Us Terror Alerts - Effective Or Waste Of Time & $?

[JohnM]

Just wanted to know what members of the forum think about the Terror Alerts of the US.

There was one released to an Orange level just before Christmas and then you heard nothing.

At 1 billion per week(http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/12/23/threat.level/index.html) in elevated security spending I would hope the Bush Administration has credible evidence to justify raising the 'ol Boooo Meter, considering their inablilty to prove much of anything re: the Iraq invasion.

JM

[Moderate Centrist]

I think it's largely fear mongering without good reason. What can the average person do about an unknown attack and an unknown method.

Rather then wasting money on these terrorist alerts it would be wiser to chanel resources into anti-terrorist/disaster training for the people who'll be on the front line - police, firefighters, medical staff and national guardsmen.

People should be aware of basic survival tactics but informed to listen to the authorities in times of crisis.

Some critics have argued that the constant raising and lowering of security threats may actually cause people not to take them seriously.

There are also many who have been and are continuing to ask how much money will the war on terror cost and if the US can afford it in the long run.

[JohnM]

I agree on all points.

I don't think some kind of alert gauge is required, the American citizens are unfortunatley already on high alert since 9/11.

JM

[righturnonred]

I think it's largely fear mongering without good reason

Ridiculous. Raised terror alerts do not cause wide spead anxiety and panic among the population. Typically, most people go about their business as usual except with a hightened level of vigilance.

It may not be the case with you, but Americans, in particular, have a very short term memory and must be reminded at appropriate times that threats from terrorism still exist out there.

What, you think the president sits at his Crawford ranch and chuckles to himself, "He he he, we sure frightened the piss out of everyone on Christmas this year"? I think not.

Americans can no longer sleep throught the everpresent possibility that terrorism may happen at any given time. The terror alerts are not mean to paralyse, but rather they serve several purposes: to put ordinary citizens not on high fear, but on high alert to potential terrorist activities. Second, in post 9-11 America, the US goverment has an obligation to let the people know whats going on and that real threats exist.

Rather then wasting money on these terrorist alerts it would be wiser to chanel resources into anti-terrorist/disaster training for the people who'll be on the front line - police, firefighters, medical staff and national guardsmen.

Foolish. This is why liberals are unfit to lead. The money is well spent if it prevents another 9-11 which would be hundreds of times more expensive than maintaining a terror alert, not to mention the potential for human loss.

It is the government's prime responsibility to protect Americans in a proactive fashion. It is not good enough, as you suggest, to simply pick up the pieces after such an attack occurs.

Some critics have argued that the constant raising and lowering of security threats may actually cause people not to take them seriously.

The critics may very well be right. That's why the government deliberates intensively before deciding that it's appropriate to raise the terror alert. And it looks like this was the appropriate time because a terror attack may have been thwarted, i.e. terrorists planning to board French airliners with the intent of making attacks on America decide to walk away.

The terror alerts could be improved however by taloring them to specific regions or industries, if possible ofcourse. Many times though, the knowledge of threats gathered through intelligence are too general to be classified.

I would hope the Bush Administration has credible evidence to justify raising the 'ol Boooo Meter, considering their inablilty to prove much of anything re: the Iraq invasion.

They just can't win with you can they? They're damned if they do and they're damned if they don't, huh?

[JohnM]

Ridiculous. Raised terror alerts do not cause wide spead anxiety and panic among the population. Typically, most people go about their business as usual except with a hightened level of vigilance.

It may not be the case with you, but Americans, in particular, have a very short term memory and must be reminded at appropriate times that threats from terrorism still exist out there.

Righturnonred - no one mentioned that it caused wide spread anxiety and panic - not sure you read the thread? And I agree that people would more or less continue with day to day living but they do not have short term memory - that day I am sure is burned in their heads, as well for the rest of us.

What, you think the president sits at his Crawford ranch and chuckles to himself, "He he he, we sure frightened the piss out of everyone on Christmas this year"? I think not.

Certainly not but if something terrible does happen all the Bush Admin has achieved is misdirecting blame. "Hey America - I warned ya!". I don't buy it.

The terror alerts are not mean to paralyse, but rather they serve several purposes: to put ordinary citizens not on high fear, but on high alert to potential terrorist activities.

And what type of "activities" are Americans supposed to watch for? Would like to see you define that one.

They just can't win with you can they? They're damned if they do and they're damned if they don't, huh?

Nope I just have a problem with how this War on Terror has been handled by the Bush Admin. All he has achieved is an increase in Anti-American sentiment all over the world.

How does this help the American citizen? Well as long as they don't travel I guess they will be just fine....

JM

[righturnonred]

Righturnonred - no one mentioned that it caused wide spread anxiety and panic - not sure you read the thread?

I think it's largely fear mongering without good reason. -Moderate Centrist-

To say that terror alerts largely constitute fear mongering implies that terror alerts elicit fear in the population. I do not believe this is so. And yes I did read the thread, thank you. *sigh*

And what type of "activities" are Americans supposed to watch for? Would like to see you define that one.

The terror alerts are directed more at government agencies, local law enforcement, first responders and such. However, there are things that ordinary citizen can do to contribute. Most importantly, people should generally be more observant of their surroundings. This means scrutinizing things that may be out of place or do not feel right such a suspicious car parked in the wrong place, or a package in the wrong place or that looks odd. Citizens can also be on the look out for people snooping where they shouldn't be or trying to make purchases that aren't conventional.

For example, if I saw a pair of Muslim men taking photographs of a Synagogue, that doesn't seem right to me so I might give the FBI a call.

Another example. If I overheard A-rabs making anti-US statements, that's a clue to me that they probably aren't on the observation deck of the Empire building to simply enjoy the view.

It's not paranoia, it's just a highten sense of awareness.

All he has achieved is an increase in Anti-American sentiment all over the world.

I got news for ya, terrorism and anti-US sentiment around the world didn't see it's genesis in 9-11. They've existed long before that. Decades of complacency has resulted in the growth of terrorism in to what we see today.

What kind of messege do you think it sent to terrorist when the US pulled out of Lebenon in 1983 after the Marine barracks were bombed killing 243?

What kind of message does it send when there is virtually no response to the first WTC attack in 1993?

What kind of message does it send when the deaths of 18 American Rangers causes Clinton to pull out of Somalia all together?

What kind of messege does it send when there is no response to the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000, which kills 17?

I'll tell you what message it sends: If you give the Americans a bloody nose, they'll turn tail and run.

Well, no more. It will be long and painful, but there will be a final resolution to this problem of Islamo-facist terror.

You're just another liberal who doesn't understand the logic behind the Bush doctrine.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear rightturnonred,

Foolish. This is why liberals are unfit to lead. The money is well spent if it prevents another 9-11 which would be hundreds of times more expensive than maintaining a terror alert,

If the costs begin to outweigh the benefits, is it 'not well' spent? I ask this because America worships money. If money becomes sacrificed instead of lives, is it anti-american?

I agree that the 'alerts' are a good thing. I also do not see it as 'fear-mongering'. The only risk they run is 'crying wolf'. Shaky as US intel is, it could save lives. Unless they pull a 'Churchill' and not forewarn the polulace in order to derive other benefits (as Winston Churchill did with Coventry in WWII, choosing not to evacuate the city in order to keep secret the fact that Enigma had been broken).

The biggest problem facing the US regarding terrorism is individuality. Communities and friends used to watch each other's backs. The US dogma, perpetuated by the media, is "Everyman for Himself". It is the American way nowadays. Shared responsibility is fast becoming lost as individual 'rights' and ergo freedom from responsibility take the lead.

I got news for ya, terrorism and anti-US sentiment around the world didn't see it's genesis in 9-11. They've existed long before that. Decades of complacency has resulted in the growth of terrorism in to what we see today.

Lol. Perhaps you meant to say "decades of Economic Imperialism" rather than complacency. Or perhaps you meant complacency on behalf of the conquerors, not being severe enough with the methods of subjugation.

[righturnonred]

If the costs begin to outweigh the benefits, is it 'not well' spent? I ask this because America worships money. If money becomes sacrificed instead of lives, is it anti-american?

What makes you think that the US worships money to a greater extent than any other country. In France for instance, there is no faith, no nationalism, only money (or rather lack of it as the case may be). Your being unfair to the United States.

Perhaps you meant to say "decades of Economic Imperialism" rather than complacency. Or perhaps you meant complacency on behalf of the conquerors, not being severe enough with the methods of subjugation.

This isn't about economics, it's about culture, corrupt, diseased Islamic culture. If it really is "decades of economic imperialism" that is responsible for Islamic terrorism, then why aren't people from other cultures and nationalities outside of Islam engaged in the same brutal campaign of terror? Surely, some of these other nations have been subjected to the same types of influences emanating from the West. Why don't we see South American terrorists attacking America for example?

Don't try to justify Islamic terrorism with this crap about poor little Islamic countries being victimized by America. The grandiose liberal philosophy of "love them to death" is a dangerous mentality which only continues the cycle of violence. Islamo-facist radicals, as with lunatic anti-war protesters for instance, will only respond to force.

Repeat this one-hundred times to yourself:

America is a force for good...

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear rightturnonred,

Repeat this one-hundred times to yourself:

America is a force for good...

No matter how many times I said it, it would never be true.

Your being unfair to the United States.

No unfair, just truthful. Profit is the #1 driving force in America. Not that profit is a bad thing, it just shouldn't usurp family, justice and freedom. Which it undoubtedly has.

You are right that S.A. has not turned to terrorism as a result of being victimized. They fought back, and lost, fair and square. It was the US that employed 'dirty' tactics in S and Central America. Nicaraguans wanted to profit from their own bananas, yet the US wanted the profits. This made them 'commies' and ergo torture and murder was acceptable against the 'red menace'.

Mind you, not a lot from S.A have been promised 70 virgins each upon martyrdom, either.

As a side note, to the gist of the thread, I just read that the US is now concerned with 'almanac bearers'. Good lord, perhaps we should start burning books and just listen to only George Bush Jr. & Sr Inc.

Repeat this to yourself 100 times...

America is a force for America...

Far more true but they prefer to pretend they represent equality, etc. Hogwash. They used to, once upon a time...

[JohnM]

Cool this is what I wanted, a real debate - Well said righturnred.

But why must the ENTIRE country must be on alert? I agree that maybe it should be a region where there may be a possible terrorist attack but not the whole nation....just seems excessive - reactionary(?)

Although what it does socially may have a lasting impact on the visible minorites of the US. You yourself may be more objective in an alert situation, ie. a van parked infront of the White House, etc - but I fear that others may not be so objective. And from what I have observed Muslim Americans have already been placed at the short end of the stick since 9/11. Inside and ouside of the country. Do I have to pull a mountain of evidence to support this claim?

Again you don't need an alert to have a hightened sense of awarness. You just have to have witnessed what happened in NYC.

No the genisis wasn't from 9/11, obviously, but his actions have increased anti-american sentiment.

Complacency - You must be kidding. The American gov complacent??

The US Gov has been asserting its supposed God given democratic right to ride the world of tyrany and replace it will democracy since WWII and continues to do so. Of course only in situations whereby improves their interests. Bush would never have invaded Iraq if they only exported potatoes!

But back to my point - was the American gov being complacent when it colonized the Philipines? Installed proxy governments in soveriegn countries such as Cambodia, Zaire, Brazil, Iran, Chile, Indonesia - should I go on? More recently Afghanistan and you might as well soon add Iraq to the list.

Then again Bush himself didn't really win the election - correct? Thank god for good 'ol Jeb eh?

About your "final resolution" - the way I see it there has been enough terror in this Holy Crusade exacted by both sides.

When two great forces appose each other, victory goes to the one who knows how to yield.

JM

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear JohnM,

But why must the ENTIRE country must be on alert? I agree that maybe it should be a region where there may be a possible terrorist attack but not the whole nation....just seems excessive - reactionary(?)

not excessive, actually, for it is America and it's culture that is under attack. (Not Democracy, Freedom, etc themselves that the right-wingers would have you believe) The raping of the Mother Earth for US interests is under attack. The US cannot rape without first conquering. Though, how they try.

About your "final resolution" - the way I see it there has been enough terror in this Holy Crusade exacted by both sides.

'Final Solutions' are never the best policy.

When two great forces appose each other, victory goes to the one who knows how to yield.

Not sure where you came up with this one. I guess it depends on how you define 'victory'. Gandhi tried it, but he still didn't end up with billions in oil profits and a guest spot on Oprah. Victory must relate to one's values, somehow.

[JohnM]

Wow - I really need to respond faster - the whole thread is passing me by.

Righturnonred - When an Iraqi family is desimated by a missile, extended relatives would most likely regard it as Terror.

The end result is the same regardless of whatever medium is chosen. Weather its a sniper hiding in some trunk of a car, explosives strapped to some-ones chest or an Apache helicopter taking out a few civilian homes.

JM

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Johm M,

Weather its a sniper hiding in some trunk of a car, explosives strapped to some-ones chest or an Apache helicopter taking out a few civilian homes.

Not the same at all, actually. Snipers in the trunks of cars are homegrown US loonies. Doesn't happen much in the rest of the world.

Explosives around the chest? Very few outside Islam resort to this. Buddhists have been known to self-immolate with a jerry-can, but none purposely kill an innocent.

The Apache? They would kill civvies without a second thought, not because of cruelty, though. They would call them 'collateral damage' and insist that they were aiming at a legitimate target. Even if it was their allies.

[JohnM]

Thelonious,

I guess the point I am trying to get across is that it there is much hypocrisy in the use of the word terrorist.

When a female Palestianian lawyer desides to end her life along with the lives of innocent civilians it is an act of Terrorism. But when the US deploys a drone armed with Stinger missiles to the outskirts of Yemen taking out an entire family while leaving their farm in the morning, its colateral damage.

I call it something else.

Anyways - Thanks for all the feedback folks - this is a cool website!

JM

[righturnonred]

Oh boy, here we go.

Mind you, not a lot from S.A have been promised 70 virgins each upon martyrdom, either.

That's part of my point.

Repeat this to yourself 100 times...

America is a force for America...America is a force for America...America is a force for America... Yada yada..

nothing wrong with that

But...

America is also a force for good.

As a side note, to the gist of the thread, I just read that the US is now concerned with 'almanac bearers'.

I'm not sure what that's a reference to but I've read Saudi authorities discovered, in the holy city of Mecca, several bombs fashoned to look like Korans... Fellow Muslims better lay on the economic imperialism unless they want to have a bad day.

it is America and it's culture that is under attack. (Not Democracy, Freedom, etc themselves that the right-wingers would have you believe)

Hello!!!, democracy and freedom are part of American culture, and completely absent in Islamic societies. They despise the though of woman walking the streets by herself, without a burka, a sixth century invention literally.

'Final Solutions' are never the best policy

A sick mind you have. I was careful not to confuse "final resolution" with the Nazi program of ethnic cleasing, "Final Solution". You won't bate me with semantics.

The raping of the Mother Earth for US interests is under attack. The US cannot rape without first conquering. Though, how they try.

The Apache? They would kill civvies without a second thought, not because of cruelty, though. They would call them 'collateral damage' and insist that they were aiming at a legitimate target. Even if it was their allies.

Lonius, sometimes you say some truly loony things.

When two great forces appose each other, victory goes to the one who knows how to yield.

With all do respect, that may be the dumbest thing I've ever heard before, ever.

Snipers in the trunks of cars are homegrown US loonies

John Allen Mohammed and Lee Boyd Malvo are homegrown Islamic nutcases who commited their crimes in the name of Allah. Lets be fair.

When an Iraqi family is desimated by a missile, extended relatives would most likely regard it as Terror.

We obviously have a point of confusion that needs to be clarified here. War can be terrifying, but it of in itself doesn't not constitute terrorism.

Terrorism is the the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group intentionally directed against innocent people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

I don't care what the hell extended relatives think it is, it's not terrorism. You must make a distintion.

But when the US deploys a drone armed with Stinger missiles to the outskirts of Yemen taking out an entire family while leaving their farm in the morning, its colateral damage.

Stinger armed predetors take out car loads of militant bastards, not families on farms. Careful John, your're getting into Lonius territory now.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear rightturnonred,

I'm not sure what that's a reference to but I've read Saudi authorities discovered, in the holy city of Mecca, several bombs fashoned to look like Korans...

It is a reference to the 'homeland security' considering those carrying almanacs in the US as possible terrorist suspects, as they could garner 'intel' on possible 'vital targets' from such material.

A few spelling corrections, if I may

A sick mind you have. I was careful not to confuse "final resolution" with the Nazi program of ethnic cleasing, "Final Solution". You won't bate me with semantics.

You could have dropped the 'r' and used 'pogroms', which is more correct, and 'bait' is more correct than 'bate'. I shall not wait with 'bated breath' for your reply.

[JohnM]

Getting a good laugh out of this!!

Righturn - so thats what terrorism means!! Thanks for the reference

You have missed my point entirely but no worries would we disagree anyways - agreed?

Re: remote drones. Sorry my mistake - they use hell fire missles and it says nothing about a farm or family. But I still stand by my point.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,1227...,834306,00.html

[righturnonred]

You have missed my point entirely

I don't think so. You have tried to make a comparision between a sub-human parasite committing an act of terrorism against innocent civilians and the US military using force to take out a legitmate, hostile target. Ofcourse, you substituted "family on a farm" for "legitimate, hostile target", a slight slip of the tounge I'm sure.

There is no comparison at all.

For a start, it is illegal. The Yemen attack violates basic rules of sovereignty. It is an act of war where no war has been declared. It killed people, some of whom who may have been criminals, but who will never now face trial. It assassinated men who may have been planning attacks. But who can tell? It is, at best, irresponsible extra-judicial killing, at worst a premeditated, cold-blooded murder of civilians.

This in an example of a perverted mind at work. Illegal, violates basic rules of sovereignty, rubbish. This is a war, they not are criminals, they are terrorists. Extra-judicial killings!? Cold-blooded murder of civilians!? Don't you see how outrageous these statements are?

Liberals are weak and hopeless.

A few spelling corrections, if I may

You can do whatever the hell you please professor, but it's not going to help your flimsy case one bit.

[JohnM]

Righturn - Like I said we disagree on these points.

Nice chattin' with ya.

[KrustyKidd]

in elevated security spending I would hope the Bush Administration has credible evidence to justify raising the 'ol Boooo Meter, considering their inablilty to prove much of anything re: the Iraq invasion.

Is your question a question or a statement? Typical of people with no argument is to overload and evade. Get to the point, do you really wonder why there is a code orange over the holidays (a traditional time for an enemy to attack another) or is it that the invasion of Iraq is unjustified?

If it is the first then stick with it and if the second please read the previous twelve months of threads.

If you wish to discuss the necessity of code orange then lets do that.

[JohnM]

Krusty Kidd - overload and evade?? What the hell are you talking about???

How can you trust that the alerts are credible considering that almost every bloody thing that comes out if the Bush Admin is BS?? I mean have youbeen living in a spider hole over the past 12months?

Sorry if I am not being clear enough on this.

I think the alerts are bullshit because the Bush administration is a complete farce and I used the Iraq invasion as an example. Is that clear enough for you??

[righturnonred]

You think the alerts are bullshit because [you think] the Bush administration is a complete farce and you use the Iraq invasion as an example.

Well, you have every right to think that way even if you really have no logical jusification for it. The rest of us, however, don't see liberal induced hallucinations and ridiculously contrived conspiracies around every corner.

As it's been suggested many times in the past, you'll need evidence to support your absurd claims before anyone will take you seriously. Iraq is a flimsy example to support your case and you know it. Even though no WMD's stockples have been found yet, every nation from here to the end of earth and back had credible pre-war intelligence that Saddam was indeed involved in the production of prohibited weapons. 1441 showed this consensus. Not to mention the wealth of post-war information made available by David Kay that points to same conclusions.

You're just angry and upset because you liberal looney tunes have been vomitted from their positions of power in the government/media complex, and the people are starting to realize what Clinton's precious legacy was really all about. You're frustration is quite understandable.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear rightturnonred,

every nation from here to the end of earth and back had credible pre-war intelligence that Saddam was indeed involved in the production of prohibited weapons. 1441 showed this consensus.

It depends on how 'pre' you mean. Obviously Iraq had WMDs because they used them. It was, however, a long time in the past. They claimed to have had none in recent years and history seems to be showing that (except for 1 vial of botulin found in a scientist's fridge) Saddam had told the truth.

With regards to 1441 being 'concensus-proving', that resolution was written by the US/UK only, with coersion and cajoling garnering the rest of the 'coalition of the coerced'. Most of 1441 refers to the old UN mandates and resolutions that the US/UK used to justify a new one. Let's see them try that one on Israel, or the US themselves.

[KrustyKidd]

All, the purpose of threads is to avoid getting into a general, topical free for all. The thread was about code orange, not justification for war with Iraq, legitimacy of the Florida recounts or any of the favorite musings from Mr "dude. wheres my country."

Usually, those with a weak point will sometimes attempt to enlarge a discussion hoping to find a point so that the opposition will be overcome with a cascade of irrelevent facts, arguments and general inarguable counterelogeic as it has nothing or little to do with the direct conversation.

Bush lied about reasons for the Iraq invasion? What the heck does that have to do with

I would hope the Bush Administration has credible evidence to justify raising the 'ol Boooo Meter

As I said before, there is thread upon thread about WMD and Terrorism allegations. Surely you wanted to discuss Code Orange here as you made a new thread with that as it's title. As it looks however, you use code orange as a lead in for a topic which has nothing to do with the actual security level. Why? To confuse, rant and just gererally be a nuisance I think. Make a point, not a rant and we will discuss it.

[KrustyKidd]

considering their inablilty to prove much of anything re: the Iraq invasion.

I think the alerts are bullshit because the Bush administration is a complete farce and I used the Iraq invasion as an example. Is that clear enough for you??

Crystal clear, so why mistitle the thread instead of using already existing ones? IRAQ AND WMD or US MILITARY INTERVENTION or BUSH MUST GO