U.S. Official: Intercepted Al Qaeda Communications Indicate Planned Attack ‘Big,’ ‘Strategically Sig

ABC News ^ | August 4,2013 | Martha Raddatz U.S. Official: Intercepted Al Qaeda Communications Indicate Planned Attack ‘Big,’ ‘S

[SE Mom]

On the day that almost two dozen U.S. embassies and consulates across North Africa and the Middle East are closed following the identification of a significant threat from an al-Qaeda affiliate, a senior U.S. official is providing new details about the communications intercepted from the terrorists, telling ABC News that al-Qaeda operatives could be heard talking about an upcoming attack. 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.

[Texas Eagle]

Ah. Good. Hopefully we’ll have the producer of the video that stirred up all this trouble in custody by then.

[VerySadAmerican]

I just hope that if it’s a nuke anywhere near me I’m at ground zero. I’ll vaporize before I know what happened. I’m selfish like that.

[Old Yeller]

Barry has given the enemy the green light to take the attention off of all his abuse of power crimes against the Republic.

[Old Yeller]

yes he is in his vacation bunker coordinating the attack on America..

And congress is on their 5 week vacation. Maybe they are all cowering in their super safe bunker city under that undisclosed mountain.

[ncfool]

Which one do you deport first?

[urtax$@work]

Dont know about this one, but i now always question
the latest “diversion-crises”

[Steve_Seattle]

"strategically significant"

The bombing on an embassy or a military barracks would not be "strategically significant." Your "nuke" reference is more in the line of what I would call significant. These things come to mind:

1. Some kind of EMP attack or other attack which disables a significant part of the power grid.
2. A viral attack on the Internet.
3. An attack - dirty nuke, chemical, whatever - on a major capital or major city that causes significant casualties and/or mid- to long-term disruption of everyday activities.
4. Multiple conventional bomb or suicide-bomb attacks on major cities that lead to dozens or hundreds of casualties.
5. Multiple suicide bomb attacks on airliners causing hundreds of deaths.
6. An attack on a major monument or tourist attraction - Eifel Tower, Disneyland, etc.
7. The assassination of one or more Western leaders, or a devastating attack on the central governmental offices of a Western power, e.g., US Capitol Building.
8. The takeover of a mid-Eastern government such as Saudi Arabia.

Those are the kinds of things I would consider "big" or "strategically significant."

[Right Brigade]

It's the big one 'lizibeth!!!!!!!!!

[maggief]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/spain/7931922/Michelle-Obama-visits-Ronda.html

Michelle Obama visits Ronda
Michelle Obama followed in the footsteps of Ernest Hemingway and Orson Welles when she paid a visit to Spain’s oldest bullring, the Plaza de Toros in Ronda, a picturesque town in the hills above the Costa del Sol.

By Fiona Govan in Marbella

3:04PM BST 07 Aug 2010

EXCERPT

One name on the (Starlite Gala) guest list that could raise a few eyebrows among US diplomatic circles is Adnan Khashoggi.

The Saudi Arabian businessman, 75, who made his name as an arms dealer in the 1980s, was linked to the Iran-Contra scandal in which the Reagan administration allegedly sanctioned the sale of weapons to Iran in breach of an international arms embargo.

[PghBaldy]

Good points. Whoever said it was “strategically significant?” Some unnamed official... I agree with you that an Embassy, per se, would not fit into that category, but who knows if said source even knows what the phrase means?

[hoosiermama]

Thanks thats it. Wonder if the ol S A is still around?

[fella]

If the target warrants an attack that’s “going to be big” and “strategically significant.” then why are we bothering with extra protection of piddly little embassies? Sounds like the attack would be aimed at a military depot of some sort.

[Bryanw92]

>>Grrrr - how people could reelect this traitor is beyond me.

It’s the “new generation”: the people who can’t read cursive and pay a monthly rental fee on ring tones, but don’t think they should pay for their own food. Obama tells them what they want to hear and they’d kill for him.

[mountn man]

No, the more “senior” officials talk about it the more I think it’s pure distraction BS.

Or its a set up. The "senior" officials talk about an attack and one "conveniently" happens.

Obama:"See, I told ya so"

[DoughtyOne]

Yes, and that’s the real reason they did away with the color chart.

It’s always red now, with Obama at the helm.

[silverleaf]

well it sure is good that no one in the Obama govt leaked the fact that we intercepted their communications, ‘cause they might change their communications and cause more damage to our national security than Snowden did

SARC

[epluribus_2]

We had one first.

[Pollster1]

That’s good news for Obama. If the target is “strategically significant”, then our Dear Leader is safe.

[dandiegirl]

CNN’s revealing of the CIA silencing the Benghazi survivors story must go away-getting too close to BO and Hillary. This is the new headline that they hope will take that off the front page.

[hummingbird]

"So now Al Qaeda needs to do is run a “war game” about an attack on the Internet and the US shuts down its embassies? Meanwhile, the real attack is being planned using couriers and disappearing ink!"

The whole episode isn't "right".

You think your embassies are going to be attacked around Sunday so you announce the embassies will be closed Sunday.

You announce ahead of time what your going to do? Shut the embassies down on Sunday and maybe the who month of August - something to do with RAMADAN ending. (The usual suspects love their holidays and days of special interest.) That'll really show those terrorists by shutting down on Sunday! What would keep terrorists from moving their plans up one day maybe they would attack on Saturday!

Or maybe there are no plans to attack embassies at all. Maybe there is another plan that Obama's "team" is quite in the dark about.

Obama said, in one of his (masterpiece/s book), that if it came down to it, he would side with Muslims (or Islam, I forget) - something like that. So how close are Obama and the terrorists?

Enough to work in tandem? Enough to make things seem to be one thing when they are really another?

Obama tight enough with Musim Brotherhood to be in a plan? (NSA has probably made a note from what I just typed. How do they know its me? Maybe it was my dog!)

Or, if Obama, and his "team" are not aware of what the terrorists are planning, maybe the terrorists were just trying to see how high Obama would jump if they said "BOO"! Putin has shown his disrepect to Obama by giving Snowden a year long sanctuary. That's really got to burn Obama. Maybe the terrorists just want to pile it on and show that his 'INTELLIGENCE TEAM' is clueless. That there was no threat to embassies in the first place after all.

That could leave a mark in embarrassing Obama! I'm all full of all kinds of theories, - because I've been watching MONK re-reruns all day - but something REALLY IS REALLY behind this supposed threat of attacking embassies in particular.

Time to give a weekly shinning to my TINFOIL BEENIE so I think I will do that and then take a....nap. <8^)

Maybe I'll figure it out in my dreams! <8^>