Either we are safer, or we are not

POSTED BY: rue
UPDATED: Thursday, October 19, 2006 06:20
VIEWED: 5565
PAGE 1 of 4

1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

RUE

Sunday, August 1, 2004 10:26 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/01/nyregion/01THRE.html?th
excerpt

Quote:
August 1, 2004
New York Cites a Terror Threat
By THOMAS J. LUECK
and WILLIAM K. RASHBAUM
The New York Police Department, responding to new information that terrorists may be planning to attack corporations or large public institutions in the city, advised building managers and corporate security personnel on Saturday night to step up their procedures to guard against vehicles rigged with explosives and against chemical agents placed in ventilation systems.

The warning followed meetings on Friday night and Saturday between Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly and Pasquale J. D'Amuro, the assistant director in charge of the New York field office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, according to Mr. Kelly's chief spokesman, Paul J. Browne.

Mr. Browne said the meetings were held to discuss the latest reports of a terrorist threat against the city, but declined to comment on the source of the new information. "The information is considered credible," said another law enforcement official, who insisted on anonymity. The official said the police and federal terrorism authorities, who have received similar threats before, were unusually concerned about the new information.

Are we safer? Only time will truly tell. But I have misgivings about an Administration that on the one hand says we are safer, and on the other hand issues new warnings every week.

My clock on a new attack (16.5 months to go) is still running.

SGTGUMP

Sunday, August 1, 2004 11:45 PM

Am I safer? Yes I have more guns now. Besides, safety is an illusion.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

"I guess they'd rather be alive than free. Poor dumb bastards." - Eightball

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, August 3, 2004 5:05 PM

More then anything else, the warnings are the biggest reason why we are safer. If you walk down a dark road on the bad side if town, are you safer if you are unaware of the danger? The strongest ally of the terrorist is silence.

Of course, rattling the cage by toppling the occasional terrorist harboring despotism certainly makes it hard for terrorists to roost in some place. And without the reliance of a terrorist safe Afghanistan or Iraq they are short two more places to operate unobstructed. Anything that impedes terrorist movement makes us safer. And of course, strengthening our defenses here at home, by keeping our people alert and knowledgeable also makes us safer.

But in the end, it is really the warnings that keep us on our toes and terrorists guessing about what we know and don’t know that improve our safety the most.

RADHIL

Tuesday, August 3, 2004 6:40 PM

Yeah, I suppose we're safer. From who is the question I want to ask.

Ridge Defends 'Three-Year-Old' Terror Alert
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040803/ts_nm/security_al
ert_dc_27

When the asshats in office stop crying wolf just because the polls jump or their rivals get some press.... then I'll feel safer. I'll actually know when to stay on my toes then instead of constantly turning off my bullshit detector in disgust.

Radhil Trebors
Persona Under Construction

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, August 3, 2004 7:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Radhil:
When the asshats in office stop crying wolf just because the polls jump or their rivals get some press.... then I'll feel safer. I'll actually know when to stay on my toes then instead of constantly turning off my bullshit detector in disgust.

And when will that be? The Administration has come out with many warnings. This one happens to be in an election year and so you decide it's bogus. How do you explain all the others? How do you explain the warnings that came out before Kerry even considered running? Terrorism is just a right-wing conspiracy. That's funny.

But if I were a Democrat, trying to get someone like Kerry elected to the office of Commander and Chief, that's probably what I would want the nation to believe as well.

KNIBBLET

Tuesday, August 3, 2004 7:07 PM

I believe that everyone I know is at more risk of becoming unemployed, losing health insurance, their home or - Universe Forbid - losing their child in smirky ass bastard's oil war than they are of any terrorist attack.

*Election year chant: 3 more months, 3 more months*

"Just keep walkin, preacher man."

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, August 3, 2004 7:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Knibblet:
I believe that everyone I know is at more risk of becoming unemployed, losing health insurance, their home or - Universe Forbid - losing their child in smirky ass bastard's oil war than they are of any terrorist attack.

Assuming any of this is true (and much of it is not), how does that make warning the American people about potential terrorist movements any less important? I’m more likely to get hit by a car then I am to die in a plane crash, does that mean that I don’t need to be warned about potentially hazardous flight conditions?

SIGNYM

Tuesday, August 3, 2004 7:24 PM

The Administration is RUNNING on a campaign of fear. They have been doing that since 9-11 gave them the excuse to invade Iraq.

I't impossible to measure how "safe" we really are. I know from being involved (in a minor way) in emergency response that we still are NOT prepared to respond, and that budget cuts in health care, firefighting and police will make our reponse even less useful that it would have been a year ago.

But whether we're safer or not, we are certainly more fearful... thanks to Bush's constant fear-mongering. And despite what some people think, fear by itself does equate to safety.

RADHIL

Tuesday, August 3, 2004 7:28 PM

You don't know me. So don't put words in my mouth or assume my opinions. It's the fastest way to piss me off.

I judge these alerts as best I can, with as much information and context as I can get. Some I have thought were real, some I have deemed bogus and political. This latest had suspicious timing off the bat, and not because it was in an election year - I'm not stupid nor naieve enough to assume that we're blatantly immune even when politics are going on - but because it was immediately after the Democratic convention, and Kerry was getting decent press. The terrorist news suddenly seemed active at the end of the week, it wasn't just the alert status. Despite that, I took this alert for real - there were specifics about the targeting, financial institutions and major companies in New York. The specifics were there, the specifics made sense (private companies rather than public targets = less security, less awareness), and it wasn't just some general alert. Except then I found the news this morning - the intel is dated at best, twisted at worst. And now I write it off as bogus. Blatantly so, and I'm kicking myself for not trusting my intuition on the timing.

So instead of attacking me for believing in some massive conspiracy that I NEVER EVEN TALKED ABOUT OR MENTIONED, why don't you pay attention a little. Because if I were serious about terrorism, and less concerned with being a political fanboy for either side, I'd be severely pissed with the current administration for mucking with our very real response mechanisms just so they could play political games.

Before you attack me, find out where I'm coming from. I'm not some tin-hat asshole. I see things for what they are.

Radhil Trebors
Persona Under Construction

ARAWAEN

Tuesday, August 3, 2004 8:16 PM

I think we are just as safe as we were before. The government has done nothing to really increase the safety of the average person. Some institutions and people might have more security but I think it is negated/countered by the fact that we adopted a international policy that encourages Islamic fundamentalist recruitment. Stopping a terrorist in a way that creates two isn't a winnable approach in my mind.

Educating the public in first aid and how to respond to violence and crisis situations would go alot further than revoking liberties left and right. Eternal vigilance is hard to pull off in a society that is as ethnically diverse as ours.

I might even go so far as to suggest that a 2-year mandatory service in the military (for everybody male/female/rich/poor), giving people basics in first aid and combat, not to mention discipline would be a good thing. Not that this is going to happen, the government doesn't want a trained citizenry, they are much harder to control.

Instead our government just pops up every so often with "new" (actually old) intelligence and scares everybody. I am not saying they shouldn't tell us about info they find, but be less cryptic and give all the facts (like its age). This 'be scared' but 'go about your business' is annoying.

I am ranting. Must stop.

Arawaen

Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.

1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE