When the alert is raised (to orange), wouldn't that make it less likely that an attack is about to happen because the terrorists will be more wary of launching their attack because of a greater chance of being caught due to heightened security measures? One would imagine that a terror attack will take place when the alert has been lowered and security agencies are least expecting it, electronic chatter or not.
Is the greater likelyhood of a terror attack the inverse of the color code?
maybe that is a strategy of theirs. Tell the terrorists they know something is up, don't try any funny stuff.
Also, if we go and bomb the next terrorists home country, we will just look like even bigger douches than we already are.
It's about selling fear, some real, some manufactured, and most of it imaginary, to the American public. The old bogey of the Soviet Union, once used to scare people sh1tless in the cold war (and justify massive, disproportionate military spending) suddenly ceased to exist, and somethingn (anything) had to replace it. Enter the war on terror. Without a universal bogeyman it becomes tough to convince the taxpayers to keep increasing the funding of what is now a huge and undoable part of the world's largest and most powerful economy. It's nothing to do with a conspiracy. The health of the US economy, including many peoples' 401Ks depend directly on maintaining, and ratcheting up the fear and paranoia level.
It's about selling fear, some real, some manufactured, and most of it imaginary, to the American public. The old bogey of the Soviet Union, once used to scare people sh1tless in the cold war (and justify massive, disproportionate military spending) suddenly ceased to exist, and somethingn (anything) had to replace it. Enter the war on terror. Without a universal bogeyman it becomes tough to convince the taxpayers to keep increasing the funding of what is now a huge and undoable part of the world's largest and most powerful economy. It's nothing to do with a conspiracy. The health of the US economy, including many peoples' 401Ks depend directly on maintaining, and ratcheting up the fear and paranoia level.
Whatever. The terror alert could be improved with specific recommendations for each level. But it does mean a new level for security personnel and law enforcement. It COSTS money to go to this alert...it doesn't "make" it.
the real reason i don't pay much attention (other than living in louisiana, the state least likely to suffer from a terrorist attack. seriously. have you been here lately? the terrorist would arrive, look around, and figure someone beat them to the punch and move on) is that the terror alert levels should obviously be meaningful to those in charge of stopping attacks. but what the hell does it mean to the citizen on the street? report suspicious behavior? break out those 2nd amendment sanctioned guns and get the posse together? don't fly (or if you do, make sure you've brushed up on the hand-to-hand combat course)?
i got news for you, damn near everything everyone does is suspicious to someone. all it does is flood the police and feds with often useless reports that take them away from doing their job.
i think the terror alerts are an effective way to get the QUALIFIED individuals on alert (edit: and reallocate necessary funds and equipment as necessary), but it doesn't do a damn bit of good in the general public space.
plus, it would help their credibility if the terror alerts weren't at such bloody OBVIOUS times of the year. has there been a major U.S. holiday or season of ramadan that HASN'T seen an increase in terror alert status? of course it would be horrific if something were to happen on christmas morning. but you know why it won't? BECAUSE WE'RE ALREADY THINKING IT. it will happen on a seemingly insignificant day, like, say, september the eleventh... (and please do not feed me some conspiracy theory about how they meant to do it on 9-11... coincidence and nothing more).
1) Increase security to keep any events from happening.
2) Increase awareness in the public to be vigilant for any terrorist tomfoolery.
3) Tell the potential terrorists that we know they're up to something.
It's not a government ploy. It's not the feds just "crying wolf." Remember that every time they increase the level and nothing happens, that's a GOOD THING. Imagine how much worse it would be if we increased the level and we STILL had terrorist attacks.
basically its a win win situation for the administration. i predict that there is going to be an event E which is bad and through my prediction I assert that I am warning everyone because I believe something is going to happen and we should be on the look out for something bad to happen. If event E occurs, I say we knew something was up and our prediction system is good however event E slipped through the cracks and we are doing everything in our power to stop any more event E's (then we go bomb Syria). If event E doesnt occur, I say our advanced knowledge was good and everything came together to prevent event E from occuring (mind you there may never have been any chatter indicating an upcoming event E, I just like keeping my ratings up by scaring the shite out of my supporters or would-be supporters) (then we go bomb Afganistan because we know baddies are there).
Now, I leave the warning on a middle terror threat at all times nullifying any green or yellow-green states, in this way if an event occurs on the yellow terror level, I can say look it was a middle threat, we obviously knew something was going down (then we go bomb Japan and Germany because there were once baddies there)
1) Increase security to keep any events from happening.
2) Increase awareness in the public to be vigilant for any terrorist tomfoolery.
3) Tell the potential terrorists that we know they're up to something.
It's not a government ploy. It's not the feds just "crying wolf." Remember that every time they increase the level and nothing happens, that's a GOOD THING. Imagine how much worse it would be if we increased the level and we STILL had terrorist attacks.
for #2, i don't want a public that iconizes paris hilton or pays money to see rob schneider's latest movie to be on the lookout for ANYthing. we (i.e. your run-of-the-mill working idiot on the street) are not an anti-terrorist outfit as a whole, and unless someone starts posting and reaffirming what constitutes suspicious behavior, we're the keystone-freakin'-cops. but i would like to think that if you DID see anything out of the ordinary, REGARDLESS of alert status, that you'd freaking REPORT IT. not say "well, those people seem to be loading large trucks with palettes under cover of darkness... but the terror alert is green, so i'm sure it's harmless." people also seem to think the terrorists are fools, and they'll just be toting armloads of dynamite and detonators wil e. coyote style all over the place.
#3 -- tell the potential terrorists we know they're up to something... by way of CNN? i don't want the terrorists to quiet down, i want them STOPPED AND CAPTURED. using fox news as your klaxon for perpetual awareness is awfully, um, well, it's just WRONG. hell, by that logic, the terrorists could just say "okay, the plan is set... blow up something big the day the terror alert goes down to green!"
"it's not a government ploy." i agree with you in that i sincerely think the government is trying to stop terrorist attacks and not just covering their ass (it's probably a little of both).
"every time they increase the level and nothing happens, that's a good thing." um, i suppose that's correct. and if i tell myself every day there's a a better possibility that i'll be run over by a car because i am going to walk the dog today outside as opposed to staying in, and i don't get run over because i obeyed that fairly informed logic (stay off streets = not run over by car), then that's a good thing too. but it's an insane way to live. (yeah, i know my example isn't the best in the world, but hopefully you get my meaning). yes, it would be terrible if the terror alert went up and bad things happened, but that does not automatically make the inverse true!
Something that does concern me though, is that they said the cities that could be targetted are "New York, Washington, and some un-named cities on the West Coast". When asked why the cities on the West Coast were not being named, they said they didn't want to alarm anyone. Isn't that the whole damn point of these terrorist alert warnings?
It COSTS money to go to this alert...it doesn't "make" it.
What on earth are your homeland security guys doing with the money? Burning it? Because if they're doing basically anything else with it then *someone* is making money on the deal.
...and if i tell myself every day there's a a better possibility that i'll be run over by a car because i am going to walk the dog today outside as opposed to staying in, and i don't get run over because i obeyed that fairly informed logic...
Think of a heightened state of alert like walking your dog on a rainy day. There is an increased possibility of getting hit by a car on that day because many people are irresponsible drivers when the roads are wet. Therefore, you should be more vigilant when walking your dog on rainy days: Like walking next to less busy roads, keeping a closer eye out around intersections, etc.
There is no guarantee that anyone of us here, will live quietly until 80. There is always some danger, accident, cancer, war ...This is sad, but it's life. We have to accept our fate, in order to live.
Let's try to have a safe life, and limit dangers, but accept what might happens. Even with terrorists targetting US, US is a much safer place than many others countries. There is no sanctuary.
In New York City today, we're suffering from a touch of cognitive dissonance. On television and radio and the front pages of our leading newspapers, we hear that federal and local authorities fear we are in such serious jeopardy that they have raised the threat alert level to orange-plus. "We've never quite seen it at this level before," said Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge. "The strategic indicators suggest that it is the most significant threat reporting since 9/11." According to White House press secretary Scott McClellan, "terrorists abroad are anticipating attacks that they believe will rival or exceed the scope and impact of those we experienced on Sept. 11."
Yet on the Op-Ed pages and the propaganda chatter channels, we're assured that the world is a far safer place since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. We're told that the Bush administration's muscular policies have forced Libya into surrender, but nobody mentions that Libya hasn't been a significant threat for at least a decade.
While we await our fate, I would like to hear the president explain how the bloody $200 billion invasion of Iraq improved our defenses against terrorism -- and also why, a week after Saddam's capture, the United States is confronting the worst threat from al-Qaida since the disaster of September 2001. Over the past several days, Washington's great minds have mocked Howard Dean for daring to say what the White House now more or less acknowledges: War in Iraq has made us no safer than we were last spring.
Meanwhile, Newsweek reports that Osama bin Laden's allies in the Taliban found the capture of Saddam quite amusing. They seem unworried that their leaders will suffer the same humiliation -- perhaps because, as Newsweek also mentions, there are far fewer troops hunting for bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and Mullah Omar in Afghanistan than there were seeking Saddam in Iraq.
"Yet Dean gets lambasted for saying that capturing Saddam hasn't made us any safer. The irony."
Couldn't have said it better. I hope Dean makes a point of this. Remember, it was REPUBLICANS who didn't want to federalize airport screeners. They like to have their cake and eat it too. My dad is the webmaster for the Army Corps of Engineers and HE isn't a federal employee, he is contracted.
Dean's an idiot. Capturing Saddam certainly made our troops and the Iraqi people safer. Did it not?
As far as my first post, I meant it just creeps me to see that alert level go up. I don't think it's some political ploy or that there is a sinister motive. I think we're under greater threat and that concerns me.
Dean's an idiot. Capturing Saddam certainly made our troops and the Iraqi people safer. Did it not?
As far as my first post, I meant it just creeps me to see that alert level go up. I don't think it's some political ploy or that there is a sinister motive. I think we're under greater threat and that concerns me.
well, as you well know, the intent and result of threads in appleoutsider are rarely the same thing when the dust clears.
i think the troops and iraqi people were safer when the war was officially declared "over," since even if saddam survived, i doubt he could have ever re-risen to power in the same capacity. but hey, what do i know? it certainly doesn't HURT to have him (and his knowledge) in custody.
i also don't think it's a political ploy or sinister move... like i said, i sincerely think the gov't and ridge think they're being effective with the alerts. i'm just doubtful that it does any good for the public space to know. to pursue cosmonut's elaboration on my previous example, while it is true that i should be more careful (edit: if i know the weather will be bad when i walk the dog, causing bad driving conditions and reducing visibility), i would say that everyone 'believes' they are more cautious under adverse circumstances (whether they actually are is another story), (edit: because you're guard is up. you expect the worst.) but the vast amount of injuries happen close to home, and when we're least expecting it. it's when our guard is down. that's why it sneaks past our defenses. but it doesn't mean that i should report hazardous drivers any MORE under those conditions than i should be obliged to report idiot drivers under sunny skies and smiling faces.
personally, sdw, i believe i will be more creeped out when the terror alert GOES DOWN, because that i when i believe the other shoe will drop.
Comments
Originally posted by sammi jo
They raise the alert to orange: what next?
When the alert is raised (to orange), wouldn't that make it less likely that an attack is about to happen because the terrorists will be more wary of launching their attack because of a greater chance of being caught due to heightened security measures? One would imagine that a terror attack will take place when the alert has been lowered and security agencies are least expecting it, electronic chatter or not.
Is the greater likelyhood of a terror attack the inverse of the color code?
maybe that is a strategy of theirs. Tell the terrorists they know something is up, don't try any funny stuff.
Also, if we go and bomb the next terrorists home country, we will just look like even bigger douches than we already are.
But speak for yourself~
Edit: DANG-IT! Keep forgetting smilies!! grrrr
there, all better!
Originally posted by sammi jo
It's about selling fear, some real, some manufactured, and most of it imaginary, to the American public. The old bogey of the Soviet Union, once used to scare people sh1tless in the cold war (and justify massive, disproportionate military spending) suddenly ceased to exist, and somethingn (anything) had to replace it. Enter the war on terror. Without a universal bogeyman it becomes tough to convince the taxpayers to keep increasing the funding of what is now a huge and undoable part of the world's largest and most powerful economy. It's nothing to do with a conspiracy. The health of the US economy, including many peoples' 401Ks depend directly on maintaining, and ratcheting up the fear and paranoia level.
Whatever. The terror alert could be improved with specific recommendations for each level. But it does mean a new level for security personnel and law enforcement. It COSTS money to go to this alert...it doesn't "make" it.
How would you deal with it?
i got news for you, damn near everything everyone does is suspicious to someone. all it does is flood the police and feds with often useless reports that take them away from doing their job.
i think the terror alerts are an effective way to get the QUALIFIED individuals on alert (edit: and reallocate necessary funds and equipment as necessary), but it doesn't do a damn bit of good in the general public space.
plus, it would help their credibility if the terror alerts weren't at such bloody OBVIOUS times of the year. has there been a major U.S. holiday or season of ramadan that HASN'T seen an increase in terror alert status? of course it would be horrific if something were to happen on christmas morning. but you know why it won't? BECAUSE WE'RE ALREADY THINKING IT. it will happen on a seemingly insignificant day, like, say, september the eleventh... (and please do not feed me some conspiracy theory about how they meant to do it on 9-11... coincidence and nothing more).
1) Increase security to keep any events from happening.
2) Increase awareness in the public to be vigilant for any terrorist tomfoolery.
3) Tell the potential terrorists that we know they're up to something.
It's not a government ploy. It's not the feds just "crying wolf." Remember that every time they increase the level and nothing happens, that's a GOOD THING. Imagine how much worse it would be if we increased the level and we STILL had terrorist attacks.
Now, I leave the warning on a middle terror threat at all times nullifying any green or yellow-green states, in this way if an event occurs on the yellow terror level, I can say look it was a middle threat, we obviously knew something was going down (then we go bomb Japan and Germany because there were once baddies there)
Originally posted by CosmoNut
The increased threat level is three-fold:
1) Increase security to keep any events from happening.
2) Increase awareness in the public to be vigilant for any terrorist tomfoolery.
3) Tell the potential terrorists that we know they're up to something.
It's not a government ploy. It's not the feds just "crying wolf." Remember that every time they increase the level and nothing happens, that's a GOOD THING. Imagine how much worse it would be if we increased the level and we STILL had terrorist attacks.
i agree with #1.
for #2, i don't want a public that iconizes paris hilton or pays money to see rob schneider's latest movie to be on the lookout for ANYthing. we (i.e. your run-of-the-mill working idiot on the street) are not an anti-terrorist outfit as a whole, and unless someone starts posting and reaffirming what constitutes suspicious behavior, we're the keystone-freakin'-cops. but i would like to think that if you DID see anything out of the ordinary, REGARDLESS of alert status, that you'd freaking REPORT IT. not say "well, those people seem to be loading large trucks with palettes under cover of darkness... but the terror alert is green, so i'm sure it's harmless." people also seem to think the terrorists are fools, and they'll just be toting armloads of dynamite and detonators wil e. coyote style all over the place.
#3 -- tell the potential terrorists we know they're up to something... by way of CNN? i don't want the terrorists to quiet down, i want them STOPPED AND CAPTURED. using fox news as your klaxon for perpetual awareness is awfully, um, well, it's just WRONG. hell, by that logic, the terrorists could just say "okay, the plan is set... blow up something big the day the terror alert goes down to green!"
"it's not a government ploy." i agree with you in that i sincerely think the government is trying to stop terrorist attacks and not just covering their ass (it's probably a little of both).
"every time they increase the level and nothing happens, that's a good thing." um, i suppose that's correct. and if i tell myself every day there's a a better possibility that i'll be run over by a car because i am going to walk the dog today outside as opposed to staying in, and i don't get run over because i obeyed that fairly informed logic (stay off streets = not run over by car), then that's a good thing too. but it's an insane way to live. (yeah, i know my example isn't the best in the world, but hopefully you get my meaning). yes, it would be terrible if the terror alert went up and bad things happened, but that does not automatically make the inverse true!
Originally posted by Fran441
Something that does concern me though, is that they said the cities that could be targetted are "New York, Washington, and some un-named cities on the West Coast". When asked why the cities on the West Coast were not being named, they said they didn't want to alarm anyone. Isn't that the whole damn point of these terrorist alert warnings?
WE ARE NOT SAFER NOW THAT SADDAM HUSSEIN IS IN CUSTODY!
Originally posted by SDW2001
It COSTS money to go to this alert...it doesn't "make" it.
What on earth are your homeland security guys doing with the money? Burning it? Because if they're doing basically anything else with it then *someone* is making money on the deal.
Originally posted by rok
...and if i tell myself every day there's a a better possibility that i'll be run over by a car because i am going to walk the dog today outside as opposed to staying in, and i don't get run over because i obeyed that fairly informed logic...
Think of a heightened state of alert like walking your dog on a rainy day. There is an increased possibility of getting hit by a car on that day because many people are irresponsible drivers when the roads are wet. Therefore, you should be more vigilant when walking your dog on rainy days: Like walking next to less busy roads, keeping a closer eye out around intersections, etc.
This isn't rocket science folks.
Let's try to have a safe life, and limit dangers, but accept what might happens. Even with terrorists targetting US, US is a much safer place than many others countries. There is no sanctuary.
Originally posted by CosmoNut
This isn't rocket science folks.
well, i see where you're coming from. i don't agree, but i understand how you're interpreting it. maybe i'm wrong... wouldn't be the first time.
Yet on the Op-Ed pages and the propaganda chatter channels, we're assured that the world is a far safer place since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. We're told that the Bush administration's muscular policies have forced Libya into surrender, but nobody mentions that Libya hasn't been a significant threat for at least a decade.
While we await our fate, I would like to hear the president explain how the bloody $200 billion invasion of Iraq improved our defenses against terrorism -- and also why, a week after Saddam's capture, the United States is confronting the worst threat from al-Qaida since the disaster of September 2001. Over the past several days, Washington's great minds have mocked Howard Dean for daring to say what the White House now more or less acknowledges: War in Iraq has made us no safer than we were last spring.
Meanwhile, Newsweek reports that Osama bin Laden's allies in the Taliban found the capture of Saddam quite amusing. They seem unworried that their leaders will suffer the same humiliation -- perhaps because, as Newsweek also mentions, there are far fewer troops hunting for bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and Mullah Omar in Afghanistan than there were seeking Saddam in Iraq.
Joe Conason's Journal
"Yet Dean gets lambasted for saying that capturing Saddam hasn't made us any safer. The irony."
Couldn't have said it better. I hope Dean makes a point of this.
"Yet Dean gets lambasted for saying that capturing Saddam hasn't made us any safer. The irony."
Couldn't have said it better. I hope Dean makes a point of this. Remember, it was REPUBLICANS who didn't want to federalize airport screeners. They like to have their cake and eat it too. My dad is the webmaster for the Army Corps of Engineers and HE isn't a federal employee, he is contracted.
As far as my first post, I meant it just creeps me to see that alert level go up. I don't think it's some political ploy or that there is a sinister motive. I think we're under greater threat and that concerns me.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Dean's an idiot. Capturing Saddam certainly made our troops and the Iraqi people safer. Did it not?
As far as my first post, I meant it just creeps me to see that alert level go up. I don't think it's some political ploy or that there is a sinister motive. I think we're under greater threat and that concerns me.
well, as you well know, the intent and result of threads in appleoutsider are rarely the same thing when the dust clears.
i think the troops and iraqi people were safer when the war was officially declared "over," since even if saddam survived, i doubt he could have ever re-risen to power in the same capacity. but hey, what do i know? it certainly doesn't HURT to have him (and his knowledge) in custody.
i also don't think it's a political ploy or sinister move... like i said, i sincerely think the gov't and ridge think they're being effective with the alerts. i'm just doubtful that it does any good for the public space to know. to pursue cosmonut's elaboration on my previous example, while it is true that i should be more careful (edit: if i know the weather will be bad when i walk the dog, causing bad driving conditions and reducing visibility), i would say that everyone 'believes' they are more cautious under adverse circumstances (whether they actually are is another story), (edit: because you're guard is up. you expect the worst.) but the vast amount of injuries happen close to home, and when we're least expecting it. it's when our guard is down. that's why it sneaks past our defenses. but it doesn't mean that i should report hazardous drivers any MORE under those conditions than i should be obliged to report idiot drivers under sunny skies and smiling faces.
personally, sdw, i believe i will be more creeped out when the terror alert GOES DOWN, because that i when i believe the other shoe will drop.