Heard on the Ft. Lauderdale/Miami late news that unidentified government officials are saying that Al Qaeda operatives are in the country and that they may have access to chemical or biological weapons. Same officials are saying intelligence is pointing to some kind of attack this summer or closer to elections. Haven't really heard this anywhere else. Just wondering if anyone else has heard this story?

Yep, another alert. But they're not raising the color from yellow yet. There's only so many times you can cry "wolf" before people ignore you.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/05/25/terror.threat/index.html

I know we've had other alerts, but this is the first time of ever heard about a WOMD associated with a possible attack.

I did a quick search, and all I found was this APwire.

hxxp://apnews.myway.com/article/20040526/D82PVVH00.html

Fear. Uncertainty. Doubt.

This reminds me a ton of when I was forced to read Lord of The Flies back in high school. That guy Jack was always reminding people of the monster so that they would be frightened and keep doing whatever he said.

People in power like to keep people scared. It stops them from asking good questions.

Fear. Uncertainty. Doubt.

Calvin Kline

Well, one thing 9-11 showed us it can happen anytime anywhere. So, alerts don't phase me, I think we all just need to live with a bit of heightened awareness.

Yep, another alert. But they're not raising the color from yellow yet. There's only so many times you can cry "wolf" before people ignore you.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/05/25/terror.threat/index.html
What? You mean just like the Aug 2001 memo? Are you sure this rumour is not specific enough to warrant a Senate investigation? What's going to happen if this "attack somewhere sometime" intelligence is actually right? Will the people then say we should have known that the attack was pointed to this instance and not any of ones before or after?

I'd say the intent of the investigation is to see how badly communication could have broken down amongst the agencies. However, terrorist attacks will always happen, regardless of how hard a government works. It makes for good politics to say that you're going to hunt down terrorists, but you can't get them all. They'll happen regardless of how much you try, but you do the best you can.

Who knows how many were stopped during the Clinton years, and who knows how many were stopped during the Bush years. Frankly, I'd prefer not to know.

I'd say the intent of the investigation is to see how badly communication could have broken down amongst the agencies. However, terrorist attacks will always happen, regardless of how hard a government works. It makes for good politics to say that you're going to hunt down terrorists, but you can't get them all. They'll happen regardless of how much you try, but you do the best you can.

Who knows how many were stopped during the Clinton years, and who knows how many were stopped during the Bush years. Frankly, I'd prefer not to know.
Well said. Terroism will never be "stopped", but we are taking steps to make them weak, and to make sure we are more aware. Sadly, terroist would have to be smart people. Personally, I rather not know the constant "alerts".

Well said. Terroism will never be "stopped", but we are taking steps to make them weak, and to make sure we are more aware. Sadly, terroist would have to be smart people. Personally, I rather not know the constant "alerts".

THEY HATE OUR FREEDOM!

:D

Yep, another alert. But they're not raising the color from yellow yet. There's only so many times you can cry "wolf" before people ignore you.
That time was long ago.

THEY HATE OUR FREEDOM!

:D

Not sure if that was a serious or a joking response? I might of put in a way that seems like it was bias, but didn't intend it that way.

"Al Qaeda attack in U.S. imminent?"

- Haven't they been saying this since 9/11?

Not sure if that was a serious or a joking response? I might of put in a way that seems like it was bias, but didn't intend it that way.

joking...c'mon, didn't you see my ":D"? :D

I heard from local news reports that the attack is supposed a major attack is supposed to come sometime this summer in the US. Also the terrorist might already be here in the US and that the attack might involve chemical and/or biological weapons. Hopefully, we can gather more info and hunt these bastards down before something terrible happens.

I heard from local news reports that the attack is supposed a major attack is supposed to come sometime this summer in the US. Also the terrorist might already be here in the US and that the attack might involve chemical and/or biological weapons. Hopefully, we can gather more info and hunt these bastards down before something terrible happens.

If not, the war on Terra is a failure. To me, the war on terra shouldn't have been to much about Iraq, and more about the I-N-freaking-S! Those guys are one of the big parts of this problem.

I'm supposed to be flying on September 10 (I purposely stayed away from travelling on 9/11). From Florida (via Atlanta), heading west on a big plane. Not sure they'd try to pull the same stunt, but that one meets all the qualifications of 9/11.

A frightened population is easier to lead.

When you can't win the election any other way, try fear.

Republican '04 Political Platform:

God, Guns, Gays, "Terrorism"


Don't get me wrong, I do think Al Qaeda's a threat, particularly sinch BushCo's been ignoring them for over a year to fight his *Short Victorious War* in Iraq, but the timing of these "alerts" certainly is interesting.

I'm supposed to be flying on September 10 (I purposely stayed away from travelling on 9/11). From Florida (via Atlanta), heading west on a big plane. Not sure they'd try to pull the same stunt, but that one meets all the qualifications of 9/11.Assuming some basic level of intelligence on the part of the terrorists, I think it's safe to say they wouldn't try another 9/11-type attack. That worked once because of the element of surprise. It would be very unlikely to work again.

Bucc is right here. All the people mocking the threat are the same who bash him for not knowing about 9/11. Make up your minds.

Assuming some basic level of intelligence on the part of the terrorists, I think it's safe to say they wouldn't try another 9/11-type attack. That worked once because of the element of surprise. It would be very unlikely to work again.
That's what I'm counting on. Plus, a trip to Alaska is too good to pass up, even if I have to kick some terrorist ass on the way!

When you can't win the election any other way, try fear.

Republican '04 Political Platform:

God, Guns, Gays, "Terrorism"


Don't get me wrong, I do think Al Qaeda's a threat, particularly sinch BushCo's been ignoring them for over a year to fight his *Short Victorious War* in Iraq, but the timing of these "alerts" certainly is interesting.

My goodness, you're right. I mean, after all, we're only five months away from the election! I'm sure it's all just a ploy to keep us scared until October, when it's announced that we've captured Osama bin Laden (whom we've secretly been holding since last February), thereby causing the sheeple of the United States to hold hands and dance around the maypole while joyously shrieking, "Dubya! Dubya! Dubya!".

Or it could have more to do with the fact that we're heading into the summer travel season, we have two party conventions, a major WWII memorial celebration, the G-8 summit, and the 4th of July all coming up within the next few months.

Nah. That makes too much sense. Let's go with the October Surprise theory.

And now we find out that the main source for this warning isn't credible...MSNBC article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5087301/)

Rather disturbing that the FBI was treating this info as credible when apparently the rest of western intelligence doesn't.

And now we find out that the main source for this warning isn't credible...MSNBC article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5087301/)

Rather disturbing that the FBI was treating this info as credible when apparently the rest of western intelligence doesn't.
Because if they don't, people will cry "what did they know and when did they know it" until they get a commission together to find out that they know a lot of things and in another sense, nothing at all. So the only solution appears to be suspicious of everything and err on the side of caution. The American people (as well as other nations) would not have it any other way.

And now we find out that the main source for this warning isn't credible...MSNBC article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5087301/)

Rather disturbing that the FBI was treating this info as credible when apparently the rest of western intelligence doesn't.

Hate to say I told you so Cam, et al, but I expect this will be only the first of a series of "Wag the Dog" warnings we get from Ashcroft.

Because if they don't, people will cry "what did they know and when did they know it" until they get a commission together to find out that they know a lot of things and in another sense, nothing at all. So the only solution appears to be suspicious of everything and err on the side of caution. The American people (as well as other nations) would not have it any other way.

I concur with the basic premise of your argument Bucc, but from what this article states, this was not far removed from you or I sending a fax somewhere saying Al Qaeda will blow up Baltimore next week and the FBI treating that threat as credible and Ashcroft issuing a national warning based primarily on that evidence. The main source the FBI was using that was the source of Ashcroft's warning has very little credibility with any other western intelligence agency.

I'm speculating, but to err on the side of caution seems to be a more safe alternative than not. Imagine the fallout when a strike does occur and it wasn't hyped and feared to the media (which loves these things). You might say it's a cry wolf situation but that's the consequences of media hype and population (and political) hysteria in hindsight as the result of 9/11. Wasn't the lesson learned to take everything seriously in order to reduce the risk of being criticized for not taking everything seriously?

I've never understood what benefit the warning serves anyway except to cover some ass and maybe offer a placebo. Only Americans living in a hole are not already fully sensitive to the fact that we are a large target for terrorists. If I see a shady looking guy setting up a canister in downtown Seattle, you can damn sure bet I'll call the police whether the alert is orange or red.

I've never understood what benefit the warning serves anyway....

Wouldn't it be nice if our media would go over that with us once in a while. Wouldn't it be nice if the media would remind everyone that they bashed the hell out of this same administration for not providing this same style of information before 9/11? And that now it's only fair that the Administration is making sure this is being done, just in case?

But no, let's not be fair, let's now swivel 180 degrees and bash the Admin for giving the press what they insisted on having.

Our newsmedia is supposed to be protecting us, but they seem to be more politically oriented than the politicians these days.

Wouldn't it be nice if our media would go over that with us once in a while. Wouldn't it be nice if the media would remind everyone that they bashed the hell out of this same administration for not providing this same style of information before 9/11? And that now it's only fair that the Administration is making sure this is being done, just in case?

But no, let's not be fair, let's now swivel 180 degrees and bash the Admin for giving the press what they insisted on having.

Our newsmedia is supposed to be protecting us, but they seem to be more politically oriented than the politicians these days.It would be nice if someone, anyone, would go over what it meant. Getting back to my original point, I don't see how a forewarning benefits us. Telling me that a terrorist attack is likely sometime inbetween this summer and the elections only makes me want to move to a shack in northern Idaho for six months.

The original gripe was that if the government has information that federal, state, and local agencies should know about and is not harmful to national security, they should share it. While the FBI, CIA, and military intelligence is working around the clock to prevent terrorist strikes, having the information available to federal, state, and local officials as well to keep them vigilant or "on alert" when the threat is heightened is the goal. That way, a security supervisor at the Golden Gate Bridge or a police chief in Los Angeles or Seattle doesn't have to coordinate with the FBI or CIA for the information, it's made public so the media can help do it's part.

But the problem is that we forget this stuff because the media won't say that and is trying to make a buck by making a fucking conspiracy out of everything the administration does.

I obviously can't say anything, but keep your eyes open boys.

The original gripe was that if the government has information that federal, state, and local agencies should know about and is not harmful to national security, they should share it. While the FBI, CIA, and military intelligence is working around the clock to prevent terrorist strikes, having the information available to federal, state, and local officials as well to keep them vigilant or "on alert" when the threat is heightened is the goal. That way, a security supervisor at the Golden Gate Bridge or a police chief in Los Angeles or Seattle doesn't have to coordinate with the FBI or CIA for the information, it's made public so the media can help do it's part.

But the problem is that we forget this stuff because the media won't say that and is trying to make a buck by making a fucking conspiracy out of everything the administration does.

Of course, this wouldn't happen if the administration wasn't ridiculously secretive about *everything*.

Nature abhors a vacuum. If the administration won't be more forthright about things (lying about WMDs, lying about/minimizing Abu Ghraib, lying about/minimizing about the difficulties they are encountering in Iraq), then the media can do nothing but speculate about motives and what is being hidden.

If they were more open about other things, maybe the media would be more willing to cut them some slack...the media certainly did to a ridiculous extent for a couple of years.

So the media has had enough of the Bush Administration and is "filling in the blanks" as they see fit now?

That is grounds for an investigation in itself.

Of course, this wouldn't happen if the administration wasn't ridiculously secretive about *everything*.

Nature abhors a vacuum. If the administration won't be more forthright about things (lying about WMDs, lying about/minimizing Abu Ghraib, lying about/minimizing about the difficulties they are encountering in Iraq), then the media can do nothing but speculate about motives and what is being hidden.

If they were more open about other things, maybe the media would be more willing to cut them some slack...the media certainly did to a ridiculous extent for a couple of years.
You know I am tired about the talk about lies from this administration. They weren't lying about Iraq's WMDs. They honestly thought they had them, and were working on them. Not just our intelligence agency, but those of every western power. Add to that the resistance to comply to the U.N. resolutions regarding WMDs, and you have a pretty strong case that Saddam/Iraq hadn't come clean on WMDs. Who lied about or minimized Abu Ghraib? All I have seen is people saying more will come out, this is the tip of the ice-berg. How is this minimized? They have made statements blaming the few that have been charged to this point, but then again wouldnt expanding that circle of blame to others, not yet charged, be rathter irresponsible? Regarding post war Iraq....How are they lying about it? They have said that there is a lot of possitive news that isnt' being reported from Iraq, but really where have they lied about problems there? The media touts enough of the bad news, that no one else really needs to follow up on that do they.


Saying this was a politically motivated move is completely in the same camp of reasoning as the LBJ killed Kennedy, UFOs over New Mexico conspiracy theories. Nothing to back it up. Pure fiction.