FBI warns al Qaeda possibly planning 'spectacular' attack

[dahess]

It is very upsetting to me. We were just thinking of visiting WDW again next June. I have so much fear inside of right now. My dd's b-day party is this weekend and I am trying to stay cheery.

 

[luvwinnie]

what will happen will happen...so I'm not going to worry and obsess over it.

 

[grinningghost]

Another vote for they are "covering their butts". I think using the word "spectacular" was simply an attention getter. It's as though the boy has cried wolf one too many times and most of us are tuning him out. I say, live your life as you normally would, because if you don't, the terrorists are getting exactly what they want.

 

[raidermatt]

Question:

If the heightened state of alert by some agency or individual results in a terrorist plot being aborted, how would we know about it? This could very well have happened one or more times since 9/11, but we give no credit because we don't even know it happened. Certainly Osama and company have not waited 14+ months to strike within the US again out of the goodness of their hearts...

There was heavy criticism after 9/11 because information was not shared between agencies, or with the public. However, that information was not specific. Nobody knew that on 9/11 there was going to be an attack. But for months various agencies new the threat of an attack existed. Some even knew airliners were a probably target. So, many said the information should have been released so the public could decide.

We even have relatives of 9/11 victims saying that if they knew of the threat, their relative might not have flown.

There's nothing wrong with issuing the warning, even if the information is non-specific. Whether the information is released or withheld does not change the fact that we know the threat is real. So, if they recieve new indications, it does no harm to release the info, and could very well do plenty of good.

If they have to engage in CYA, its only because we have plenty of people in this country that have to find somebody else to blame when something goes wrong.

 

[GoldenGate]

 

[C.Ann]

Originally posted by raidermatt
Question:

If the heightened state of alert by some agency or individual results in a terrorist plot being aborted, how would we know about it? This could very well have happened one or more times since 9/11, but we give no credit because we don't even know it happened. Certainly Osama and company have not waited 14+ months to strike within the US again out of the goodness of their hearts...

There was heavy criticism after 9/11 because information was not shared between agencies, or with the public. However, that information was not specific. Nobody knew that on 9/11 there was going to be an attack. But for months various agencies new the threat of an attack existed. Some even knew airliners were a probably target. So, many said the information should have been released so the public could decide.

We even have relatives of 9/11 victims saying that if they knew of the threat, their relative might not have flown.

There's nothing wrong with issuing the warning, even if the information is non-specific. Whether the information is released or withheld does not change the fact that we know the threat is real. So, if they recieve new indications, it does no harm to release the info, and could very well do plenty of good.

If they have to engage in CYA, its only because we have plenty of people in this country that have to find somebody else to blame when something goes wrong.

----------------------------------------------

Very nicely stated..

While I find it a bit unsettling that their warnings lack specifics, they seem to be in a "damned if they do/damned if they don't" situation - don't you agree?

 

[nativetxn]

Well...here's how I look at it. I can't change any of these things. I do think the media sensationalizes everything that they can.

I just have to live my life, I can't worry about everything the media reports

 

[Fishbone†]

Well said Raidermatt!! My thoughts exactly...... we want protection, but scream when it slows us down or affects our freedom to move and speak freely. When we are surprised we ask "Why didn't anyone tell us?" When they tell us, we think they're over-doing it and "teaching us a lesson."

Unfortunately, scary or not, adult or child, this is our new reality.... it scares us so much because we had been so safe. And relatively speaking, we still are. This stuff happens daily in some countries. It is their reality minute by minute.... and it's more than a threat.

I thank God that I live in a country that has the defense, intelligence and wherewithal to ward off the majority of this without my knowledge of anything having transpired.

JMHO

 

[C.Ann]

Originally posted by Fishbone†
Well said Raidermatt!! My thoughts exactly...... we want protection, but scream when it slows us down or affects our freedom to move and speak freely. When we are surprised we ask "Why didn't anyone tell us?" When they tell us, we think they're over-doing it and "teaching us a lesson."

Unfortunately, scary or not, adult or child, this is our new reality.... it scares us so much because we had been so safe. And relatively speaking, we still are. This stuff happens daily in some countries. It is their reality minute by minute.... and it's more than a threat.

I thank God that I live in a country that has the defense, intelligence and wherewithal to ward off the majority of this without my knowledge of anything having transpired.

JMHO

----------------------------------------

Also very nicely said!!

 

[WillyJ]

Okay, my question is. . what did they tell us with this statement that has any practicle use what so ever?

How are we any safer?

 

[C.Ann]

WiilyJ

I don't know that we're any safer or not - but I don't think that's the main issue..

It's a matter of the public never being satisfied.. There was widespread criticism after 9/11 that warnings should have been issued -whether they contained specifics or not - and now that those same types of warnings are being issued, they're still being criticized..

Like I said earlier - "damned if they do and damned if they don't"..

Personally I would rather have warnings lacking specifics than have NO warnings at all.. But that's just my own opinion - no reflection on anyone else.. I don't like surprises..

 

[WillyJ]

Hi C.Ann!

I didn't mean to devalue your opinon, and I aplogize if it seemed that way. .

Fishbone said; "we want protection, but scream when it slows us down or affects our freedom to move and speak freely. When we are surprised we ask "Why didn't anyone tell us?" When they tell us, we think they're over-doing it and "teaching us a lesson."
"

I would like to clarify one thing that I don't think I made clear in my original post. .

My problem with the FBI and the INS is not that they didn't give us some kind of general warning before 9/11. . it's that both agencies admittedly had information that the terrorists were in this country illegally, on expired student visas, and had ties to terrorist organizations, and they did nothing. . (and the younger sniper in the recent killings in the D.C/Virginia areas was here under similar circumstances. . )

Rather then release vauge (and in my opinon worthless) warnings, I feel they should be using their resources to round up any person in this country who has broken the agreement that allowed them entrance in the first place. . .

It's not a matter of right or wrong; if you are anyone feels better by having gotten a warning that the Bush administration admits does not have specific facts behind it, I'm not going to say you're wrong. .

I just don't think it serves any purpose at all, and as an Amercian I have the right to question the motivation behind it. .

Perhaps I missed it, but if someone can show me where the FBI/INS recieved heavy criticism for not releasing a vaugue warning like todays before 9/11, rather the the legitimate criticism that they had information and didn't act on it, then I'll be happy to stand corrected. .

 

[C.Ann]

Hi to you too, WillyJ !!

Okay - I think I get what you're saying - and at no time did I think you were devaluing my opinion.. I think our wires got crossed and we were comparing apples and oranges..

I certainly agree that the thing that will help us the most - and keep us the safest - is if they can round up all these terrorists that are living right here among us - but until they accomplish that, I'm going to stick with my feelings that I don't like "surprises".. LOL

Hope you didn't think my reply to you was devaluing your opinion either - I was just clarifying what I thought the issue was..

Have a good one, Willy!!

 

[WillyJ]

Thanks C. Ann. . we're cool!

 

[Fishbone†]

WillyJ:

I wasn't saying in my post that the FBI/INS was responding to a complaint by over-warning. I don't know of any public reprimand of them for having done so.... there may or may not have been one. I was referring to the general public..... I remember writing an email to a co-worker the day after 9/11 expressing my feelings about her criticism of the government and the blame she was putting on them and our way of life in the United States. I have heard several times the complaint that "the information was not shared", by people to people - not necessarily a bonafied registered complaint, just talking. I have also heard the complaint that we weren't protected. Unfortunately (and this is in my humble opinion - honestly.... I'm not pointing fingers, nor have I proven this in anyway, just an observation), we were going about our free and care-free (for the most part) lives, and we would not and did not welcome glitches and interruptions.... just a question (and a response I may very well have been guilty of myself), but had they "interrupted" our freedoms... which includes allowing anyone into our country to enjoy our freedoms without the careful inspection rituals of Ellis Island, and giving everyone the same rights and treatment (which is what makes our country great), before disaster struck, would we have been open to the change? I would like to say we would have, and that we would have been very understanding considering the threats, but I don't know if that would have been the case.... we like to be left alone to do our own thing (and being an extremely independent and territorial person, I say this with personal experience). We enjoy(ed) our freedom to go and do as we please without security checks and check points. I think, for me, while I see the importance in it, and would never complain about it, the heighten security and how it has changed our life-style is what I have come to bemoan the most about what has happened (outside of the loss of life - which was, hands-down, the most horrible and tragic result of 9/11).

I can't say that I don't wish they wouldn't unnecessarily alarm people - try as I might, their warning affect my thinking whether I want them to or not. I just think sometimes we don't know what we want, and we certainly don't like the changes this has forced upon us.... the warnings possibly being one of them that we disapprove of the most..... possibly because it's "preventable" and seemingly "unnecessary".

Okay.... rambling over..... I'm off to cause some harmless mischief, so you're all free to take out your earplugs (or take off your blind-folds as the case may be) and remove me from ignore.

 

[raidermatt]

WillieJ, I also understand what you are saying, and if the announcements are made INSTEAD of taking real action, then of course that's a problem. But I don't think that's the case. You and I may think the INS in particular could and should do more than they are even doing today (and at least they are trying to do more than they used to), but that has nothing to do with whether they make the announcement.

Let's face it, part of the reason for the recent announcement is CYA. But does it make us any safer? I don't know for sure, but if it results in hospitals being more vigilent, then I'd say yes, it does have a positive impact. I know I hadn't thought of hospitals being a target high on their list.

nativetxn- By no means am I saying you should panic over the announcement, or make changes in how you live your life. And I agree about the media sensationalizing many things...

 

[WillyJ]

Well Fishbone, my disagreement with your point view and others of the same (and it's repsectful: no hard feelings- I promise.. ) is this:

Does stripping down grandmothers in wheelchairs at the airport make us safer? Does giving these warnings with absolutely no facts, and no information that anyone can use to protect themselves, make us safer?

I have no doubt anyone would give up convience in exchange for extra protection against the kind of horrendous attack we saw on 9/11. . . but it just seems to me that we've seen these symbolic acts that punish/scare law abiding citizens and don't do a thing to make us safer, while there are still illegal (and I am not in anyway talking about people of any ethnic background who come her legally) aliens running around the country unchecked. .

I am sure willing to make any sacrifices necessary to ensure the safety of our country, but I don't consider it selfish complaining to question the necessity of governtment policies when they appear to be an empty and worthless gesture. .

And by the way, the Bush administration is now backing off having approved the statement, and are saying they have no idea why it was issued. .

 

[Fishbone†]

WillyJ - you have been more than respectful, thank you..... and if you find my discussion less than respectful, please let me know because I enjoy nothing more than a friendly discussion, but as I stated earlier this week, I do not appreciate or want to participate in anything that is not respectful.

This is a good discussion in MHO.