A Hypothetical Question (Terror Attacks)

[flexy]

Maybe you have heard this,a few days there was this terror scare in Germany where they cancelled a soccer game. (The news are talking about an uncovered plan by terrorists which, among other things, involves emergency etc. vehicles full with explosives.)

The official statement on this event is that "no explosives had been found". Right now, In France, Germany, US etc. the news are all full with the raid on the terroristd, the gist here (as I am getting it) "payback time". Well you know.

The interesting thing is that SOME emergency personnel who had been there at the day of the foiled attack ARE SAYING THAT EXPLOSIVES HAD INDEED BEEN FOUND.

"I was told [by authorities] not to talk about it", he said.

Now folks, what do you think if ISIS plans terror attacks, be it in NYC, Berlin or Paris or London...and "the authorities" are informed and they happen to unfoil an attack and they WOULD indeed find explosives, bombs, say, on Time Square, Wall St. or whatever.

Do you think "the authorities" would make it public and tell everyone that yes, indeed, we have found a ton of explosives right there in Time Square and we were lucky to having prevented it going of. Phew, we're some lucky bastards!!

Or do you think that the news/media is told there was indeed no threat. They'd do that for various reasons and I am sure you can figure them out.

If we assume the authorities would hide this information, do you think this is actually a good idea or do you think it's better them being open about it?

Take one pill. Choose either the red one or the blue one.

 

[pcgeek11]

I am sure they would be singing it from the rooftops how they foiled the terrorist plot. They always do.

 

[soulcougher73]

Always be open with the truth, even if it hurts.

 

[fskimospy]

Maybe you have heard this,a few days there was this terror scare in Germany where they cancelled a soccer game. (The news are talking about an uncovered plan by terrorists which, among other things, involves emergency etc. vehicles full with explosives.)

The official statement on this event is that "no explosives had been found". Right now, In France, Germany, US etc. the news are all full with the raid on the terroristd, the gist here (as I am getting it) "payback time". Well you know.

The interesting thing is that SOME emergency personnel who had been there at the day of the foiled attack ARE SAYING THAT EXPLOSIVES HAD INDEED BEEN FOUND.

"I was told [by authorities] not to talk about it", he said.

Now folks, what do you think if ISIS plans terror attacks, be it in NYC, Berlin or Paris or London...and "the authorities" are informed and they happen to unfoil an attack and they WOULD indeed find explosives, bombs, say, on Time Square, Wall St. or whatever.

Do you think "the authorities" would make it public and tell everyone that yes, indeed, we have found a ton of explosives right there in Time Square and we were lucky to having prevented it going of. Phew, we're some lucky bastards!!

Or do you think that the news/media is told there was indeed no threat. They'd do that for various reasons and I am sure you can figure them out.

If we assume the authorities would hide this information, do you think this is actually a good idea or do you think it's better them being open about it?

Take one pill. Choose either the red one or the blue one.

That has literally already happened recently and the public was notified:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Times_Square_car_bombing_attempt

The 2010 Times Square car bombing attempt was an attempted terrorist attack that occurred on May 1, 2010, which was foiled when two street vendors Duane Jackson and another discovered a car bomb and alerted New York City security personnel to the threat after they spotted smoke coming from a vehicle.[1][2] The bomb had been ignited, but failed to explode, and was disarmed before it caused any casualties.[1][3][4] Two days later, federal agents arrested Faisal Shahzad, a 30-year-old Pakistan-born resident of Bridgeport, Connecticut, who had become a U.S. citizen in April 2009.[5] He was arrested after he had boarded Emirates Flight 202 to Dubai at John F. Kennedy International Airport.[5][6][7][8][9] He admitted attempting the car bombing and said that he had trained at a Pakistani terrorist training camp, according to U.S. officials.[10]

 

[sm625]

They would hide it. If they admit explosives were found then they have to deal with chain of evidence and all that crap. Which could lead back to places they dont want to go. It is better to jsut deny it which gives time to bury any potential incriminating evidence.

 

[flexy]

I am sure they would be singing it from the rooftops how they foiled the terrorist plot. They always do.

Yes, but they would likely make it sound as if that there was no immediate thread, "we foiled this attack before anything happened", but likely not tell "Hell yeah there was a ton of explosives hidden in a car"

Simply because doing so wouldn't have any advantage, it would create panic before anything and would also give away "methods of terror that work", say, if they admitted (like in this case) it was possible that someone hid explosives in emergency vehicles. (Even if the threat ultimately had been foiled).

 

[flexy]

That has literally already happened recently and the public was notified:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Times_Square_car_bombing_attempt

There COULD be situations where authorities act on tips by (foreign) secrets services etc., no "common person" involved who found explosives. (I mean when the cat is out of the bag then it is out of the bag, of course).

But if they *could*, I believe they would hide it, that is if the press and the public doesn't have specifics)

 

[fskimospy]

There COULD be situations where authorities act on tips by (foreign) secrets services etc., no "common person" involved who found explosives. (I mean when the cat is out of the bag then it is out of the bag, of course).

But if they *could*, I believe they would hide it, that is if the press and the public doesn't have specifics)

Possible, although there's a good bit to be gained by marching out some guy and saying 'look, we kept you safe!'

My thought is that if we thwarted an attack like that the most probable reason not to disclose would be to not reveal our sources and methods.

 

[Fern]

Well, if you believe Obama and the NSA etc the answer is 'yes'. They have claimed the (illegal) domestic spying program has stopped dozens of planned terrorist attacked yet they provide no detail. I.e., they themselves have claimed they withhold such info.

But otherwise, LE seems eager to trumpet any success they have.

Fern