As long as Americans keep fear of terrorism in the headlines and in their minds, we won't see a terrorist attack, just chatter. It's when Americans grow tone-deaf to terrorism and alerts that the next big attack will come. All the terrorists want is their concerns to be at the front of the American conscience. So be afraid if/when Americans start to shrug off terrorist alerts.
But there are no political statements made with an earthquake. Fighting terrorism is not just about saving lives.
In a somewhat odd turn of events, the war on terrorism exposes the fact that Gulf War 2 had no effect on our safety from terrorism even after we get Hussein.
Well put, a shining example of a quality post that makes sense and does not conclude blasphemy based on unreasoned summation...Cough, coff, woof,...rearggggh...
I guess the same is true for the Afghanistan campaign and taking all those Taliban fighters into custody and freezing as many terrorist assets as we can or adding terrorist watch lists or federalizing airport security or creating the department of Homeland Security and attempting to allow different federal agencies to communicate with each other and on and on and on. Everything we've done since 9/11 is apparently just nothing but wasted time and effort. Otherwise, they wouldn't have raised the terror warning. Nothing we've done has made us safer at all.
I hope you were being sarcastic about that. Remember we weren't "safer" before 9/11 either or 9/11 wouldn't have happened. The U.S. was attacked repeatedly in the decade before 9/11 and the government really didn't do anything. Do you really think they are going to stop attacking us? The main difference between now and then is that now, everyone is told about the threats and increased chatter and before you weren't. I guess ignorance IS bliss.
I was being sarcastic. I just don't think you can say we are or aren't any safer than before because we just don't know. I mean, you could make a case that we're not going to have another 9/11 type attack because the surprise factor that allowed them to destroy the WTC Towers and hit the Pentagon didn't even last the entire day. Passengers on the plane are far more likely now to do what they can to prevent a takeover. So even if nothing else had changed, that alone may make us safer. And that's not anything an official policy from the government changed. But it just appears that people are saying that since the warning is being raised that we've done nothing to make our country more secure. That the fact that we haven't had any further attacks is solely due to the fact that nobody's trying to attack us. And I don't think anyone can say that with any certainty. Maybe that's the case, but it's just as likely to me that it isn't the case.
Maybe its just me or has every Christmas, Thanksgiving, 4th of july and 9/11 post 9/11/01 had a terror warning? I'm starting to question why we have this if it is only in effect during days when most americans already know to be extra careful.
Issuing a terrorist warning is about: (1) covering the government's collective backsides in case their intelligence turns out to be more than chatter. God knows that the same people who take the position that terrorist warnings are a political tool only are the same people who are calling for the government's head for not properly warning them before 9/11. (2) Letting the terrorists know, "Hey, we're watching" as a deterrence. I realize that people don't like the way these alerts put us on edge and I even understand somewhat the position "If you can't tell us more detailed information of where not to go, then why tell us anything at all?". But at the same time for the reasons I outlined above, I can't blame the government for continuing to put us on alert. The real problem eventually is going to be the cost of fighting terrorism as in how long is our government going to be willing to shell out a billion dollars a week to increase security during orange alerts? The taxpayers aren't going to put up with it forever, but at the same time, we simpyl can not go back to our pre-9/11 stance of ignoring the fact that there are organizations and individuals in this world that want to disrupt our way of life, people who want their message heard and at the same time who want to destroy our economy. An endgame scenario seems unavoidable in this conflict whether that end game comes now, in 5 years, or decades down the road. Inaction and half-hearted action will no longer be an option.
Am I the only one who literally doesn't think twice about a Terror Warning of any level at all? I mean, what exactly does the government want me to do about it? "Keep my eyes open"? "Report suspicious characters"? I mean, honestly, come on. I don't have the necessary training or knowledge to handle these kinds of situations, and I don't know anyone who does. Why make the big public fuss about the terror warnings, just fax airport security and be done with it, because those are going to be the only people who really take notice of it. Well, and of course, these warnings are also around just to make people paranoid when they travel. Maybe one day someone will uproot a terrorist because they were on the lookout on account of the warning, but I just don't see it happening. And to be honest, it should never even come to that. I guess I must just come off as cynical and bitter, and maybe even un-American, but if we have to go through all this trouble to create a new Office of Homeland Security, then they should do their damn job and make me feel secure. Americans shouldn't have to help them out, nor should we have to worry about it. And that's selfish as all hell, but I don't really care.
I don't either. Where I live there's not enough potential collateral damage to make it worth a terrorist's time and trouble. On a side note, are we offering rewards for these Al-Qaeda types like we did for Saddam and his boys? I think something would be appropriate to bring these scumbags into the sunlight. How about $50,000 a head?
There is a reward of up to $25 million dollars on Bin Laden's head (pluse some other cash thrown in by the Airline Pilots Association and the Air Transport Association). USAMA BIN LADEN
I was referring more to the neighborhood punks who are actually carrying out the attacks. Anybody see the movie "Ransom?"
Dec. 26, 2003, 12:34AM U.S. claims attack on Las Vegas foiled Flight canceled; 13 questioned in Paris By JOHN MINTZ and JOHN BURGESS Washington Post WASHINGTON -- U.S. government officials said Thursday they believe some of the passengers boarding one of the three Air France flights from Paris to Los Angeles that were canceled over security concerns this week might have intended to hijack it and crash-land in Las Vegas. Police in Paris questioned 13 people who had checked in for two Air France flights that were canceled Christmas Eve because of a terror warning from U.S. authorities, but no evidence of wrongdoing was found, the French Interior Ministry said. All 13 were released. But U.S. officials said they remain suspicious about some passengers who did not show up at the airport to claim their seats on the ultimately aborted Flight 68 from Paris to Los Angeles. One of those who did not appear for the Christmas Eve flight apparently is a trained pilot, one U.S. official said. "We still have an interest in talking to those people who didn't show up," said one American official knowledgeable about the investigation. "There might be more to come on this." Despite French statements suggesting some American fears about the Air France flights were groundless, U.S. government officials said they believe they might have averted a terrorist attack by arranging for the flights' cancellation. Officials said they feared al-Qaida operatives planned to hijack one of the flights and use the plane as a missile to attack a site on or near its route. Terrorist could strike urban areas, symbolic targets or parts of the critical infrastructure of the United States, including nuclear plants and petroleum facilities, several U.S. officials told the Los Angeles Times Thursday. Moreover, U.S. officials said intelligence indicators suggest that al-Qaida might have set other terrorist operations in motion that do not involve aviation and are not centered on California. As on other occasions when terrorist fears are heightened, U.S. officials said their main concern is that al-Qaida might use a chemical or biological weapon, or a radiological "dirty" bomb. "Our fear is that other things are going on" that have nothing to do with jetliner flights in or out of U.S. airports, said one U.S. official briefed on high-level intelligence. "The concern is that there still could be a lot of activity that was under way." Another government official with access to the classified reports said U.S. security officials "are really concerned something major will happen" despite the cancellation of the three incoming and three outgoing Air France flights between Paris and Los Angeles on Wednesday and Thursday. One scenario embraced by a number of U.S. security officials is that al-Qaida operatives were in the final stages of planning an attack in this country and were awaiting final direction from al-Qaida superiors to proceed. "Government people hope that by deploying, they'll shut down whatever might have been in motion," the official said. In Paris, French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin announced Thursday that Air France would operate its normal schedule today. U.S. officials have said they passed on to the French government names of travelers they suspected might commandeer the planes on the Paris-Los Angeles route in a terror attack. Seven of the questioned people had checked in at Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport for Air France Flight 68 on Christmas Eve, said one French official. He identified them as four Americans, one German, one French citizen and one Belgian. The people were taken aside and questioned extensively by police, the official said. Their baggage was searched. But no sign of terror connections was found, he said, and all had been released by 7 a.m. Paris time Christmas morning. Six other passengers who showed up for Flight 70 to Los Angeles were also questioned and released. The French official called the cancellations a "non-event." He added, "There is no danger. ... And if there was any, specific measures would be taken." Since the Sept. 11 attacks, American civilian and military air traffic controllers on the ground scrutinize the routes flown by commercial and other aircraft to ensure they do not diverge from their flight plans. Under protocols that are strictly enforced, pilots that depart from their assigned routes are contacted by radio and if their explanations engender suspicions, military combat aircraft could be launched to intercept them. For this reason, U.S. officials believe it is unlikely that terrorists might try to divert an Air France Paris-to-Los Angeles flight to a city far from its flight path, such as New York. The Air France flights in question cross the Hudson Bay and eastern Canada before dipping down to airspace over Minnesota, and then taking a sharp southwestern swing toward southern California. "The only big city near this route is Las Vegas, which they would consider a nice, attractive target," one informed government official said. The al-Qaida network has long considered Las Vegas to be one of its top targets for a strike because it sees the city as a citadel of Western licentiousness, U.S. officials said.
