Terror warnings- debate.

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
No, nothing that severe, but I do pay attention more than usual.



Good for you. At least you're being somewhat vigilant.



An Kerry would do things differently, how?

Lets see I'm CPR/First Aid certified. I've been a certified life guard. I have been trained how to shoot by an ex-marine drill instructor (daddy). I run and swim too.

Will any of that enable me to prevent a terrorist attack, somehow I doubt it.

"Kerry, would do things differently?" Don't know, but it's worth a shot. If you vote for him too, maybe we'll find out.

 

[peachgirl]

That scare during the funeral was a made-for-TV disaster. It was particularly distressing to see a long-term senator (I can't recall his name -- maybe Stephens from AK) leaving the Senate building with his suit jacket thrown over his undershirt, a dazed look in his eyes.

I saw a news report last night about the incident. Apparently the only reason the plane wasn't shot down was because there was cloud cover preventing them from getting a clear shot at the aircraft. I don't recall exactly, but there was plenty of time for the information about the problems the plane was having to be transmitted to homeland security...it just never was until the plane was on final approach.

Someone needs to take a look at our procedures for shooting down planes or we're going to have a huge mess on our hands one of these days.

I agree, I hate it when I see pictures of our "leaders" running scared out of their offices. I can only imagine the joy such pictures bring to our enemies.

 

[septbride2002]

These generic warnings do nothing to help should another attack occur. Had the government came out in August before the 9/11 attacks and given one of these generic warnings, I don't see how it would have saved one single life...at least as far as informing the American public.

I have to agree with this statement. And while I do not ignore the warnings, nor think they are raging propoganda, I do worry that the vagueness of these warnings will numb the people of our country.

 

[faithinkarma]

Originally posted by Miss Jasmine
The warnings you are reading on Internet news sites and listening to on the news are a waterdowned version of what has been sent out to law enforcement personnel and those involved in national security. Do you think it really is prudent to release more specific information and scare the crap out of people? Couldn't you see the mass hysteria? Part of national security is to also keep the people calm in times of crisis.

Well of course not....don't reveal any specific information because that might scare people...just tell them there is reason to be scared, and that will keep the fear level down. We all know that fear of the unknown is so much easier to deal with than facts.



Interesting that it happened one day before the release of the "scathing" report on the intelligence community's failure to gather information properly. Which report is being covered on CNN right now btw. The report that only covers the CIAs role in the screw up.......we will have to wait until HUGE SURPRISE after the eletion to learn how far up the mistakes went.

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by Pugdog007
3. What does it mean? It means cut the partisan "propaganda" crap and get behind your country when she's threatened. Simple as that.

 

[OceanAnnie]

Originally posted by caitycaity
i agree that it's a lose lose situation. an interesting tidbit though: i was on metro this morning and they actually had a station announcement specifically about the new terror warnings. i don't remember them doing that for a long time.

things do get stepped up law enforcement-wise when these warnings come out. i see it all the time around here: whether it's new metro announcements, more security at federal buildings, more metro police on the trains...

I think it's a lose lose situation too. I'm not numb to the alerts. Sept. 11th was not a movie. Al Qaeda wasn't made up by a political party. They have trained for attacks against the infidels, which is all of us. They don't care if you are Democrat or Republican. Why is it so unbelievable that they will strike again?

 

[Joeblack]

The whole world is at an elevated risk every day. Terrorists are not stupid. If they attack, they will do so when least expected, not when there is an elevated risk alert or when everyone expects it.

If, and when there is credible evidence of an elevated risk, it is my opinion that the Interpol, FBI, CIA etc. should use that information and devote all their resources to try and catch whoever is planning it. That is what police do when they have a tip, isnt' it? Do they go around publicizing that they have info about a criminal or do they use it to catch him in fraganti?

Scaring the population while telling them to go about their daily lives would change nothing in the event of an attack, except that, should it happen, it would cover the GOP's @$$. It does, however, boost the Government acceptance because people want to feel protected when they are scared (Vote Bush) and they are less likely to take chances (vote Kerry). Even though I cannot categorically say it is being used as such, it can be a damn good manipulation technique because if anyone questions it as fearmongering, the government can come up with the "lose-lose" or 'damn if you do, damn if you don't" arguments. In that case, it becomes a win-win situation for the GOP.

I do find it strange that there was not an elevated risk warning for the 4th of July and yet, one day after new polls show that Edwards' nomination has given Kerry a major boost over Bush, the warning comes out.

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by OceanAnnie
I think it's a lose lose situation too. I'm not numb to the alerts. Sept. 11th was not a movie. Al Qaeda wasn't made up by a political party. They have trained for attacks against the infidels, which is all of us. They don't care if you are Democrat or Republican. Why is it so unbelievable that they will strike again?

I don't think anyone thinks it is unbelievable. The problem, JMO, is two-fold:

1) The alerts cause fear/panic. This is almost as effective for the terrorists as an actual attack. If they can throw people off balance, cause problems, delays, etc., then they've partially accomplished their goal. Like peachgirl said, they were probably laughing out loud at the problem that occurred at Reagan's funeral in Washington. That's a real problem.

2) The "cry wolf" factor. There are only so many times that we can hear these warnings without anything happening before people start to get jaded or numb to them. Then we begin to be less vigilant and could miss something.

I think another attack is practically inevitable, or at least a serious attempt at one. I am concerned that we are not as prepared as we think we are and possibly setting ourselves up for disaster with warnings that are too generic for the public (I hope law enforcement gets more substantive information/data).

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by caitycaity
your're wrong. they enable individuals and organizations not privy to classified security info to take precautions or step up security.

this latest warning was a good reminder to me to re-check our emergency supplies at home and in the car, find out what our new emergency procedures were at work since i recently moved into a new building, discuss new emergency plans with dh (again since i have switched buildings and our commute is different now). it reminds me to be more vigilant about my surroundings.

i would also have to imagine that if the government contacted public transportation entities, like metro, without releasing the info to the general public, there would be leaks to the media anyways, in which case people would complain about the govrnment hiding info. from a political point of view, i think it's better to release as much info as they can to the public.

imho, people who say there is nothing they can do when these warnings come out are either the world's most prepared people, or they just don't really care and delude themselves that another attack is unlikely.

ITA, well said!

I'd like to preface my remarks by saying that what I'm about to say in NO WAY is meant as any kind of insult to anyone that lives anywhere in the country that isn't considered to be at the top of the list of targets. I know that people all over the country, regardless of where they live, are concerned about terrorism and about the possibility of future attacks.

But it has been *my* experience that people that live and/or work in the DC area are more likely to take these types of warnings more seriously than others in other parts of the country might. I would imagine that people in NYC might see the same thing there. Again, this is not to say that people outside of DC and NYC don't feel horrible about what happened on 9/11 or that they don't understand. But there is something about being here, seeing it, smelling it, and living daily with the aftermath that *I* believe makes us more likely to do as caity mentioned, i.e., use these warnings as a reminder to check up on our plans, our provisions, etc.

 

[Joeblack]

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
I don't think anyone thinks it is unbelievable. The problem, JMO, is two-fold:

1) The alerts cause fear/panic. This is almost as effective for the terrorists as an actual attack. If they can throw people off balance, cause problems, delays, etc., then they've partially accomplished their goal. Like peachgirl said, they were probably laughing out loud at the problem that occurred at Reagan's funeral in Washington. That's a real problem.

2) The "cry wolf" factor. There are only so many times that we can hear these warnings without anything happening before people start to get jaded or numb to them. Then we begin to be less vigilant and could miss something.

I think another attack is practically inevitable, or at least a serious attempt at one. I am concerned that we are not as prepared as we think we are and possibly setting ourselves up for disaster with warnings that are too generic for the public (I hope law enforcement gets more substantive information/data).

I actually agreee with you 100% on this one Steve.

 

[peachgirl]

But it has been *my* experience that people that live and/or work in the DC area are more likely to take these types of warnings more seriously than others in other parts of the country might. I would imagine that people in NYC might see the same thing there. Again, this is not to say that people outside of DC and NYC don't feel horrible about what happened on 9/11 or that they don't understand. But there is something about being here, seeing it, smelling it, and living daily with the aftermath that *I* believe makes us more likely to do as caity mentioned, i.e., use these warnings as a reminder to check up on our plans, our provisions, etc.

Long before the 9/11 attacks, we learned in Oklahoma that these attacks can happen anywhere.

I'm more than aware that it can happen. I know what it looks like, what it smells like and what living with the aftermath is like. OKC may not have been on the scale of 9/11, but the results for human beings was just as real and just as painful.

So, the fact that I wasn't in NYC or DC has nothing to do with how I feel about these photo op warnings.

 

[caitycaity]

I'd like to preface my remarks by saying that what I'm about to say in NO WAY is meant as any kind of insult to anyone that lives anywhere in the country that isn't considered to be at the top of the list of targets. I know that people all over the country, regardless of where they live, are concerned about terrorism and about the possibility of future attacks.

But it has been *my* experience that people that live and/or work in the DC area are more likely to take these types of warnings more seriously than others in other parts of the country might. I would imagine that people in NYC might see the same thing there. Again, this is not to say that people outside of DC and NYC don't feel horrible about what happened on 9/11 or that they don't understand. But there is something about being here, seeing it, smelling it, and living daily with the aftermath that *I* believe makes us more likely to do as caity mentioned, i.e., use these warnings as a reminder to check up on our plans, our provisions, etc.

ITA. i didn't include that because i didn't want to get flamed, but i think you are definitely right.

i see it even with my family. after 9/11 i was really angry and upset by several of my family members who didn't appreciate the impact it had had on me and my surroundings. i got (and still sometimes get) treated sort of like that crazy old cousin who everyone brushes off. it was/is really disconcerting to me because usually my immediate family and i are pretty in sync with our viewpoints.

 

[palmtreegirl]

Lets see I'm CPR/First Aid certified. I've been a certified life guard. I have been trained how to shoot by an ex-marine drill instructor (daddy). I run and swim too.

Now you know it's former Marine not ex. My DH use to correct me all the time when I first met him, drove me nuts.

Once a Marine, always a Marine- gotta love them.

 

[caitycaity]

Long before the 9/11 attacks, we learned in Oklahoma that these attacks can happen anywhere.

I'm more than aware that it can happen. I know what it looks like, what it smells like and what living with the aftermath is like. OKC may not have been on the scale of 9/11, but the results for human beings was just as real and just as painful.

please don't take this the wrong way, pg, but were you really personally affected by the OKC events? were you personally affected by them for months and months afterwards? confronted by reminders and fear for your life on a daily basis for months afterwards? i don't mean to sound condescending, and for all i know, maybe your answer to these questions is yes. all i know is that to this day, almost 4 years after 9/11, those of us in the dc area (and i'd imagine nyc too, though i don't speak from personal experience) are still confornted with reminders, and a lot of things have changed in the city permanently (not just buildings being gone or damaged). it's not like dc as a city can ever go back and have things the way we had them before. like i said, i don't mean to be condescending, and i really don't personally know what happened in OKC in the aftermath, but i sort of get the impression that (excepting people who lost loved ones) there aren't the kinds of long term daily reminders and psychological damage we have here after 9/11. there was a long period after 9/11 where i went into work every day thinking about dying.

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by peachgirl
Long before the 9/11 attacks, we learned in Oklahoma that these attacks can happen anywhere.

I'm more than aware that it can happen. I know what it looks like, what it smells like and what living with the aftermath is like. OKC may not have been on the scale of 9/11, but the results for human beings was just as real and just as painful.

So, the fact that I wasn't in NYC or DC has nothing to do with how I feel about these photo op warnings.

This type of attitude is exactly why I hesitated to post what I did. I fully understand what happened in OKC. But I also know that OKC was the act of a couple of half-baked nutcases, rather than an ongoing, orchestrated campaign of terror. Once McVeigh was apprehended, I don't recall anyone saying that they felt that OKC was living with a big target painted over the top of it.

That's what it's like in DC. You go on with your life every day, and you keep your eyes open to your surroundings, but you plan for the worst. That's not panic, it's prudence.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by palmtreegirl
Now you know it's former Marine not ex. My DH use to correct me all the time when I first met him, drove me nuts.

Once a Marine, always a Marine- gotta love them.

Yes, you are so right! It's more of a lifestyle as opposed to just a job. No disrespect intended, I'm greatful for what I've learned.

You' ve started a good debate. This one really makes me think!

 

[Planogirl]

I don't live in OKC but do visit and I can say with certainty that the citizens were VERY affected by what happened there. Other than the amazing memorial, their city has changed too as have their attitudes.

JMO.

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by Planogirl
I don't live in OKC but do visit and I can say with certainty that the citizens were VERY affected by what happened there. Other than the amazing memorial, their city has changed too as have their attitudes.

JMO.

I have no doubt that it affected OKC profoundly, no doubt whatsoever. And while I probably shouldn't speak for caity, I don't think that either of us is trying to diminish the effects of the OKC bombing on the people there. But as I said before, as horrible as it was, and at the time I couldn't imagine anything more horrible, I don't think that I've ever heard anyone from OKC saying that they feel that they are still a target. In DC, and I would guess in NYC and other very large cities as well, the feeling that we will most definitely be hit again is very real.

 

[caitycaity]

I have no doubt that it affected OKC profoundly, no doubt whatsoever. And while I probably shouldn't speak for caity, I don't think that either of us is trying to diminish the effects of the OKC bombing on the people there. But as I said before, as horrible as it was, and at the time I couldn't imagine anything more horrible, I don't think that I've ever heard anyone from OKC saying that they feel that they are still a target. In DC, and I would guess in NYC and other very large cities as well, the feeling that we will most definitely be hit again is very real.

it's sort of hard to take the warnings for granted or to get jaded about them when every time you hear one you are reminded that the reason they are telling you is because the attack is likely to happen where you live; where you work.

 

[palmtreegirl]

I think it's a lose lose situation too. I'm not numb to the alerts. Sept. 11th was not a movie. Al Qaeda wasn't made up by a political party. They have trained for attacks against the infidels, which is all of us. They don't care if you are Democrat or Republican. Why is it so unbelievable that they will strike again?

But it has been *my* experience that people that live and/or work in the DC area are more likely to take these types of warnings more seriously than others in other parts of the country might. I would imagine that people in NYC might see the same thing there. Again, this is not to say that people outside of DC and NYC don't feel horrible about what happened on 9/11 or that they don't understand. But there is something about being here, seeing it, smelling it, and living daily with the aftermath that *I* believe makes us more likely to do as caity mentioned, i.e., use these warnings as a reminder to check up on our plans, our provisions, etc.

I use to live just outside NYC. During and after the attacks I was frightened beyond belief for a long time but as time and warnings go by I do become more and more numb to them.

My cousin was in the towers the morning of the attacks, we waited to hear from her for hours(thankfully she was fine) I remember the fear well, I have friends who lost loved ones that terrible day. But just because I'll never forget doesn't mean that I'm going to let the fear take hold of me everytime I hear another warning.

Part of it might be because I recently moved to PA but for the most part it's because I refuse to live in fear of something that may or may not happen again and may or may not involve myself or a loved one.

I do have faith in the people watching out for us, that's their job and they do it so we don't have to live in fear. I do think they have learned a lot from and since 9/11 and I have faith that they will do their best to protect us.

Do I think another attack will happen? I'd have to say yes but do I think these warnings will help? maybe if their more specific but probably not.