Another useless terror warning.

[Tmy]

I love these things. Its been the same BS since 9/12/01. THey tell us nothing other than "watch out". Whats the point of these warnings other than to cover there ass in case somthing does happen.




Summer terror attack fears grow

US Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller are to hold a joint press conference amid fears that a new US terror attack is looming.
Officials say they will address reports that terrorists are planning a major strike on US soil as early as summer.

However, no date, time or method of a possible attack has been mentioned, and according to Department of Homeland Security officials there are no plans to raise the colour-coded terror alert level

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

This is not unlike the warnings they put on booze and cigarettes. If there is a terrorist attack, we've been duly warned and can't blame the Bushwhacks.

Fear is also a running theme of right-wingers ....

Charlie (check for scary monsters under beds and in closets) Monoxide

 

[AtheistArchon]

- Well, to be fair, there are two sides to this coin. Let's say you have a good idea that there will be an attack sometime in June on NYC.

- If you don't give any info whatsoever, then when terrorists strike you are accused of doing nothing when you did in fact know something.

- If you give very specific info, like possible times and places, then you run the risk of causing mass hysteria without anything even taking place. Of course, I would prefer this over an actual terrorist attack. On the other hand, being ultra-transparent about this kind of information is redeemed somewhat if you're also transparent about stopping terrorist attacks. As it stands now, the job of busting terrorists is spook work, and that isn't likely to change... it's got a pretty long and successful history of being the way to go about things; we don't want the enemy to know what we know about them.

- So, I'm not sure what I'd do if I were in the position of having to make the decision to inform the public or not. I might do the same thing.

 

[UserGoogol]

Arguments that Al-Qaeda or whoever will attack to influence the election don't make sense, unless Al-Qaeda wants Bush to win. (Which isn't entirely implausible, actually.) Spain happened because Spaniards could easily blame Al-Qaeda's targetting of Spain to their support of the Iraq war. Americans can't make that argument, because Al-Qaeda has been targetting America since the Clinton administration. Also, if future terrorist attacks are anything like September 11th, they will probably lead to upsurges in patriotism, which would probably play in the incumbent's advantage. Also, after a terrorist attack, people would be afraid, and people might not feel comfortable changing presidents unless it is somehow revealed that the Bush administration was extraordinarily incompetent in preventing that event. Just having a terrorist attack wouldn't be enough, especially because they're giving us warning.

 

[demon]

quote:
New York Police Unaware of New Terror Plot
Wed May 26, 2004 10:15 AM ET
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The New York Police Department said it has not been advised that terrorists are in the United States actively plotting an attack, despite new reports on Wednesday of possible attacks in the coming months.
"We are receiving highly sensitive intelligence information on a regular basis, including today, and there is nothing in that reporting to indicate a specific threat or looming attack against New York City," New York Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said in a statement issued late on Tuesday in response to media reports.

"Nor have we been advised that terrorists are known to be in the United States actively plotting such an attack," Kelly said.

Police were nevertheless "taking all necessary precautions," he added, on the presumption "it is still the desire of al Qaeda to target New York City."

U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said in a round of morning television interviews that there had been "credible" reports of possible attacks in the United States to coincide with high profile events, including the November U.S. presidential election.

New York will host the Republican National Convention in late August and early September, when President Bush will be formally nominated to run for re-election.

Ridge said there were no plans to raise the color-coded terror alert level, which is currently set at "yellow" for an "elevated" risk of attack.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=5263022
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sounds like the wolf who cried "wolf"!

If they inform the press *before* they inform the police, how serious can the alleged threat be?
And if the threat is in fact real, how serious can they be about preventing it?

 

[BoulderHead`]

That warning system is something I’ve never paid attention to. Has it ever been green, or would that only serve to infuriate the terrorists, perhaps provoking an attack?

I have my own system;

Green

Blue


Yellow



Orange


Red

 

[SilentNight]

I love these things. Its been the same BS since 9/12/01. THey tell us nothing other than "watch out". Whats the point of these warnings other than to cover there ass in case somthing does happen.




Summer terror attack fears grow

US Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller are to hold a joint press conference amid fears that a new US terror attack is looming.
Officials say they will address reports that terrorists are planning a major strike on US soil as early as summer.

However, no date, time or method of a possible attack has been mentioned, and according to Department of Homeland Security officials there are no plans to raise the colour-coded terror alert level

This is simple to answer, one look at how many people are bitching about the government's lack of disclosure prior to 9/11 that they believe (hindsight 20/20) could have helped prevent what happened.

So because people were quick to jump on that band wagon about the government not warning the public of what they knew at the time, they no do the correct thing and warn for every possible instance.

No, the same people who complained for lack of knowledge are now complaining becuase nothing ever comes about from these so called warnings.

Maybe these warnings are actually causing hesitation and delay on the part of the terrorists. I for one am happy for what the homeland security office is doing and feel a since of comfort in knowing that these warnings are keeping Americans keen to whats going on around them.

SilentNight

 

[jj]

How to win an election:

Fear

Uncertainty

Doubt

---

Wanna guess where those principles come from?

 

[ssibal]

I will start to take the terrorist warnings seriously if it is ever demonstrated that they were real threats and that they were thwarted because of the publicity. Though, I will not hold my breath waiting.

 

[Kopji]

Useful: as a political tool.

Shiny but vague fears dangled in front of the public designed to distract.

 

[kerfer]

I will start to take the terrorist warnings seriously if it is ever demonstrated that they were real threats and that they were thwarted because of the publicity. Though, I will not hold my breath waiting.

The problem that I see with this is that this type of information would be classified, and unless you have both the appropriate clearance, and the need to know this information, you won't see it. The fact that you wrote what you did (and others share these thoughts...this isn't intended as a comment about you personally--please don't take this that way) implies that you have not the clearance or the need to know, or both.

I guess this means that there is no way for you to know that some set of the previous threats weren't indeed real threats, that were thwarted.

But not holding your breath to hear information that you'll never hear (regardless of whether that info exists), is good idea!

 

[corplinx]

They released photos and details. Open mouth, insert foot. Can't blame you for having a pavlov response though in lieu of past warnings.

 

[Jon_in_london]

-- If you give very specific info, like possible times and places, then you run the risk of causing mass hysteria without anything even taking place.

Its more to do with protecting sources. If you let it be known that you have such information, the terrorist cell will begin to look at their own security. This will lead to the cutting off of the flow of information and the death of any infiltraitors/informants.

 

[demon]

Has Ashcroft stopped using commercial planes again?