Terror warnings- debate.

[palmtreegirl]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/07/08/ridge.alqaeda/index.html

That's the link to an article about the lastest warning issued.

Do you think that all the warnings have or will have a numbing affect on the public? In the article it states that the goverment wanted to remind us to be vigliant and that's why they issued it.

I do however think that people have started to not take them as serious. I know in the beginning everytime they issued one I'd freak out a little, now I listen but then just go about my day.

Personally I think it's a damned if they do damned if they don't situation. If they warn us and nothing happens eventually people start to not take them seriously. But if they don't warn us and something does happen the fall out would be incredible.


What do you think?

 

[Obi-Wan Pinobi]

I think they do have a numbing effect on people and many may think the government is like Chicken Little yelling "the sky is falling!" Thing is, that's not the case. When the govt. issues a warning, it's more like if Chicken Little was saying "we have credible evidence that the sky may fall at some point over the next few weeks, and we ask the public to be aware of their surroundings and report anything that looks suspiciously like the sky may be falling to the authorities."

Okay, so it's not a great analogy.

I wouldn't be surprised if, during the past warnings, US law enforcement and military forces stopped and captured potential threats and terrorists attempting to destroy something and kill people. It'd be nice if the government would release such information so we would know that threats are being neutralized, but I can understand that doing so might tip our hand to other threats still out there.

 

[Pooh Girl 71]

I think they have a numbing effect. I don't even pay attention to them anymore.

 

[Kallison]

Well they never give specific details so what are we supposed to do about it? I'm usually just happy I'm not flying anywhere when one is issued (although I would still go -- if I were).

 

[Saffron]

I kind of pay attention, I just like to hear or read what is being said, to see if there is something more than the "someday, somewhere, some how, some time" as all others in the past have been. So I'm not quite numb to them yet.

Somewhere, sometime, somehow, no matter whose on watch, it's gonna happen again, and whoever is sitting in the White House is gonna take crap for not doing enough, or get praised for doing everything they could to stop it. It is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.

 

[N.Bailey]

I don't pay any attention to them anymore either.

 

[beattyfamily]

Originally posted by Saffron
I kind of pay attention, I just like to hear or read what is being said, to see if there is something more than the "someday, somewhere, some how, some time" as all others in the past have been. So I'm not quite numb to them yet.

Somewhere, sometime, somehow, no matter whose on watch, it's gonna happen again, and whoever is sitting in the White House is gonna take crap for not doing enough, or get praised for doing everything they could to stop it. It is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.

I totally agree.

I want the warnings. I appreciate them. I need a reminder once in awhile too that the threat is still there and very real.

If they don't warn us and something happens...

I thought this latest warning was based on credible evidence that they were planning something to affect the outcome of our election like what happened in Spain. I sure wouldn't put it past them at all. I want to be prepared. They are DESPERATE to attack us right here at home. It will happen soon enough, unfortunately.

 

[WDWHound]

The warnings are there because the government knows that after the next attack comes, there will be people yelling "Why didn't you warn us?", as if this were a realistic possibility.

It all stems from American's inssistance to be "safe", even though being safe has always been an illusion. When we find out that we aren't safe (from terrorists or anything else), we look for someone to blame. We yell "Why didn't you protect me?" or "Why didn't you warn me?" and then we start looking for scapegoats. Witness the 911 witchhunts (oops, I mean hearings).

The world has changed. Even though our individual risks are still low, we were never completely safe and we are less so now, but most people don't want to accept that. When something like 911 drives the point home, they look for something to blame so they can pretend we've addressed the issue and are safe "again". All the government is doing by issuing these warnings is trying to be sure at least some of this criticism is blunted when the next attack comes. If I were in their shoes, I would be doing the same thing.

 

[peachgirl]

I pay no attention to them at all anymore. I can't live my life being on guard 24 hours a day.

I think it's either a case of cya or every once in a while this administration wants to remind us just how dangerous the world is, what a great job they're doing of protecting us and that maybe we should think twice about replacing them.

 

[wdwdvcdad]

The warnings are crap unless they give us some actual facts and specific situations to watch out for.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

I agree with everyone else. At first, they used to scare me to death. I thought that anthrax was lurking around every corner.

Was it propoganda? A little part of me wonders...

 

[LScot]

I agree with Saffron. I think the government can't win.

I also think that it our responsibility to NOT become numb to a warning.

So, if something does happen and what are people going to do? Blame the government once again because something happened this time but all 100 other warnings nothing did happen?
I agree you can't live your life in fear, I know I don't. But I certainly heed the warnings and don't allow myself to become numb.

 

[Nancy]

I somewhat pay attention to them. I want to now if they are hearing anything that might indicate an attack is in the planning stages. I don't do anything special, just keep my eyes open more in public places. I don't think they should raise the alert level unless they can give specifics.

I also think we are in for another close to the election. (I hope I am wrong or we stop it before it happens) Remember 9/11 was primary day in NYC. Madrid had their big attack on the day before their elections...it would make sense that they would try to disrupt national elections here.

The warnings serve a purpose, you don't have to live your life in fear or hide away, just be more alert. If you see anything unusual for your area of the country report it...if nothing is wrong oh well....BUT if it is something; you might have prevented it.

 

[Dan Murphy]

Like a tornado watch, be aware.

 

[AirForceRocks]

I think that the people are saying it the warnings are propganda are the same ones that would be screaming "Why didn't the administration warn us about this????!!!" if something were to happen.

When there is increased chatter or credible info, it should be passed on. What people choose to do with the info is up to them, but it should be out there.

 

[ThreeCircles]

Yeah, it's little more than propaganda.

Here's a fun link to make up your own terror alert:

http://subintsoc.net/madlib.php

It's like the old ad-libs!

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
Yeah, it's little more than propaganda.

And you know this...how?

You obviously have some kind of inside track to information within the U.S. intelligence community that the rest of us aren't privy to...come on, spill the beans!

And let's take a few steps into the future...say there had been no warning today, and there were an attack during the Democratic convention. Can you say with a straight face that you wouldn't be screaming at the top of your lungs "If they had info, why didn't they share it??? What did Bush know and when did he know it???"

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
And you know this...how?

And you know it isn't...how?

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
And you know it isn't...how?

Because I have no reason to disbelieve what DHS is saying. There is no political gain to making up this type of information. It could easily be exposed by someone coming out and saying "Nope, no threats have been received and there is no increase in chatter - DHS is lying to the public". There is potential economic damage (take a look at the per barrel price of oil today after the DHS announcement), and it gives the opposition party the opportunity to say "See, we are no safer than we were before".

On the other hand, having watched the government being skewered for not releasing info on increased chatter leading up to 9/11, they have every reason now to release such information when they have it.

So, I'll ask again, what makes you so sure it is propaganda?

And while you're at it, how about taking a couple of minutes to answer my second question as well.

 

[Nancy]

I actually think if this was propaganda it wouldn't be released by the Bush camp....because so many people think that all the terror warnings are not worth reporting, so basically if they are talking about increased chatter and credible sources and there isn't any, it would turn around and bite Bush in the butt....why would he want that to happen.

Right now, no matter what Bush does it's going to be knocked down by his non-supporters. I hope and pray there is no more attacks...but I want to know about increase in chatter and i8f they get more concret facts i want to know that too.

AND for the record...I am NOT a huge Bush fan, not a Kerry fan either. I don't want to vote for either one right now. BUt I think we should hear about the warnings and I do not think they are propaganda...just my opinion...no facts to back it up.