Anyone Else Skeptical of the Embassy Threat?

Anyone else as cynical as me? Seems like a pretty easy misdirection from the Benghazi and NSA scandals to announce "intelligence" of a 9-11 scale attack, close all the embassies, and then when nothing happens, announce a victory and that the NSA surveillance works and just saved us from 9-11 redux, so fall in line or risk being called anti-American or pro-jihadi.



It's especially interesting that the mainstream news outlets that the State Department chose to apprise of the embassy threats and subsequent closures were the same outlets driving the new developments in the Benghazi story and the CIA's now confirmed involvement and obsfuscation--those stories have now been relegated to the back burner by the "chatter."

I wrote this exact thing a few days ago on Rumor Board.



http://www.cougarboard.com/board/message.html?id=10948092" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



almost verbatim. crazy.

I don't disbelieve there are viable, credible and on-going threats to our embassies across the Muslim world. But I believe they could close these embassies multiple times throughout the year - and it would be based on threats.



But I also believe that everything this administration does and every story that they promote is done for political purposes, to drive their agenda and to increase their political power and clout.



They will use any crisis, make up any crisis, propagandize any incident to further their ideology.



They are modern day priests of Noah who are ruling over a wicked nation and are promoting policies that make further wickedness acceptable and right.

see spiff's comments above. Pure diversion tactics.

CougarClaw wrote:
I wrote this exact thing a few days ago on Rumor Board.



http://www.cougarboard.com/board/message.html?id=10948092" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



almost verbatim. crazy.

Link isn't working, just goes to the front page.

The answer: Yes. Because of the multiple scandals I am skeptical of more and more of what comes from the government. Paul Harvey quoted someone who said something like I mistrust politicians so much that if one of them told me they were lying I wouldn't believe them. I think they are like Kishkuman and Gadianton.

hawkwing wrote:

I wrote this exact thing a few days ago on Rumor Board.



http://www.cougarboard.com/board/message.html?id=10948092" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



almost verbatim. crazy.

Link isn't working, just goes to the front page.

link works for me..bummer. well here's what I wrote:





State Department's Terrorism Travel alert

This new terrorism travel alert sure came at a convenient time for the administration. Just a day after CNN's Benghazi CIA expose is released indicating some super-secret CIA operation was underway in Benghazi that the CIA has gone to incredible lengths to keep secret, we have this terror story break that gobbles up news coverage.



Does that mean there isn't a legitimate threat? I have no idea. But it sure is a media-washing, story-clearing, fortuitous turn of events that took the CIA off the leading story of the day. Also takes off the major diplomatic black eye of Edward Snowden's Russian Asylum off discussion. Very convenient timing indeed.



hypothetically, suppose for a moment that there was no terrorism threat, how big of a deal would it be to order the State Department to arbitrarily shut down their operations for a day (just tell everyone to go home)? You then go tell the press some yarn about a super secret threat that no one can collaborate. Sure gives the government a break from the media attacks of late. Then, when no embassies get attacked, you can call your measures successful and you then the CIA stories can be labeled old" or "phony" a week later.



It doesn't help with Obama's "Al Queda is on the run" line, but we're in his second term now and i guess has "more leverage" than he did.

And now it's out--"No basis in fact" for the embassy closures:



http://www.infowars.com/official-embassy-attack-threat-had-no-basis-in-fact/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

snoscythe wrote:
And now it's out--"No basis in fact" for the embassy closures:



http://www.infowars.com/official-embassy-attack-threat-had-no-basis-in-fact/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Per an unnamed Yemeni security official...That's not much for me to go on....I don't trust unnamed Yemeni officials either. That said, our federal goverrnment has been less than candid on Middle Eastern matters for over a decade now, and there is good basis to be critical of what is being said....

BoiseBYU wrote:

And now it's out--"No basis in fact" for the embassy closures:



http://www.infowars.com/official-embassy-attack-threat-had-no-basis-in-fact/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Per an unnamed Yemeni security official...That's not much for me to go on....I don't trust unnamed Yemeni officials either. That said, our federal goverrnment has been less than candid on Middle Eastern matters for over a decade now, and there is good basis to be critical of what is being said....

I would normally share your skepticism, but generally when there is a bonafide terror threat, multiple foreign intelligence services will speak up to confirm, and other western interests in the region will move to protect themselves. No one wants to be caught holding information that could have prevented an attack. Even Russia was loud to proclaim they warned the US about Tsarnaev before the attacks, and Russia is hardly our ally. For this embassy threat scare, it seems odd that not a single foreign intelligence agency has confirmed a threat on the scale of 9/11. This "unnamed Yemeni security official" is the first non-American voice to address the presence or absence of any intelligence backing the threat that I know of.