|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Dec 22nd, 2003 10:37 PM | ||
| ranxer |
Quote:
not gonna happen though, can't even expect any apologies for anything. the best defence for all of us is to start over with justice and or exposure of crimes followed by a cesation of the militarist actions. we went way further into being dicks since then |
|
| Dec 22nd, 2003 09:38 PM | ||
| Anonymous |
Re: Yeah thanks Quote:
|
|
| Dec 22nd, 2003 07:41 PM | ||
| Protoclown |
I agree that the color coded matrix is something the general public should never have been privy to. I have no problem with its existence, but it means fuck all to us. Actually it just makes our government appear to be stupid. I think one of the big problems is that they ever called it a "war" on terror in the first place. If they'd never called it that, the public might not expect progress reports. If they prevent 100 terrorist attacks that I never in my life know about, you know what? I think I'd be pretty happy living in ignorance on that issue. I just don't think they should make a big production out of pretending to give us wonderful progress reports that mean all of jack and shit, because like GA said, such progress cannot be measured. Those halfassed status reports just make me feel like the government is bullshitting us on yet another issue. |
|
| Dec 22nd, 2003 07:36 PM | ||
| Occupant |
So I was wondering what exactly happens when we go to red alert. This led me to the Department of Homeland Security home page and this is what I got: Quote:
|
|
| Dec 22nd, 2003 06:18 PM | ||
| GAsux |
Transition Zbu, Thank you for providing me with a lead in to another point I wanted to make in your own unintelligible, meaningless opinion sort of way. I appreciate it. The existence of a color coded threat matrix is not evidence that federal agencies AREN'T paying attention. Thanks for playing though. The other point I wanted to get to, to play devil's advocate a bit I suppose, is that you can't measure deterrence. The bad thing is, when deterrence fails, everyone knows. When it succeeds, we'll never see it. When federal agencies upgrade to "orange" and initiate the things they do (stricter security at ports of entry, increased surveillance, blah blah blah) you'll never know if it worked. If it failed, we'll all know when the bomb goes off. What I'm getting at is that the most difficult part for the administration, in my opinion, of proving the success of the war on terror, particularly at home, is finding some way to demonstrate how successful it's been. I think there is little doubt that increased security measures at home coupled with military action in Afghanistan and economic disruption in terms of funding have had an impact on Al Qeada. How many attacks have been PREVENTED by those measures? It may be 0, and it may be 100s. Like I said, there is no way to quantify the success rate of deterrence. |
|
| Dec 22nd, 2003 05:15 PM | ||
| Zbu Manowar |
Not that obscure. The color code is silly. Why the fuck is the government giving more attention to the terrorists? All the color code does is cause either fear or nothing at all. Why bother? Spend the money and effort on getting the FBI and the CIA and whomever else prepared and fighting another attack instead of just making everyone panic. Stop dicking around with all this 'neato' stuff that if another terrorist attack happens, we can be somewhat prepared for it. |
|
| Dec 22nd, 2003 04:44 PM | ||
| kellychaos |
Quote:
|
|
| Dec 22nd, 2003 04:36 PM | ||
| GAsux |
Stuff Business first: My Lee Ermy picture is gay. I look like a moron. And I don't have a scanner. I think someone else in my office has a group photo in which I look less homo-like so I'll try to get my hands on that one. As for Homeland Defense, granted it's a mess, I think in theory it was the right thing. Or at least some version of it. Having worked in and around govt. agencies for almost a decade now (Fuck I'm getting old) I can tell you that incompetence and inefficiency are par for the course. Again, it is my belief that what many times gets labled "conspiracy" is actually more a result of mismanagement and incompetency. Regardless, I don't think anyone doubts that there was a serious communication problem between the varioius federal enforcement and intelligence agencies. Homeland Defense is not the end all, but it's a start. Again I think while the terror alerts can be useful to the agencies, the problem was it was touted to the public in an attempt to "show allt he great things we're doing to make you safe". Instead it's just created confusion. I agree with Max that one way or another, eventually it will become irrelevant to the public. I also don't like the idea of telling people to go about their business. I think we should say what we mean. Perhaps it will scare folks a little, but who gives a fuck? I say if you think we're going to die, than Tom should say "Listen, things aren't looking good and we're getting indications that some shit is going to go down. We can't promise you where or when, but we'll do our best. In the meantime, stay the fuck away from big gatherings, government facilities, etc, unless you absolutely have to." When a hurricane is on it's way, we don't say "We're pretty sure it's going to hit, but just go one about your normal business and hope it doesn't affect you". As for timing, as mentioned in the previous post, I think the holidays are ideal times. Having been around anti-terrorism and force protection for a while now, I'd say it happens a lot more often than you hear about. Terrorists are big on symbolism. Anniversaries, holidays, etc are all prime times. Add to that the large gatherings that typically occur during the holidays (celebrations, sporting events, etc) and you have a prime time to make a statement. You also have to consider the fact that each new terrorist attack raises the bar. Khobar Towers was sort of the litmus test for Al Queda. They targeted a facility in a country close to their base of operations where they had freedom of movement. The embassy bombings in Africa raised the stakes by demonstrating their global capacity and ability to operate outside the region. 9/11 was sort of the coup de tat. Large scale operation, global planning, maximum emotional effect. The next target will likely be more dramatic than the last. After 9/11, resorting to truck bombs and suicide bombers becomes ineffective and you lose the shock value of the terror you're inflicting. As far as the "worse than 9/11" predection, I think that's a fair assertion on Ridge's part. Anyway, with regards to the original question I posed, I didn't ask to provoke an argument. It's out of genuine curiosity. Again as I see it, while the administrations housekeeping response to 9/11 has not been ideal, I'm personally unable to fathom any response that would have been considered acceptable. In my opinion, its a long term problem that will require a long term solution. |
|
| Dec 22nd, 2003 04:12 PM | ||
| Emu | So far though it seems that all of these terrorist threats have been based around the holidays, specifically the big ones, Christmas and Thanksgiving, as well as midsummer, when everyone does their travelling. I just wonder how big the terrorist threat REALLY is around these points, because I would think that since everybody is out and about, terrorist activitiy would be pretty conspicuous. After all, 9/11 was in the middle of September, after the summer weather had passed, but way before any big travel months. You'd think they'd raise the terror alerts at times when it'd be least likely to be noticed. | |
| Dec 22nd, 2003 03:02 PM | ||
| sspadowsky |
Interesting points, GA. I guess my beef is that, every time and without fail, they pull this "something bad may happen, somewhere, sometime, but we don't have any specific information to make us think that" shit. Of course they were expected to do something, but Christ, they do the dumbest thing possible- implement a ridiculously huge and remarkably cumbersome and inefficient mess. Interestingly enough, according to Franken's book, the Clinton administration proposed the Homeland Security dept. shortly before the end of Clinton's term, but the Bush administration blew it off when they moved in. Eight months and one nasty attack later, voila! They're in full support of the idea. Not that it's any less ridiculous an idea. It's just dumb later than it was intended to be. BTW, GA, if I don't see some pics of you and the Gunny, I'm going to have to hurt you. |
|
| Dec 22nd, 2003 02:56 PM | ||
| GAsux |
Yeah thanks Ok thats super Chojin, but actually what I had in mind was something along the lines of a rational thought. Sorry for not clarifying. I'm pretty sure if Dubya went on TV at noon on Sept. 11th, 2003 and said "Hey world, we sure have been dicks are we're pretty damn sorry about that. If we'd have known 20 years ago all our fuck ups would have led to this, we would have done things differently. If you guys could just accept our apology and stop blowing our shit up, that would be really great.", things would be all better and the American public, yourself included, would be praising his vision. |
|
| Dec 22nd, 2003 02:36 PM | ||
| Anonymous | Not having a grudge match with the rest of the world seems like a pretty sound idea to me. | |
| Dec 22nd, 2003 02:36 PM | ||
| FS |
Tom Ridge thinks this next terrorist assault will be bigger than 9/11? Does he think that even now the administration is too incompetent to prevent such an assault, or is he just aiming high? "Ladies and gentlemen, please go about your daily lives, even though TERRORISTS ARE ABOUT TO BLOT OUT THE SUN AND EXPLODE THE MOON, OH GOD THE THOUGHT ALONE MAKES MY STOMACH TURN INSIDE OUT and have a merry christmas." |
|
| Dec 22nd, 2003 02:31 PM | ||
| GAsux |
So.... Just curious, but what then is the solution? It's a bit lose-lose don't you think? If after 9/11 there were no beauracratic changes made, not policy changes, etc, people would have protested the government's inaction with response to terrorism. If another 9/11 were to happen and there was no "warning" system, people would say, "Why didn't the government do something?". I'm not defending the silly color coded matrix because quite frankly it's not made for public consumption if you ask me. Ok I'm sidetracking real quick but I will say this. A lot of law enforcement agencies use similar types of matix systems to determine responses. By gauging the level of violence or threats or what have you, agencies used the matrix to determine what appropriate responses they had (ie increased airport security, less access to potential targets, etc). The problem is, it doesn't mean shit to Joe Citizen. While those agencies may have an entire checklist full of actions to take when the level is elevated to "Orange", it doesnt change crap for you heading to the mall or airport. So to make a long story longer, in terms of public consumption, I agree that the matriz is pointless. Regardless, back to my original theme, I'm simply making the point that I don't think it so much mattered what the government's response to 9/11 was. It was going to be criticized. Do nothing and you're "soft", make crazy color coded charts and consolidate agencies and you're accussed of beuaracracy and fabrication. So what would the appropriate response to 9/11 be? |
|
| Dec 22nd, 2003 02:18 PM | ||
| mburbank | You know, I hate to see terrorists pressured like that. I think each terrorist should strive toward their own best terror on their own schedule. | |
| Dec 22nd, 2003 01:57 PM | ||
| Zhukov | That's not even mentioning the terrorists who will be pessured to live up to a high alert level. | |
| Dec 22nd, 2003 01:52 PM | ||
| camacazio |
The boy who cried wolf, yes? I agree fully. The alert system really is a big waste. |
|
| Dec 22nd, 2003 01:48 PM | ||
| mburbank |
See, the thing is, one of these days there almost certinly will be a major terrorist attack during an alert. By then we'll be as accustomed to them as car and fire alarms which are omnipresent and utterly useless. Moreover, to tell people to go ahead with their travel plans while also telling them you have a credible threat that Al Quaeda plans to use airplanes as weapons, credible enough to raise a terror alert, is pretty confusing. Sooner or later there's bound to be a terrorist event on American soil again. If it happens when the alert is yellow or lower, everyone will want to know how they missed it and the system will seem irrelevant. If it happens when they're on high alert, everyone will want to know how they failed to prevent it when they knew enough to be on high alert, and the system will seem irrelevant. |
|
| Dec 22nd, 2003 01:20 PM | ||
| camacazio | What scares me is that there are still people who DO take his alerts seriously. | |
| Dec 22nd, 2003 12:18 PM | ||
| sspadowsky |
You're not alone, Cosmo. I don't see how it ever could've been regarded as a good idea, especially given the Republican party's typical bent toward "smaller government." "Hey, guys, I've got a great idea! Let's take several large bureaucracies and merge them into one HUGE, INCONCEIVABLY IMMENSE bureaucracy!" By god, if that isn't a recipe for efficiency, then I don't know what is. EDIT: Didn't mean to hijack the thread. Wouldn't you think that, by now, Tom Ridge would be sick of looking stupid for issuing fake alerts that people stopped paying attention to a long time ago? |
|
| Dec 22nd, 2003 11:01 AM | ||
| Cosmo Electrolux | AM I the only person in the world that thinks the Office of Homeland Security is a really, really bad idea? | |
| Dec 22nd, 2003 10:55 AM | ||
| AChimp |
 CHRISTMAS ORANGE
|
|
| Dec 22nd, 2003 09:58 AM | ||
| mburbank |
I'M DREAMING OF AN ORANGE CHRISTMAS AP Wire-- The head of the Department of Homeland Security on Monday urged people to "just go about your business" despite the decision to raise the national terror-attack warning to its second-highest level. "I think it's very, very important to send a message to the terrorists of goodwill and resolve," said Tom Ridge, making the rounds of nationally broadcast morning news shows. |
|
