Current Events

TOPICS:

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

347 | 348 | 349

 ... 487

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next

s5

s5

STAFF

San Francisco, CA

AUG 03, 2004 01:23 AM

Sunday's alert of a possible terrorist attack against financial buildings in New York was based on 3 or 4 year old information, dating back before the 9/11 attacks. Intelligence and law enforcement officials had not found new evidence that an attack or continued surveillance of the buildings was in progress.

"There is nothing right now that we're hearing that is new," said one senior law enforcement official who was briefed on the alert. "Why did we go to this level? . . . I still don't know that."

diggity

diggity

Carrboro, NC
March 2003

AUG 03, 2004 01:34 AM

Sunday...hmmm, isn't that the day before the day when all the polls were taken to see how well Kerry did last week?

Jayce

Jayce

Minneapolis, MN
November 2002

AUG 03, 2004 01:40 AM

Sunday...hmmm, isn't that eleven days before my birthday?

crazydasaint

crazydasaint

Washington, DC
OLD SKOOL

AUG 03, 2004 01:43 AM

Yet another suspiciously timed terror alert...

first time is happenstance
second time is coincidence
third time is a pattern
and the seventeenth time is just insulting our intelligence

I look forward to the day we can run Tom Ridge outta this town on a goddamn rail!

Keith

Keith

Oklahoma City, OK
August 2002

AUG 03, 2004 01:53 AM

No kidding. And I guess the announcement last Thursday (the day of Kerry's speech) of the arrest of an HVT Al Qaeda leader in Pakistan -- when the capture had actually taken place five days earlier -- was just a coincidence too. FEAR! DEATH! TERROR! BUSH!


[Edited on Aug 03, 2004 by Keith]

swashbucklAARRR

swashbucklAARRR

I'm lost
January 2004

AUG 03, 2004 01:57 AM

who wants to bet osama gets captured within a month of the election?

dire_romantic

dire_romantic

Edmonton, AB
May 2004

AUG 03, 2004 02:01 AM

skweebiljambo said:
who wants to bet osama gets captured within a month of the election?


that's a very, very scary thought....

that said, there's no amount of money small enough that I'd wager against it though.

dirtyground

dirtyground

Chicago, IL
August 2003

AUG 03, 2004 02:01 AM

they spiked up the terror alert so people would feel safe about having Bush as president... because he's STOPPING the people bombing the financial places.

its bullshit. RIGHT after the democratic convention they jack it up based on old information.

Lain

Lain

Astoria, NY
April 2004

AUG 03, 2004 04:56 AM

Im just waiting for:

"Today the terror alert has been raised to "Bugs Bunny" due to the fact that we suspect terrorists fleeing to New York after taking a wrong turn and heading to Albercurque. Of course Bugs Bunny is"

or

"Today the terror alert has been raised to Cheesburger from yesterdays Thilk Milkshake alert. This is the 390,361,901 time and these alerts still meen jack shit."

Southuhn

Southuhn

San Diego, CA
February 2004

AUG 03, 2004 06:50 AM

skweebiljambo said:
who wants to bet osama gets captured within a month of the election?


Nah, see, while Bush is more than willing to resort to such tactics, that would mean he'd have to catch the much smarter bin Laden first.

It took us quite a while just to find Saddam holed up about a mile from his house. If bin Laden actually decides not to stay in his hometown, there's a good chance we'll never find him.

But you know, it's kind of sad that I can blindly call bullshit anytime somebody says there's a terror alert and I'm right every time.

[Edited on Aug 03, 2004 6:56AM]

Helter

Helter

Chester, PA
OLD SKOOL

AUG 03, 2004 07:02 AM

Southuhn said:
But you know, it's kind of sad that I can blindly call bullshit anytime somebody says there's a terror alert and I'm right every time.



If I were part of a well organized terror group, and wanted to commit an act of terrorism against a US target, one of the first things I'd do would be to start disseminating info about fake attacks that were never planned, just to make everybody like you.
Then it would be easy.

Southuhn

Southuhn

San Diego, CA
February 2004

AUG 03, 2004 07:14 AM

Helter said:
If I were part of a well organized terror group, and wanted to commit an act of terrorism against a US target, one of the first things I'd do would be to start disseminating info about fake attacks that were never planned, just to make everybody like you.
Then it would be easy.


I'm not sure how that would make it easy. It's not like if I believed the terror alerts were credible, I'd go throw on my blue tights and start patrolling the skies on the lookout for al Qaeda, ready at any second to melt the evil terrorists with my heat vision.

In theory, people should always be on the lookout for strange behavior. Just because Tom Ridge's rooster crowed three times instead of twice doesn't mean that suddenly we need to be careful. We always need to be alert — that's just life. I said so before 9/11 and I say so today.

Helter

Helter

Chester, PA
OLD SKOOL

AUG 03, 2004 07:17 AM

Southuhn said:
I'm not sure how that would make it easy. It's not like if I believed the terror alerts were credible, I'd go throw on my blue tights and start patrolling the skies on the lookout for al Qaeda, ready at any second to melt the evil terrorists with my heat vision.

In theory, people should always be on the lookout for strange behavior. Just because Tom Ridge's rooster crowed three times instead of twice doesn't mean that suddenly we need to be careful. We always need to be alert — that's just life. I said so before 9/11 and I say so today.



Well no, I was saying that this very well may all be by design, not that YOU need to keep your eyes open to stop terrorists. They may be leaking incorrect information so that people start to ignore the "terror" warnings.

Cash

Cash

USA
OLD SKOOL

AUG 03, 2004 07:49 AM

Maybe they're being over-protective...but if I were in their position I don't know if I wouldn't do the same thing.

Think about it. How much Monday Morning quarterbacking is going on now? "The Govt. KNEW about 9/11 before it happened" "The could have stopped it" "they should have done more" "They could have saved more lives"

Is it even remotely possible that they're trying to avoid being burned again? Thought the quote was butchered by our President, "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me", it's a good piece of advice.

So the initial intel. is 3-4 years old...I'm not an expert in terrorism or even architecture...but how do you know that this isn't standard procedure. Hwo do you knwo that organizations like this DON'T start gathering intel years before they actually strike?

I'm not saying that the government is or isn't right in this situation. What I'm saying is....trust them or not, the Govt. does know more about what's actually going on more than you or me.

George W., at this point, is damned if he does & damned is he doesn't by everyone except his staunchest supporters. I don't think an error on the side of caution is all that bad.

nightx

nightx

Fenton, MO
August 2003

AUG 03, 2004 09:41 AM

Helter said:
Well no, I was saying that this very well may all be by design, not that YOU need to keep your eyes open to stop terrorists. They may be leaking incorrect information so that people start to ignore the "terror" warnings.



But that's not the point of terrorism. They want people afraid to travel/fly/shop, etc.

jason

jason

USA
August 2002

AUG 03, 2004 10:03 AM

Southuhn said:

skweebiljambo said:
who wants to bet osama gets captured within a month of the election?


Nah, see, while Bush is more than willing to resort to such tactics, that would mean he'd have to catch the much smarter bin Laden first.

It took us quite a while just to find Saddam holed up about a mile from his house.



who is to say we dont already know exactly where osama bin laden is? considering our resouces, its not THAT hard to find someone like him.

and i dont believe for a second that saddam hussein was actually hiding out in a dirty hole.

reprobate

reprobate

New Orleans, LA
December 2002

AUG 03, 2004 11:39 AM

Idjiit said:

Hepburn said:
they spiked up the terror alert so people would feel safe about having Bush as president... because he's STOPPING the people bombing the financial places.

its bullshit. RIGHT after the democratic convention they jack it up based on old information.



The information is new to the intelligence community, but old to terrorists. It certainly does seem a little fishy, since the info appears to be pre-9/11 but you could also make the argument that the capture of this laptop would force terrorists to push the timeline of a plan forward in fear of the cell being exposed.

I think it's unlikely, but I imagine that's the reasoning - and it's hard to dispute.




But no one is making that argument. The argument they are making is "We're perfectly willing to scare the ever living shit out of everyone in America rather than accept responsibility under the infinitesimal possibility of an actual attack."

The bottom line fact is that what has happened is that we have confirmed what we've known all along: Al Qaeda has done reconnaissance in the US. Thats it. There is utterly no evidence whatsoever to suggest that terrorists are more likely to attack today than last week or next month, and yet we are reacting as though we are under siege. Its also more than a little suspect that the nature of this information was completely omitted for days until everyone was good and panicked.

RubberSoul

RubberSoul

Los Angeles, CA
February 2003

AUG 03, 2004 11:49 AM

Tom Ridge = Larry
Dick Cheney = Moe
George Bush = Curly
Donald Rumsfeld = Shemp

fenris23

fenris23

Vancouver, BC
February 2003

AUG 03, 2004 12:04 PM

Idjiit said:
it seems stupid not to act.



But should New York be shut down indefinatly? If we don't know when the attack will occur or even IF it will occur, what good does it do to shut it down? It would only be good if as we speak they are rounding up the conspirators. Other wise the terrorists, if they are going to attack, are just going to wait.

reprobate

reprobate

New Orleans, LA
December 2002

AUG 03, 2004 12:52 PM

Idjiit said:

reprobate said:
Idjiit said:
The information is new to the intelligence community, but old to terrorists. It certainly does seem a little fishy, since the info appears to be pre-9/11 but you could also make the argument that the capture of this laptop would force terrorists to push the timeline of a plan forward in fear of the cell being exposed.

I think it's unlikely, but I imagine that's the reasoning - and it's hard to dispute.




But no one is making that argument. The argument they are making is "We're perfectly willing to scare the ever living shit out of everyone in America rather than accept responsibility under the infinitesimal possibility of an actual attack."



All I'm saying is that it is easy for some people to assume from the initial post in this thread and from skimming news articles that what happened is that Mr. Evil Bush and his henchmen dredged up a bunch of old intelligence to stage a dubious shutdown of New York's financial centers.



As opposed to using recently discovered but completely stale intelligence to stage a dubious shutdown of NYs financial centers? I see a distinction without a difference.

Where what really happened is that we just found evidence of planning within the last week or so. I'm trying to prevent the kneejerk attitude that prevails in political arguments so we can actually understand these events instead of just having predictable emotional reactions to them, that's all.



Except that the kneejerk emotional response appears to be the goal of the alert. They were very clear to note right off the bat that this intelligence was "chilling" and "unprecidented" and "highly specific". "From 2000" could, apparently, wait a couple of days to mention. Pointing out that there is no reason at all to believe that this full auto dog and pony show is remotely called for is the rational response.

reprobate said:
The bottom line fact is that what has happened is that we have confirmed what we've known all along: Al Qaeda has done reconnaissance in the US. Thats it. There is utterly no evidence whatsoever to suggest that terrorists are more likely to attack today than last week or next month, and yet we are reacting as though we are under siege. Its also more than a little suspect that the nature of this information was completely omitted for days until everyone was good and panicked.



While I think you're probably right, I also do agree with others who say that it would be irresponsible doing absolutely nothing in this case. There is a possibility that this could trigger a sleeper cell to spring into action ahead of schedule (who knows what else is in the laptop, they may be busting down doors as we speak). Yes, it's very unlikely - but with the specificity of the information it seems stupid not to act.



Sorry, but that really makes no sense and the only people I see advancing that theory are apologists and armchair spooks. A sleeper cell thats been compromised isn't going to spring into action against a compromised target. They're going to change targets or go to ground. What's more, if they didn't know they'd been compromised, they sure as hell do now.

luckyride

luckyride

Portland, OR
May 2003

AUG 03, 2004 01:37 PM

tom ridge=bush buddy that cries wolf.


i think tom's even getting sick of it himself based on all those rumors of him wanting to quit after the election! (and yes, i know he now denies those rumors)

[Edited on Aug 03, 2004 by whiterabbit]

reprobate

reprobate

New Orleans, LA
December 2002

AUG 03, 2004 01:43 PM

Idjiit said:
reprobate said:
Idjiit said:
All I'm saying is that it is easy for some people to assume from the initial post in this thread and from skimming news articles that what happened is that Mr. Evil Bush and his henchmen dredged up a bunch of old intelligence to stage a dubious shutdown of New York's financial centers.



As opposed to using recently discovered but completely stale intelligence to stage a dubious shutdown of NYs financial centers? I see a distinction without a difference.



Neither you nor I can comment on whether the information is stale or not. The reports indicate that the information had been updated as recently as January of this year. Of course, this may have just been someone accessing a file to think of "what could have been" - nobody knows at this point.



Ummmm, its August eight month old information is stale. Traffic patterns, pedestrian flow and security protocols really do change quite a bit from the dead of winter to the height of summer.

Except that the kneejerk emotional response appears to be the goal of the alert. They were very clear to note right off the bat that this intelligence was "chilling" and "unprecidented" and "highly specific". "From 2000" could, apparently, wait a couple of days to mention. Pointing out that there is no reason at all to believe that this full auto dog and pony show is remotely called for is the rational response.



Look, no uninformed kneejerk response is rational - and that's precisely what I was seeing and trying to put in perspective. You're assuming that "from 2000" is a key point and makes the whole thing suspect, and is therefore conspicuous in it's absence from early reports, where it may actually be totally irrelevant.



How could it possibly be totally irrelevant? We have the facts. The facts dictate a very different course of action than the one being undertaken and those facts were fucking withheld for days. Thats not kneejerk, thats not irrelevant, and you've adduced nothing whatsoever to justify any of it. All you're saying is give them the benefit of the doubt. I'm not willing to do that. These people have no fucking credibility. They are proven liars.

The specificity of this information is notable, unprecedented and very specifc which I personally would agree is... "chilling". If up to this point all our intelligence is this bullshit "chatter" where people aren't necessarily saying anything specific, they're just saying things more often - actually seeing the blueprints for an attacking is certainly remarkable, would you not agree?



Speaking of kneejerk emotional response.

If this is the best intelligence we've ever captured, we are utterly and irredeemably fucked. Fortunately, I don't believe that for a second. This is not the "blueprint" for anything. Its raw surveillance.

Again, I think you're probably right that they would simply abandon the effort, re-group and do something else. Al Qaeda isn't stupid, but at this point they may be getting desperate. This administration is getting continually slammed for dropping the ball on 9/11. To expect them to simply shrug off very specific information like this seems a bit silly,



Not when you consider what that information is. What that information is, is that they looked at these buildings for the most part, years ago. There is no evidence that this is even a plot, much less a current one. In short, its not very fucking specific at all. Of the five Ws, we've got Where and Why. Thats not even enough for Inside Edition. "Better safe than sorry" is great if its not your hometown under martial law, and thats what's at issue here. New York Fucking City is under Martial Law because Al Qaeda looked at a couple of buildings years ago. Sorry but liberal or no, you can't softsoap that.

priapus

priapus

I'm lost
January 2004

AUG 03, 2004 02:34 PM

Regardless of what we know or don't know about the "intelligence" (It feels so inappropriate to use that word in connection with this administration.) the fact that we are even considering, indeed, arguing, the veracity of a terror alert is the real problem. Bush is suffering the classic "boy who cried wolf" problem, of his own creation.

For the system to work, we have to trust the people working the system.

Lucia

Lucia

SUICIDEGIRL

I'm lost

AUG 03, 2004 03:43 PM

oooooh Ahh'm sooo afeared of them scary Al-CIAda terrorists....

Gaiseric

gaiseric

Eugene, OR
July 2003

AUG 03, 2004 04:25 PM

This is just further proof of the flood of information that the Intellegence Community is under every day.

There is so much stuff coming in that sometimes they don't know what to do with it all.

To bad most of you going after them for "creating a scare" would probably be calling for people's heads if something actually happened.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next