the name of jihad. But the massacre remains officially classified as an act not of terrorism but of “workplace violence.”
The u.S. ambassador to Libya and three others are killed in an alQaeda-affiliated terror attack — and for days it is waved off as nothing more than a spontaneous demonstration gone bad. After all, famously declared Hillary Clinton, what difference does it make?
Well, it makes a difference, first, because truth is a virtue. Second, because if you keep lying to the American people, they may seriously question whether anything you say — for example, about the benign nature of NSA surveillance — is not another self-serving lie.
And third, because leading a country through yet another long twilight struggle requires not just honesty but clarity. This is a President who to this day cannot bring himself to identify the enemy as radical Islam. Just Tuesday night, explaining the u.S. embassy closures across the Muslim world, he cited the threat from “violent extremism.”
The word “extremism” is meaningless. People don’t devote themselves to being extreme. Extremism has no content. The extreme of what? In this war, an extreme devotion to the supremacy of a radically fundamentalist vision of Islam and to its murderous quest for dominion over all others.
But for President Obama, the word “Islamist” may not be uttered. Language must be devised to disguise the unpleasantness.
result? The world’s first lexicological war. Parry and thrust with linguistic tricks, deliberate misnomers and ever more transparent euphemisms. Next: armour-piercing onomatopoeias and amphibious synecdoches.
This would all be comical and merely peculiar if it didn’t reflect a larger, more troubling reality: The confusion of language is a direct result of a confusion of policy — which is served by constant obfuscation.
Obama doesn’t like this terror war. He particularly dislikes its unfortunate religious coloration, which is why “Islamist” is banished from his lexicon. But soothing words, soothing speeches in various Muslim capitals, soothing policies — “open hand,” “mutual respect” — have yielded nothing. The war remains. Indeed, under his watch, it has spread. And as commander in chief he must defend the nation.
He must. But he desperately wants to end the whole struggle. This is no secret wish. In a major address to the National defense university just three months ago he declared: “this war, like all wars, must end.” The plaintive cry of a man hoping that saying so makes it so.
The result is visible ambivalence that leads to vacillating policy reeking of incoherence. Obama defends the vast NSA data dragnet because of the terrible continuing threat of terrorism. yet at the same time, he calls for not just amending but actually repealing the legal basis for the entire war on terror, the 2001 Authorization for use of Military Force.
Well, which is it? If the tide of war is receding, why the giant NSA snooping programs? If al-Qaeda is on the run, as he incessantly assured the nation throughout 2012, why is America cowering in 19 closed-down embassies and consulates? Why was Boston put on an unprecedented full lockdown after the marathon bombings? And from Somalia to Afghanistan, why are we raining death by drone on “violent extremists” — every target, amazingly, a jihadist? What a coincidence.
This incoherence of policy and purpose is why an evacuation from yemen must be passed off as “a reduction in staff.” Why the Benghazi terror attack must be blamed on some hapless Egyptian-American videographer. Why the Fort Hood shooting is nothing but some loony army doctor gone postal.
In the end, this isn’t about language. It’s about leadership. The wordplay is merely cover for uncertain policy embedded in confusion and ambivalence about the whole enterprise.
This is not leading from behind. This is not leading at all.
The point from the Washington Post as to the value of truth is well taken. In fact, even the title of this thread is inaccurate -- not all US Embassies in the Islamic world have been closed. Just off the top of my head, this alert didn't affect the US embassies in Albania, Turkey or Indonesia.
The fact that this alert is being portrayed in the media as applying throughout the Muslim world makes me shake my head. 13 years after 9/11, the west, by and large, still doesn't get it. Not all Muslims are Arabs. Not all Arabs are Muslims. And there are lots of people in those countries, both Arabs and Muslims, that are our friends, allies, and strategic partners.
The fact that this alert is being portrayed in the media as applying throughout the Muslim world makes me shake my head. 13 years after 9/11, the west, by and large, still doesn't get it. Not all Muslims are Arabs. Not all Arabs are Muslims. And there are lots of people in those countries, both Arabs and Muslims, that are our friends, allies, and strategic partners.
- Reaction score
- 4,292
- Points
- 1,160
Ostrozac said:
That's an important point. I would highlight: Jordan, an Arab country that is a real friend to the US led West,; Turkey, a Near East ally; Morocco, a North African country that is friendly to the West; and Malaysia, in East Asia, which is also a friend. I cannot, of the top of my head, think of any country in West or central Asia that can be called friendly, nor another, beyond Jordan, in the Arab world. I do not believe Saudi Arabia is a friend to anyone in the West. Israel is not, of course, a Muslim country.
Similar threads
