Either we are safer, or we are not by rue

More then anything else, the warnings are the biggest reason why we are safer. If you walk down a dark road on the bad side if town, are you safer if you are unaware of the danger? The strongest ally of the terrorist is silence.

Of course, rattling the cage by toppling the occasional terrorist harboring despotism certainly makes it hard for terrorists to roost in some place. And without the reliance of a terrorist safe Afghanistan or Iraq they are short two more places to operate unobstructed. Anything that impedes terrorist movement makes us safer. And of course, strengthening our defenses here at home, by keeping our people alert and knowledgeable also makes us safer.

But in the end, it is really the warnings that keep us on our toes and terrorists guessing about what we know and don’t know that improve our safety the most.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 3, 2004 8:40 AM

Yeah, I suppose we're safer. From who is the question I want to ask.

Ridge Defends 'Three-Year-Old' Terror Alert
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040803/ts_nm/security_al
ert_dc_27

When the asshats in office stop crying wolf just because the polls jump or their rivals get some press.... then I'll feel safer. I'll actually know when to stay on my toes then instead of constantly turning off my bullshit detector in disgust.

Radhil Trebors
Persona Under Construction

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 3, 2004 9:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Radhil:
When the asshats in office stop crying wolf just because the polls jump or their rivals get some press.... then I'll feel safer. I'll actually know when to stay on my toes then instead of constantly turning off my bullshit detector in disgust.

And when will that be? The Administration has come out with many warnings. This one happens to be in an election year and so you decide it's bogus. How do you explain all the others? How do you explain the warnings that came out before Kerry even considered running? Terrorism is just a right-wing conspiracy. That's funny.

But if I were a Democrat, trying to get someone like Kerry elected to the office of Commander and Chief, that's probably what I would want the nation to believe as well.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 3, 2004 9:07 AM

KNIBBLET

I believe that everyone I know is at more risk of becoming unemployed, losing health insurance, their home or - Universe Forbid - losing their child in smirky ass bastard's oil war than they are of any terrorist attack.

*Election year chant: 3 more months, 3 more months*

"Just keep walkin, preacher man."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 3, 2004 9:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Knibblet:
I believe that everyone I know is at more risk of becoming unemployed, losing health insurance, their home or - Universe Forbid - losing their child in smirky ass bastard's oil war than they are of any terrorist attack.

Assuming any of this is true (and much of it is not), how does that make warning the American people about potential terrorist movements any less important? I’m more likely to get hit by a car then I am to die in a plane crash, does that mean that I don’t need to be warned about potentially hazardous flight conditions?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 3, 2004 9:24 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

The Administration is RUNNING on a campaign of fear. They have been doing that since 9-11 gave them the excuse to invade Iraq.

I't impossible to measure how "safe" we really are. I know from being involved (in a minor way) in emergency response that we still are NOT prepared to respond, and that budget cuts in health care, firefighting and police will make our reponse even less useful that it would have been a year ago.

But whether we're safer or not, we are certainly more fearful... thanks to Bush's constant fear-mongering. And despite what some people think, fear by itself does equate to safety.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 3, 2004 9:28 AM

You don't know me. So don't put words in my mouth or assume my opinions. It's the fastest way to piss me off.

I judge these alerts as best I can, with as much information and context as I can get. Some I have thought were real, some I have deemed bogus and political. This latest had suspicious timing off the bat, and not because it was in an election year - I'm not stupid nor naieve enough to assume that we're blatantly immune even when politics are going on - but because it was immediately after the Democratic convention, and Kerry was getting decent press. The terrorist news suddenly seemed active at the end of the week, it wasn't just the alert status. Despite that, I took this alert for real - there were specifics about the targeting, financial institutions and major companies in New York. The specifics were there, the specifics made sense (private companies rather than public targets = less security, less awareness), and it wasn't just some general alert. Except then I found the news this morning - the intel is dated at best, twisted at worst. And now I write it off as bogus. Blatantly so, and I'm kicking myself for not trusting my intuition on the timing.

So instead of attacking me for believing in some massive conspiracy that I NEVER EVEN TALKED ABOUT OR MENTIONED, why don't you pay attention a little. Because if I were serious about terrorism, and less concerned with being a political fanboy for either side, I'd be severely pissed with the current administration for mucking with our very real response mechanisms just so they could play political games.

Before you attack me, find out where I'm coming from. I'm not some tin-hat asshole. I see things for what they are.

Radhil Trebors
Persona Under Construction

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 3, 2004 10:16 AM

ARAWAEN

I think we are just as safe as we were before. The government has done nothing to really increase the safety of the average person. Some institutions and people might have more security but I think it is negated/countered by the fact that we adopted a international policy that encourages Islamic fundamentalist recruitment. Stopping a terrorist in a way that creates two isn't a winnable approach in my mind.

Educating the public in first aid and how to respond to violence and crisis situations would go alot further than revoking liberties left and right. Eternal vigilance is hard to pull off in a society that is as ethnically diverse as ours.

I might even go so far as to suggest that a 2-year mandatory service in the military (for everybody male/female/rich/poor), giving people basics in first aid and combat, not to mention discipline would be a good thing. Not that this is going to happen, the government doesn't want a trained citizenry, they are much harder to control.

Instead our government just pops up every so often with "new" (actually old) intelligence and scares everybody. I am not saying they shouldn't tell us about info they find, but be less cryptic and give all the facts (like its age). This 'be scared' but 'go about your business' is annoying.

I am ranting. Must stop.

Arawaen

Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 3, 2004 11:33 AM

On a side note, there have been successes in our war on terrorism, they just have not been widely publicized. Here is an account of an arrest that happened 1 1/2 years ago. Feel free to draw your own conclusions on why this story was not brought to a nationwide audience. I'm just thankful that another terrorist was caught and imprisoned before he could do any damage:
http://www.tennessean.com/local/archives/04/03/48524168.shtml

I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 3, 2004 4:19 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Is your reference to the story about the right-wing paranoid schizophrenic with an arsenal at home? That's what I pull up from your link.

I'm not sure he's a good example of how we are safer from terrorists these days. "One of those passing motorists saw the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle on Smith's lap, the barrel pointed toward the school."

I've lived in some tough neighborhoods and even 30 years ago people would've called the PO-lice, and same would've come. It wouldn't have require homeland security, the PATRIOT Act, specialized response teams etc.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 3, 2004 4:31 PM

JEBBYPAL

Soupcatcher wrote:

Quote:
On a side note, there have been successes in our war on terrorism

See, this is the kind of thing that makes me wish we could have an investigation/panel about the alerts and the efficacy of our anti-terror campaign in general. I mean yes, alot of it is top secret and what-not, but it would nice to be able to see the statistics of attacks averted, known terrorists arrested, etc. Alot are probably available eventually, but really, if Homeland Security wants to say the patriot act should be installed permanently, give me some gorram statistics to prove that me losing any of my rights for the past two years has helped anyone.....beyond the lawyers for the prisoners at Guantanamo that is.

Instead, all we hear is "yellow, orange or red" combined with alot of evidence pointing to most of the alerts being politically motivated (you can't not tell me that they didn't realize that the data was so out of date last week! And yeah, it's good to know we should watch out for financial institutions other than those in NY, but wouldn't it have been nice for the government to have recieved that warning before 9/11? Added to the whistleblowers w/ the fbi and cia and the picture isn't pretty.

The Strawberry Monkey
http://p221.ezboard.com/bfireflyfanficawards

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 3, 2004 4:55 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

But, to ramble off on another and only slightly related topic ....

Remember the days IMMEDIATELY after 9/11? Within days, the US was gonna get bin Laden. And Bush went from saying 'catch the perpetrator' to 'catch the leaders' to 'get the organization' to 'bringing down supporting governments'. DEAD OR ALIVE !!!! And less than a month after 9/11, with adrenaline high and everybody pumped, off the US goes to make war on Afghanistan. We bomb. A few months go by. The Northern Alliance does a lot of the fighting. The Taliban is deposed. But that wily bin Laden just never, but never, gets caught.

And dubya's ratings are sliding. http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm

With bin Laden still on the loose, and less than 1 1/2 years after going into Afghanistan, Bush sends US troops into another war. (Iraq war March 19, 2003 to Mission Accomplished! May 1, 2003.) And his ratings go up! People approve! Amazing. What short memories. Whatever happened to the search for bin Laden? Oh well. Whatever.

And just a few short month later, WMDs, Hussein and Iraq's connection with al Qaeda are all but forgotten. That's old news. We went in. We kicked *ss. Iraq's free. No problemo.

NOW the issue is - security! Safety! Terror alerts!

With no recollection of how the country was driven in the past from issue to issue, and no concept of being driven now. Watching the US is like watching cattle being herded.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 3, 2004 7:34 PM

SUCCATASH

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Watching the US is like watching cattle being herded.

Yes. It really feels like it.

"Gott kann dich nicht vor mir beschuetzen, weil ich nicht boese bin."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 3, 2004 7:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Rue
I'm not sure he's a good example of how we are safer from terrorists these days. "One of those passing motorists saw the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle on Smith's lap, the barrel pointed toward the school."

Yeah. That probably wasn't the best example since it's only because of an observant citizen that this terrorist was apprehended.

Another example would probably be this one, even though it is also a case of an alert citizen setting the wheels in motion:
http://www.thememoryhole.org/terror/tyler-terror.htm

Quote:
Originally posted by Rue
I've lived in some tough neighborhoods and even 30 years ago people would've called the PO-lice, and same would've come. It wouldn't have require homeland security, the PATRIOT Act, specialized response teams etc.

This is my position as well. We don't need the PATRIOT Act to deal with the threat of terrorism, either domestic or international.

What I was hoping to get across in my original post is my belief that domestic terrorists are a greater threat to this country than terrorist organizations based on the other side of the world. It's a simple matter of logistics. It took deep pockets for Al Qaeda to pull off 9/11. The Oklahoma City bombing, the Atlanta Olympics park bombing, the Unabomber, and these two cases were cheaper because the terrorists lived where they operated.

So why aren't we bringing these and other arrests and convictions forward as an example of successes in the War on Terror(ism)? Ordinary citizens noticed something wrong and brought that information to the proper authorities. The authorities conducted their investigations without the need of the new powers granted them under the PATRIOT Act. The terrorists were convicted. Tragedy was averted. Why wasn't this news plastered across the entire country?

I have my own cynical answers to that question based on my beliefs as to the motivations of this administration. But I'm probably not doing a good job of making my point

since I'm just throwing this stuff together.

I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 3, 2004 7:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Rue
And dubya's ratings are sliding. http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm

Apologies for posting one after the other, folks. I just wanted to follow Rue slightly off-topic for a bit

. That chart is a pretty good one. One thing about the spike after 9/11 was that we really had nothing to compare it with. Gallup has been asking this question since Roosevelt was in office (I'm not sure if that included Pearl Harbor). Bush's job rating on 9/21/01-9/22/01 was the highest they had ever measured. Neither Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, GHW Bush, nor Clinton ever had a job rating that was as high. Now does anyone believe that GW Bush did a better job as President than any of the previous 11?

I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 4, 2004 1:49 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
With no recollection of how the country was driven in the past from issue to issue, and no concept of being driven now. Watching the US is like watching cattle being herded.

Herded to the slaughter, no less.

Sometimes I just want to bang my head against a wall- it would feel better.

Thanks for the chart- informative, frightening and depressing. It happens every time, altho not on as large a scale as 9-11: Thatcher and Falklands, Bush(I) and Iraq (I), Johnson and Gulf of Tonkin. Maybe Cheney will jigger the terrorist alert, or let a terrorist attack happen (oops) or "discover" a significant threat in Iran and decide to invade just before the election. I wouldn't put anything past this weasly, callous, lying administration.

Doesn't anyone ever learn? You'd think after seeing this a half-dozen times or so people would catch on.

Oh, by the way, and also off-topic-

We can add Tommy Franks (US Army General, head of Centcom during Afghanistan and Iraq invasion) to the list of disaffected ex-employees. Along with Paul O'Neil (Treasury Scy), Karen Kwiatkowski (Lt-Colonel Air Force, member of OSP), Joe Wilson (Ambassador, last man in Kuwait embassy during the invasion), Valerie Plame and Anonymous (CIA officers), Shinseki (US Army General) and Richard Clarke (anti-cyber-terror). Every single one of them says that dubya wanted to invade Iraq before anything else, that dubya is a screw-up in fighting terrorism. Now, these people supposedly have the inside story- they sat at the same tables, they got first-hand info. What is Bush going to do THIS time? Call Franks a left-wing-nut job, like his minions did to Kwaitkowski? A sour-grapes ex-employee, a la Wilson? A person who was out of the loop- supposedly like O'Neill? A screw-up, like Clarke? Some people who post here could use a long look at the facts, except they will NEVER learn. And so, like the cattle they are, they'll be herded from one crisis to the next, looking for a daddy-figure to make it all better.

Sorry for the rant. I'm going to take an ibuprofin now.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 4, 2004 10:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Radhil:
You don't know me. So don't put words in my mouth or assume my opinions. It's the fastest way to piss me off.

No one is putting words in your mouth and you feel free to get as pissed off as you like. It won’t affect me in the least.

A few points to consider on this last terror warning:

As far as the timing is concerned: 1) the threat of a terror attack is considered high because of the election. We know that Al Qeada had great success in changing the Spanish government to one that is more favorable to their politics, and it is reasonable to conclude that Al Qeada may attempt to affect the US outcome by staging an attack here as well. 2) Extremely tight security was in place shortly before, during and shortly following the recent Democratic Convention. In fact, there was more security there then there was for the Salt Lake City Olympics. It may be that HLS is more willing to release warnings at this time then they would at other times, but presuming this to be political move is premature at best and unfounded.

As far as the age of evidence is concerned: This recent evidence was probably seized in a recent Pakistan raid. Does that mean that these plans had been abandoned and we just stumbled on to worthless plans? Or does it mean that Al Qeada was still in the process of expediting these plans and pulled them out to make preparations on their first attempt? It’s impossible to know. But just because plans were drawn up three years ago does not mean that they will never be followed through. Or that they are, as some shortsighted individuals contend, “old.” For example: one of Al Qaeda’s plans was to bring down the World’s Trade Center. That scheme was hatched in 1991. It wasn’t until 1993 that the first attempt was made. And it wasn’t until 2001 that they actually managed to do it, 10 years after the original plans were made.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 4, 2004 11:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by Radhil:
You don't know me. So don't put words in my mouth or assume my opinions. It's the fastest way to piss me off.
No one is putting words in your mouth and you feel free to get as pissed off as you like. It won’t affect me in the least.

A few points to consider on this last terror warning:

As far as the timing is concerned: 1) the threat of a terror attack is considered high because of the election. We know that Al Qeada had great success in changing the Spanish government to one that is more favorable to their politics, and it is reasonable to conclude that Al Qeada may attempt to affect the US outcome by staging an attack here as well.

As I said, I'm aware that elections don't make us immune. This arguement would hold more water if we were actually closer to the actual elections. My concerns over the timing of the warning is not over what year or season it is, but what day. If the warning had been issued today, I wouldn't have blinked at it.

On a side note, I've yet to ever hear a reasonable explanation of why a new U.S. attack would stampede voters to Kerry. Other than "It worked in Spain," which shows great ignorance as to what actually happened in Spain, not to mention implying massive idiocy on the part of Americans. Not to mention ignoring our collective reactions (namely: rally and fight like hell) to every terrorist attack in history.

Quote:
2) Extremely tight security was in place shortly before, during and shortly following the recent Democratic Convention. In fact, there was more security there then there was for the Salt Lake City Olympics. It may be that HLS is more willing to release warnings at this time then they would at other times, but presuming this to be political move is premature at best and unfounded.

I took HLS at their word, despite doubts and as shakily as I view this administration, for days. I bought it, new information comes to light, and now I don't. I'm premature... how? When would be mature? What exactly would you like me to wait for before deciding? Ridge or Cheney to fall crying on the Lawn, shouting "I'm sorry"? Signed confessionals?

It's unfounded, I suppose. If you ignore everything I say, especially the concerns I laid out in a clear and consistent manner, and then call it unfounded. Which makes me wonder why I'm bothering to respond to this at all. Maybe waiting for some passerby or observer to assure me that I'm not just talking to myself and imagining your replies.

Quote:
As far as the age of evidence is concerned: This recent evidence was probably seized in a recent Pakistan raid. Does that mean that these plans had been abandoned and we just stumbled on to worthless plans? Or does it mean that Al Qeada was still in the process of expediting these plans and pulled them out to make preparations on their first attempt? It’s impossible to know. But just because plans were drawn up three years ago does not mean that they will never be followed through. Or that they are, as some shortsighted individuals contend, “old.” For example: one of Al Qaeda’s plans was to bring down the World’s Trade Center. That scheme was hatched in 1991. It wasn’t until 1993 that the first attempt was made. And it wasn’t until 2001 that they actually managed to do it, 10 years after the original plans were made.

And now, you're not just ignoring me, you're ignoring the article, which no where states "recently acquired" old information, nor does it imply it. And you're bothering to speak to me about unfounded. Go make stuff up on your own time.

Strange thing is, for all your stupid bluster, I actually agree with you. I doubt those plans are abandoned. There's possibly still a cell of 5 or 6 sitting in a warehouse or a cave somewhere trying to see if they can make it work. And when they figure it out, when they come, we won't be ready. It will be six months from now, twelve months from now, couple years even, when all this little hubub has died off, and everyone is lax again. And when Ridge cries "Wolf!" again, when one of them gets new intel that somethings in thew works and tries to raise the alarm... no one will listen, because he's cried Wolf before just to get the scare and the spotlight, and because they've long since learned not to.

In the old fable, it's the boy who cried wolf who gets eaten by the wolf. It's his price for his arrogance and obnoxiousness. In the real world, the idiots in Washington won't get touched. People like you and me will pay the real price for this. And I'm more than just a little fed up with it.

Radhil Trebors
Persona Under Construction

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 4, 2004 11:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal
As far as the timing is concerned: 1) the threat of a terror attack is considered high because of the election. We know that Al Qeada had great success in changing the Spanish government to one that is more favorable to their politics, and it is reasonable to conclude that Al Qeada may attempt to affect the US outcome by staging an attack here as well. ...

I had to jump in because of your statement on Al Qaeda and the Spanish elections. Your statement is one that has been often repeated but I think it's a very simplistic interpretation of what actually happened. In the immediate aftermath of the commuter bombings the Spanish government laid the finger of blame on Basque terrorists, even though there was evidence that Al Qaeda was responsible. One possible motivation for the government lying was that they had a strong stance against the Basque terrorists and hoped to use the attack to be re-elected, positioning themselves as the best party to deal with the Basque threat. It quickly became apparent as the evidence mounted that everything pointed towards Al Qaeda and nothing pointed towards the ETA. Exit polling suggests that the majority of those who voted for the opposition did so to punish the government for blatantly using a terrorist attack for political gain. So, in essence, the Spanish government shot themselves in the foot by lying to the public about who was responsible for the attack and they were held accountable.

Now, with that being said, would the results of the election have been different if the government had told the truth and laid the blame squarely on Al Qaeda? I don't know but I tend to think the results would have been the same. Would the results of the election have been different if there was no attack by Al Qaeda? I don't know but I tend to think the results would have been the same. The majority of the Spanish people did not support the decision of the government to participate in the Iraq War in the first place.

So the situation is pretty complex. If the goals of Al Qaeda in attacking Spain was to get them to withdraw their troops from Iraq (which is a safe assumption) or, at the very least, to punish Spain for participating in the Iraq war (which is equally likely in my mind) then the attack was successful from Al Qaeda's point of view. However, the Spanish government should be held equally, if not more, responsible for the outcome of the election based on their reaction to the attack (at the very least they energized the population even more). But I'm not even sure that the attacks affected the outcome of the elections at all (I wasn't following the election before the attack so I don't know what the polls looked like).

editted to add: Actually, the evidence and arrests point strongly to Islamic militants. I'd have to go back and verify that those Islamic militants were members of Al Qaeda (but that's the impression that I had). So replacing every instance of Al Qaeda in my post with Islamic militant might be more accurate.

I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 4, 2004 12:16 PM

SoupCatcher: That is true. One can go into much more detail on the events that transpired in Spain. I wasn’t ignoring those details; they are simply irrelevant to my point. It doesn’t matter what happened between the train bombings and the final ballet of the election. It doesn’t matter at all WHY the Anzar Administration was voted out and Socialist’s Workers Party voted in. All that matters is Al Qeada attacked = election results good for Al Qaeda. The election was ironically decided by the Anzar’s Administration allegedly trying to pin the blame on the Basques. Although I believe that polls taken prior to the whole incident were in favor of the Anzar Administration, not against it. It doesn't really matter what actually swayed the Spanish vote; the appearance of causality is all that matters.

Which means Al Qeada will be encouraged to attempt it again, maybe here. And it doesn’t matter what direction the elections are going in the US; it doesn’t matter that an attack by Al Qaeda might only serve to unit the people under Bush. It only matters that in the mind of Al Qaeda, they attacked and ‘Allah’ will bless them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 4, 2004 12:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Which means Al Qeada will be encouraged to attempt it again, maybe here. And it doesn’t matter what direction the elections are going in the US; it doesn’t matter that an attack by Al Qaeda might only serve to unit the people under Bush. It only matters that in the mind of Al Qaeda, they attacked and ‘Allah’ will bless them.

This is, of course, assuming a widespread terror network is less intelligent than a handful of message board lurkers. Which is also a rather dangerous assumption.

Not that I think they wouldn't attack - as I've said above. Just zeal doesn't make them entirely stupid. Best to overestimate an enemy rather than underestimate.

Radhil Trebors
Persona Under Construction

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 4, 2004 5:09 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

As the originator of the thread, I'm going to take some liberty and wander even more.

BUT, did you ever wonder WHAT the 9/11 evidence was that led the US to invade Afghanistan - a foreign sovereign country - and topple its government? Within days (literally) the admin said they had information but they had to keep it secret. About 2 months after invading Afghanistan, the Admin ran press releases that the FIRST information associating 9/11 with al Qaeda had been discovered in Afghanistan. About 2.5 months after that, there was another story saying there was more evidence making the association even stronger. What I got out of it was the Admin went into the Afghanistan war on a guess. I bet they were happy to have guessed right.
What I also think is the Admin gambled they would find SOMETHING for crying out loud in Iraq to post facto justify the war. They could not have guessed more wrong.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 4, 2004 5:34 PM

I don't think I could buy into that. Intelligence is a far easier task after the fact than before - they had the passenger manifests from the planes, they knew the hijackers names and nationalities and that they'd been training at a pilot school in the South less than a week afterwards. From there it's all tracing associations, where have they been, who have they seen. Those things are relatively easy to do, given a starting point that is accessable and investigatable (and sadly, this is easily provided by the blast point). Compared to assembling a threat analysis from disparate and possibly conflicting sources of information, and sketching out a future attempt well enough to stop it.

As a further example - no one saw Tim McVeigh coming at Okhlahoma City. But if I recall correctly, it took less than three days to find him, and barely 24 hours to identify him as the perp.

This, of course, does not absolve the Iraq situation.

Radhil Trebors
Persona Under Construction

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 5, 2004 5:18 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Thanks for the reply.

I was just comparing Admin messages. And I was actually watching the news closely for that particular item. When they found evidence in Afghanistan it was a BIG deal - both times. The sigh of relief was audible even through the official press-release rendition on network news.

They may have had a general idea it was al Qaeda, and had a few general pointers in that direction. But when it came to SPECIFIC evidence, the only stuff they found (it came from Afghanistan) was a videotape of bin Laden and somebody or other at dinner toasting 9/11, and a cryptic note.

To me, a guess is a flimsy excuse to topple a foreign government, and it's also probably not legal.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 5, 2004 11:13 PM

Finn mac Cumhal: It's good to see that you are aware of the complexity surrounding the Spanish elections. Many of my friends just throw around the, "Well the Spanish voters caved in to terrorists" line, which is not quite accurate - so it's become a bit of a sore spot with me

.

I understand what you are saying - that the attack in Spain could be perceived as a great victory for Al Qaeda and therefore they are motivated to attack the US right before our elections - but to me that's making the case more complex than it needs to be. In my mind, Al Qaeda wants to attack us. Period.

I recognize there is a threat. And I recognize that the government might want to increase the terror alert level without providing us with all the information that went into their decision. And I recognize that they may lower the alert level based on new information. But at some point I think the administration needs to be honest with the public and outline why they raised the level and why they eventually lowered the level. Since the color coded scheme was first introduced we have been in two states: yellow and orange. Increasing the level to orange has direct consequences on local government resources. The language that Tom Ridge has used in the past to explain the level increases has been exceedingly vague. If you're going to ask the entire country to go to a higher state of preparadness I think you eventually need to brief people.

For this reason I thought the latest increase in alert level was a better approach: to only raise the level in specific areas. That way the rest of the country does not commit resources that the Department of Homeland Security knows are unnecessary. But as I learn more about the nature of the evidence they used I get more skeptical as to the timing of the raise in alert level.

I really want to believe that those who are running the country would not use an attack, or the threat of an attack, for partisan advantage. But the more I learn the harder it is to believe that.

Here is a brief history of our color coded past since the scheme was introduced. I have yet to find a clear explanation for why the threat went up and why it came back down for many of these (granted, this is a topic that I have not researched in too much detail so any and all input is appreciated).

march 12 - september 9, 2002 YELLOW
september 10 - september 24, 2002 ORANGE
september 25, 2002 - february 6, 2003 YELLOW
february 7 - february 27, 2003 ORANGE
february 28 - march 16, 2003 YELLOW
march 17 - april 15, 2003 ORANGE
april 16 - may 19, 2003 YELLOW
may 20 - may 30, 2003 ORANGE
may 31 - december 20, 2003 YELLOW
december 21, 2003 - january 9, 2004 ORANGE
january 10 - july 31, 2004 - YELLOW
august 1 - present ORANGE

I think this is complete but I could have missed one in there somewhere.

I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 6, 2004 12:44 AM

WINTERFELL

IMHO the warnings are a bullshit system to keep the cows in fear and let certain folks in this country compensate for their feelings of inadequacy in protecting their families from an IDEA. Because that is what terrorism is at the root. An Idea.. and you can't really fight an idea.. at least not with a rainbow colored alert system that no one I know in the United States neither understands nor really pays any attention to. The War Against Terror (herefore after referred to as T.W.A.T) is just like the war on drugs.. you can't win it. As long as the idea survives, people will use it.

As long as people are talking about terrorism, and as long as the media is giving more and more light to each of these factions with their own agenda, we are showing those folks that in America, terrorism works. You blow up a few people, and you and your groups demands and beliefs end up on CNN for the next 48 hours.. instant press and an easy outlet for anyone's frustrations against American society. Wanna hurt/piss off/scare Americans? join/fund/support a terrorist group.

The more we change our society and way of life to combat this idea, the more ground these enemies and gaining in T.W.A.T.

Terrorism has been around for a long time, bombings, suicides, even beheadings.. Am I suggesting we just ignore it all and pretend it doesn't exist like before and the world will get better? No.. but, accepting it and moving on would be a good start.

Abolishing Terrorism is like abolishing swimming.. even if you somehow managed to prevent everyone in the world from swimming, the myth or memory of it would remain.. and someone, somewhere, for whatever cause, for whatever reason, would eventually try it again.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 6, 2004 7:58 AM

Soupcatcher: Your concerns are not unwarranted, and you seem to have a strong command of the issues. I don’t know all the reasons why HLS increases or decreases the terror warning either. The truth is that you will probably never see much of the deciding information because it is classified. I know that you want to know why, and that is a legitimate concern; but you must know that so do the terrorists, and they have the same access to information that you do.

Al Qaeda does want to attack us. Period. That is true. That doesn’t change that events in Spain may have encouraged them. The difference between a fanatic that hates the US and one that attacks the US is the willingness to do so. But in the end, you are right. Ultimately, terrorism is very unpredictable. It’s very difficult to say that it will happen here and now, or over there and later. But terrorists will be evaluating the situation in the US as well and, as I said earlier, our greatest protection is the warnings, even if they are purely random (and I don’t really believe they are). Because various Al Qaeda militants are watching the US and evaluating an optimal date for an attack. If you can’t find any rhyme in these dates, then probably the terrorist can’t either, and so they must fight what they cannot see.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If the terrorists are unpredictable, so must we be.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 6, 2004 9:46 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
Because various Al Qaeda militants are watching the US and evaluating an optimal date for an attack. If you can’t find any rhyme in these dates, then probably the terrorist can’t either, and so they must fight what they cannot see.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If the terrorists are unpredictable, so must we be.

Is this just word play or do you really believe it? Because it is just plain looney.

Why not throw resources around in an insane way? Because you won't be putting them where you need them. Because they might not be there at all when it's important. Because of the lessons of the boy who cried wolf and chicken little. Because setting off false fire alarms is illegal for a good reason.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 6, 2004 9:50 AM

What the hell are you talking about? Are you just trying to miss the point? Is this just a blatant attempt at willful ignorance?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 13, 2006 8:46 PM

SUCCATASH

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Are we safer? Only time will truly tell. But I have misgivings about an Administration that on the one hand says we are safer, and on the other hand issues new warnings every week.

My clock on a new attack (16.5 months to go) is still running.

Rue, are you safer?

"Gott kann dich nicht vor mir beschuetzen, weil ich nicht boese bin."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 14, 2006 3:06 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by Knibblet:
I believe that everyone I know is at more risk of becoming unemployed, losing health insurance, their home or - Universe Forbid - losing their child in smirky ass bastard's oil war than they are of any terrorist attack.
Assuming any of this is true (and much of it is not), how does that make warning the American people about potential terrorist movements any less important?

My problem with this is "potential terrorist movements"

There might be a potential terrorist attack ( or attempt) on an American ( or Allied) facility ( or base), here in the USA ( or somewhere around the world) tomorrow ( or some time soon.)

They usedta raise the alert color and give warnings like THAT.

And the sun might potentially rise in the East tomorrow, or maybe someday soon. or not.

How 'bout a credible, specific threat coming soon?

Even a " terrorists tried to sneak liquid explosives onto airplanes and blow them up, SO they might try again" warning, though not indicating much prediction, made some sense...

SO how about a warning about a real as opposed to potential terrorist attack before one actually happens, or busting up a specific plot in the final stages of preparation, as opposed to catching someone potentially getting ready to begin surveilance to strike somewhere someday?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 14, 2006 3:16 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

2 more points

1. What brought this thread from 2004 back to life again? musta been in cryogenic suspension in a big glass box.

2. I looked up the terrorist attack that the gov't stopped , referenced above, followed the suggested link. They caught the guy, an American, in 2002, in Tennessee. A great victory in the War Against Terror, the one we're fighting against al-Queda, in Afghanistan and Iraq in 2006.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 14, 2006 7:31 AM

ANTIMASON

Quote:
Originally posted by Winterfell:
IMHO the warnings are a bullshit system to keep the cows in fear and let certain folks in this country compensate for their feelings of inadequacy in protecting their families from an IDEA. Because that is what terrorism is at the root. An Idea.. and you can't really fight an idea.. at least not with a rainbow colored alert system that no one I know in the United States neither understands nor really pays any attention to. The War Against Terror (herefore after referred to as T.W.A.T) is just like the war on drugs.. you can't win it. As long as the idea survives, people will use it.

especially when the idea is that America is the great Satan seeking to take control over the middle east; in which case a ground invasion and military occupation plays directly into their hands. and then we've been sold on this goal to liberate Iraq through democracy.. when everyone knows that democracy is mob rule, which is what has allowed the central banks to enslave Americans and use us as pawns to establish a global government. we need to recognize that the threat comes from the authorities and the establishment, and not the people on the streets

Quote:
As long as people are talking about terrorism, and as long as the media is giving more and more light to each of these factions with their own agenda, we are showing those folks that in America, terrorism works. You blow up a few people, and you and your groups demands and beliefs end up on CNN for the next 48 hours.. instant press and an easy outlet for anyone's frustrations against American society. Wanna hurt/piss off/scare Americans? join/fund/support a terrorist group.

its interesting that the patriot act was introduced like 5 days after 9/11, and signed into law a month later... as if its possible to write, let along pass anything through our beaurocracy that fast. and then of course 9/11 provided the justification for a middle eastern interjection. this should be obvious to all of us by now that our government has far more motivation than radical muslims, that 'terrorism' is the mother of all wars, which will only succeed in giving total personal sovereignty over to an ever totalitarian establishment. it is possible to win the war on terror, and lose the war for our freedom, which is exactly the corner we've been driven into. i mean, we're being asked to slowly give up freedom for liberty, when they are the same thing! thats classic Orwellian double speak

Quote:
Terrorism has been around for a long time, bombings, suicides, even beheadings.. Am I suggesting we just ignore it all and pretend it doesn't exist like before and the world will get better? No.. but, accepting it and moving on would be a good start.

terrorism has been a long time.. and governments have quite the track record of terrorizing their own citizens aswell. i think accepting that we need a spiritual message rather than a militarized one might help a little bit

Quote:
Abolishing Terrorism is like abolishing swimming.. even if you somehow managed to prevent everyone in the world from swimming, the myth or memory of it would remain.. and someone, somewhere, for whatever cause, for whatever reason, would eventually try it again.

well... when terrorism stretches to include pot smokers and government dissenters, we suddenly have a constant stream of Americans who become suspects

"Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order [referring to the 1991 LA Riot]. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond, whether real or *promulgated*, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this *scenario*, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government." -Dr. Henry Kissinger, Bilderberger Conference

"Corporations have been enthroned .... An era of corruption in high places will follow and the money power will endeavor to prolong its reign by working on the prejudices of the people... until wealth is aggregated in a few hands ... and the Republic is destroyed."
"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." -Abraham Lincoln

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 18, 2006 5:31 PM