Terror warnings- debate.

[Planogirl]

The truth is that we really don't KNOW either way.

Personally, I listen but there's little I can do anyhow. I'm afraid that too many warnings particularly without changing the security level will start to sound a lot like the boy who cried "wolf" after a while. When something really does happen, maybe most won't be paying attention.

 

[ThreeCircles]

Given the track record of this administration concerning honesty and integrity, I would be inclined to believe very little that is spewed forth by anyone in it.

Why the "secrecy" about some things but the all-out yelling when it comes to these "terror alerts" that really do very little for the average American citizen? Just from the responses on this thread it appears to mean very little in the way that Americans conduct their day-to-day affairs. Are they aimed at emergency personnel? Then send it through more appropriate channels rather than airing it all over the place.

Side-by-side they say a chance of attack is elevated or high but they urge everyone to go about their lives. Yeah, so, why tell us in the first place? Is it going to stop an attack? No. Is it going to save lives? Considering they give next to no info, no. So, where's the motivation?

We can keep energy-meetings secret. We can keep individuals imprisoned without charges and without access to the justice system. We can keep WMD intelligence sources secret.

And yet we focus on these alert warnings with all of our attention?

Again, given the credibility gap or w and his administration, I think these warnings leave a lot to be desired in the way of doing anything for the public and should be examined for what they are.

 

[ThreeCircles]

AND, given the all-out F- performance of our intelligence (according to w supporters who are willing to point the blame at anyone but their wonderful president), should we really place that much faith in the idea that they'll get it right this time around?

 

[wishuponastarforever]

No matter the political persuasion - No matter who is in office
The fact is our world (here in the United States of America) has changed. Terrorism reached our soil. It was inevitable.

We can't be afraid but we can't forget. We are the best defense we have EACH OTHER.

It's a fine line the government (Democratic or Republican) walks these days. They don't want to be the little boy who cried "wolf" and they also don't want us so frightened our economy suffers, but they NEED us to be aware.

Please don't ignore warnings just be reminded - it can happen again. The terrorists of 9/11 fed off our innocence and trust - May we NEVER forget. A little awareness goes a long way.

 

[AirForceRocks]

Very good ThreeCircles, you managed to come up with an answer for the first question. Not that it backs up your contention that it's propaganda, but it's an answer nonetheless.

Care to tackle the second question now? If no warnings had been forthcoming and there were an attack, would you or would you not be screaming about the Bush administration not warning us?

 

[cati]

wishuponastarforever - ITA - well said

AirForceRocks - I told you we agreed about 99% of the time!! ITA with your posts.

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
If no warnings had been forthcoming and there were an attack, would you or would you not be screaming about the Bush administration not warning us?

No. I don't think so.

But, like Steve says, I don't engage in hypotheticals. It's pointless.

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
No. I don't think so.

But, like Steve says, I don't engage in hypotheticals. It's pointless.

Especially when being honest when answering such hypotheticals could potentially expose complete hypocrisy.

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
Especially when being honest when answering such hypotheticals could potentially expose complete hypocrisy.

Are you calling me dishonest?

Wow. You sure do know a lot Brenda! I don't think I give you enough credit. You even know how I feel about issues, what I think about events, and what my answers should be!

Hmmm... I wonder how you know so much?

 

[Pugdog007]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
Care to tackle the second question now? If no warnings had been forthcoming and there were an attack, would you or would you not be screaming about the Bush administration not warning us?

I think we all know the answer to that.

As one who travels frequently to NYC, DC, LA... I DO pay attention to the threat level and take notice when it is elevated.

Keep on calling it propaganda. And when there's another attack, don't post any woulda, coulda, shoulda. It's sad that even when it comes to national security, people want to take sides. In the end, don't we all really have the same goal? To not be attacked again?

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by Pugdog007
I think we all know the answer to that.

Another clairvoyant or another "Brenda, the All-Knower and All-Seerer of All Truth"?

As one who travels frequently to NYC, DC, LA... I DO pay attention to the threat level and take notice when it is elevated.

I'm curious, what exactly do you do differently when the alert level is "High" or "Elevated" as compared to when it's "Moderate"? And how does this make the nation more safe?

It's sad that even when it comes to national security, people want to take sides. In the end, don't we all really have the same goal? To not be attacked again?

Ah, yes. The famous republican argument. How does it go again? You're either with us or you're against us. Right. Well, we all know that one turned out to be a real winner.

I wonder, how does that bode for recent public opinion of the now-famous "W's War in Iraq: This Time We're Going In"? Does it mean that most Americans are now "against us"? And, if so, what does that mean?

 

[Brer_Papa]

I believe that Freedom of Choice....which we still have...leaves every individual to choose how to react to these warnings....

as stated previously, in this thread & others... the world did change...our lives.... changed forever after the attacks of 9/11...

so our guard should never be down.....never...

but I do wish there COULD be more specifics when the alerts are issued...

increased chatter may be just a game to the terrorists to make us jump through hoops....who knows?

if that is their plan, doesn't it seem to be working?

and if we let ourselves become numb....aren't we playing into the terrorists hands even more?

In my mind...if that is all part of their game plan....then SHOULD an attack happen....an icrease in chatter without specifics will indeed catch us off guard....and the inevitable questions will ensue...

Now....having said all that....let me remind you something I had said in a previous thread about the terror alert level going to orange over the July 4th Holidays in 2002...and Tom Ridge came to Erie during the heightened level...

He spent the holiday time at the swanky Kahkwa Club golfing and swilling beers...

it didn't seem to me then nor does it yet seem proper...that he left DC during that time period...but that is getting off topic...

going back on topic....this warning issued.....what are your thoughts on this qustion......

Does it seem coincidental that this warnng followed so closely in time to Kerry announcing his VP choice?


and before anyone gets perplexic...I'm asking for your thoughts....don't go ballistic on me asking me for facts to back it up....

it's a question...neither a position or a statement...just a question...

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by Brer_Papa

He spent the holiday time at the swanky Kahkwa Club golfing and swilling beers...

it didn't seem to me then nor does it yet seem proper...that he left DC during that time period...

Maybe he was engaged in an undercover operation to root out the terrorists in the Kahkwa Club.

Does it seem coincidental that this warnng followed so closely in time to Kerry announcing his VP choice?

I don't think it's at all coincidental. Sounds like yet another republican election tactic. You know, a Wag the Dog move.

Of course, the "increased chatter" could have been nothing more than Democratic online campaign activity. Or, there could have been a massive run on any number of book titles from stores and libraries. Gee, we had better raise the alert level!

 

[Pugdog007]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
Another clairvoyant or another "Brenda, the All-Knower and All-Seerer of All Truth"?

I'm curious, what exactly do you do differently when the alert level is "High" or "Elevated" as compared to when it's "Moderate"? And how does this make the nation more safe?


Ah, yes. The famous republican argument. How does it go again? You're either with us or you're against us. Right. Well, we all know that one turned out to be a real winner.

I wonder, how does that bode for recent public opinion of the now-famous "W's War in Iraq: This Time We're Going In"? Does it mean that most Americans are now "against us"? And, if so, what does that mean?

1. Doesn't take a psychic. You are totally predictable.

2. I expect longer waits at security and plan accordingly. It stays top-of-mind and I do not let my guard down.

3. What does it mean? It means cut the partisan "propaganda" crap and get behind your country when she's threatened. Simple as that.

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by Pugdog007
1. Doesn't take a psychic. You are totally predictable.

Well, now that wasn't predictable, now was it?

2. I expect longer waits at security and plan accordingly. It stays top-of-mind and I do not let my guard down.

I know I'll sleep better tonight.

3. What does it mean? It means cut the partisan "propaganda" crap and get behind your country when she's threatened. Simple as that.

Yes, "you're either with us or against us." Predictable response? That's a big "yes."

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
Are you calling me dishonest?

Wow. You sure do know a lot Brenda! I don't think I give you enough credit. You even know how I feel about issues, what I think about events, and what my answers should be!

Hmmm... I wonder how you know so much?

I'm saying that based on your tendency to blame the Bush administration for everything that it does (or doesn' t do), I feel that your response to the hypothetical I posted is pretty predictable.

 

[vernon]

The government(s) have little choice but to put out the warnings if they have any sort of intel that there is a possibility of an attack. As to the timing and regularity of the "warnings" like all things there are a multitude of reasons, some genuine (for the benefit of the public) and some not ( for the benefit of the government and/or it's intel services).

IMHO on some occassions it's genuine (maybe not a genuine attack but the intercepted "talk" is from genuine plans) , on some occassions it's the terrorists throwing up chaff in order to numb the public and have the authorities running around chasing their tails in the hope the genuine cases get missed in the action, in some cases it's the intel services covering their butts ( ambiguous or inconclusive intel) as they are not held in great respect at the moment (missing the ball now would really drop them in it). In all those cases it's right and proper to put out the warnings but I also think in some cases it's the governments throwing out some chaff when there are other stories coming out that they don't want scrutenised too closely.

If it wasn't for the regular coincidences of the governments ( certainly the Brit government) releasing the latest "terror warning" at a time when embarrassing news stories were also being released I'd be a little more inclined to give the governments the benefit of the doubt.

 

[wvrevy]

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

I can't believe I'm about to say this, and I haven't read the whole thread yet, but I agree completely with the above quote from wdwdvcdad

I think I need to lie down

 

[wvrevy]

Ok, now I've read the whole thing, and I still feel the same way...The "warnings" are nothing of the sort, since they contain absolutely no useful information. It's a waste of time to try to "warn" people about something that may happen at some time, in some way, by someone, and somewhere...though we don't know any more than that.

They accomplish nothing.

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by vernon
The government(s) have little choice but to put out the warnings if they have any sort of intel that there is a possibility of an attack. As to the timing and regularity of the "warnings" like all things there are a multitude of reasons, some genuine (for the benefit of the public) and some not ( for the benefit of the government and/or it's intel services).

IMHO on some occassions it's genuine (maybe not a genuine attack but the intercepted "talk" is from genuine plans) , on some occassions it's the terrorists throwing up chaff in order to numb the public and have the authorities running around chasing their tails in the hope the genuine cases get missed in the action, in some cases it's the intel services covering their butts ( ambiguous or inconclusive intel) as they are not held in great respect at the moment (missing the ball now would really drop them in it). In all those cases it's right and proper to put out the warnings but I also think in some cases it's the governments throwing out some chaff when there are other stories coming out that they don't want scrutenised too closely.

If it wasn't for the regular coincidences of the governments ( certainly the Brit government) releasing the latest "terror warning" at a time when embarrassing news stories were also being released I'd be a little more inclined to give the governments the benefit of the doubt.

I can understand the perspective of a gov't. wanting to avoid less than flattering news stories, but I don't see what benefit they'd expect to derive from concocting a false terror warning. Surely, they are aware as everyone else is about the dangers of crying "wolf." Not to mention the possibility of someone in the media finding out that the latest terror warning was based on nothing ... talk about an embarrassing situation.