U.S. to close 19 missions through Saturday over al-Qaida threat

I guess after the mess over in Benghazi, Libya, Mr.Obama does not want to finish his career as the first non white US president with more terrible incidents like Benghazi. Now we should all complain about the CIA, NSA etc...listening in on terrorists all around the world?? What is Snowden thinking about this now in Russia??

This is exactly what Al Qaida wants us to do. They are bad. They enjoy making us get panicked over this, so we should not get panicked to satisfy their objectives. We should remain calm and vigilante.

Coincidence that this happens at a time when US communications monitoring is in the firing line?

Never waste a chance to exploit a compelling imaginary threat. Certain members of the U.S. Congress wasted no time in implying that it was NSA that conveniently protected us from the myriad shadowy evil-doers, again.

FarmboyAug. 05, 2013 - 11:01AM JST

We should remain calm and vigilante.

Vigilant, not vigilante.

Thank you. Farmboy.

Primary Colours part 2

So many conspiracy theorists these days.

" So many conspiracy theorists these days."

Yes, they're too preoccupied watching "24" or other such drivel.

Fearmongering by the warmongers.

Why were the threats in Libya last year ignored? Are these closures a display for the administration to also cover up the fact that Benghazi was ignored and offered no support to rescue the victims after an attack was evident?

So many conspiracy theorists these days.

I don't buy into most conspiracy garbage but having a widely publicized global travel advisory issued because of threats made by terrorists right as the NSA is under incredible public scrutiny is just to transparent to be anything but deflection. Even if there is a legitimate threat the length to which they went to make it known that they were closing embassies is well beyond the norm. In turbulent countries there are credible threats on a regular basis which often force temporary closures, these closures are almost never broadcast over national media.

I'm not saying there isn't a credible threat, I'm saying that the lengths they went to make this headline news seems suspect.

"Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the attack blamed on Islamist militants."

How come we only hear about "Islamist militants," never "Christian," Buddhist," "Hindu" or "Atheist" militants?

@Serrano: I am pretty sure we will hear when they become militant and kill people.

TheQuestion: I don't buy into most conspiracy garbage but having a widely publicized global travel advisory issued because of threats made by terrorists right as the NSA is under incredible public scrutiny is just to transparent to be anything but deflection.

Pretty much every terrorist threat announcement is met by the same response by some.

Even if there is a legitimate threat the length to which they went to make it known that they were closing embassies is well beyond the norm. In turbulent countries there are credible threats on a regular basis which often force temporary closures, these closures are almost never broadcast over national media.

Well they closed almost 2 dozen embassies. They are probably going to say something about it even if it's to just let the terrorists know they know and hopefully convince them to abandon their plans. And there's no perfect playbook for the government. If they make an announcement some people will say it's a smokescreen. If they don't make the announcement and something happens then people will say they should have. Under those conditions it's better to be safe than sorry.

Pretty much every terrorist threat announcement is met by the same response by some.

The response is ordinary, the publicity is not. When the Arab spring thing was going on dozens were closed and those closures only merited a footnote in most national news publications. This time they close a few embassies in response to a threat and its on the front page of every news ticker for 3 days. The timing and the media saturation is suspect, the embassy closures themselves are to be expected.

Under those conditions it's better to be safe than sorry.

I totally agree, issuing a travel advisory and temporarily closing embassies is a totally acceptable response. What I find odd is the, "See, look what we found." coverage as public dissatisfaction with NSA practices continues to rise as more information comes out on the program.

Fair enough. I can understand why you'd be suspicious. But the Arab Spring was a massive news story and people probably weren't that shocked that embassies were closed.

If something actually blows up people will switch from talking about a distraction to blaming the NSA for not getting it right. Either way, they're screwed heh.

The ironic thing is the order from al-Qaida chief Ayman al-Zawahiri was intercepted by none other than the NSA.

There is a thing I heard before and it's quite uncommon. It's called 're-scheduling.' Unless you get the guys whom were supposed to attack the embassies until they re-open, better close them for good maybe.

'The ironic thing is the order from al-Qaida chief Ayman al-Zawahiri was intercepted by none other than the NSA.'

Either a huge slip-up with Al-Qaida or its just a scare thats working.