Ashcroft's terror threat--source not credible

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Format C:

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Format C:
I have a question. Would a major US city getting nuked into a radioactive wasteland shut you guys up long enough to take the terrorism threat seriously for a little while? Maybe for a couple of weeks at least would you then try to join in and help instead of clubbing everyone over the head that makes an effort? I know you don't care any more about the 3000 that were murdered on 9/11, other than exploiting their deaths as ammunition to assault the government with, so there's no use begging you to honor their memories in some tiny way by placing the blame for their deaths on the terrorists that killed them, so whats it going to take to get you to do your part as an American? How many more must die a horrible death before you will lay down your clubs and pick up your swords and join in the fight? Ten thousand? A million? Would that be enough?

So, are you saying that false information and distorting intelligence is a good thing?

It's important to know who your enemy is, if you are willing to trust false information you will run around chasing ghosts while your enemy prepares himself for his next move. False information is worse than NO information.

No, I'm not willing to trust false information. I do however realize that false information is just part of the process and as long as we GET the information out there and are then able to determine its unreliable and can move on where's the harm? I'd much rather hear it ALL, the good and the bad, than to not hear information reported unless its 100% rock solid guaranteed because doing it that way half us would be dead waiting on confirmation. I'm sick to death of the people that act like fighting a war is an exact science. Its not. Its sloppy as hell. Always has been, always will be.

The harm in getting false information out there is that eventually no information will be trusted. You have heard the story about the boy who cried wolf i am sure.

What is even worse is when actions are based on false information. Another risk with it is that information could be spread with a specific purpose and then just be claimed to be another false report, no biggie.

Fighting a war needs to be as exact as possible, people dying or unneccessary fights occuring is something that might very well make you a loser in a war that you could easily have won.

I think the strategy has to be changed, smaller groups used for infiltration and eradication of terror organizations is a better approach IMO.

 

[Red Dawn]

As long as we are prepared for anything I really don't care if it's a credible source or not. In fact I would prefer Ashcroft to be working on this than working on taking on ways of taking our rights away.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
As long as we are prepared for anything I really don't care if it's a credible source or not. In fact I would prefer Ashcroft to be working on this than working on taking on ways of taking our rights away.

The problem is that you are not prepared for everything, if you don't know the threat you cannot prepare for it or eliminate it either, if your information is wrong, your actions won't do any good either.

To eliminate the threat, correct information is critical.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
As long as we are prepared for anything I really don't care if it's a credible source or not. In fact I would prefer Ashcroft to be working on this than working on taking on ways of taking our rights away.

The problem is that you are not prepared for everything, if you don't know the threat you cannot prepare for it or eliminate it either, if your information is wrong, your actions won't do any good either.

To eliminate the threat, correct information is critical.

Whose actions, ours of the Government. Also is that list of potential Terrorists already in our country bogus?

On a side note, according to Anands Blog he was questioned by a government security agency when someone reported him as a suspected terrorist

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
As long as we are prepared for anything I really don't care if it's a credible source or not. In fact I would prefer Ashcroft to be working on this than working on taking on ways of taking our rights away.

The problem is that you are not prepared for everything, if you don't know the threat you cannot prepare for it or eliminate it either, if your information is wrong, your actions won't do any good either.

To eliminate the threat, correct information is critical.

Whose actions, ours of the Government. Also is that list of potential Terrorists already in our country bogus?

On a side note, according to Anands Blog he was questioned by a government security agency when someone reported him as a suspected terrorist

The Governments actions, the list is like guessing, while many of the suspected terroristst are terrorists, many are not, and many of them (like the US lawyer who helped in the Madrid bombings) are not on the list.

I can understand that it is hard to find an enemy that is not clearly visible, but it will be harder if you concentrate on incorrect information.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: X-Man

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: X-Man
Shrug.

It's a no-win situation.

They say nothing, and an attack occurs - "What did you know!? When did you know it?!"

They say something, and an attack occurs - "Why didn't you try harder to stop it!"

They say something, and no attack occurs - "Your intelligence is flawed!"

Seems like the best thing that could happen would be for them to say nothing, and nothing end up happening. Would that make y'all happy?

How about they at least make statements based on CREDIBLE sources?!?!



Naaaah...wouldn't want them to break tradition.

Do you deny that nothing the Bush administration could do would make most any of the people on this forum happy? Hell, they could hire hookers, have them delivered to your doors, and have them service you free of charge and half the people on here would grumble. "Damn Bush! The Republican next door got a better looking hooker than I did!"

They could start being honest with the American people.

They could stop using intelligence from the CIA that hasn't been vetted.

They could stop dissuading debate when making policy decisions.

 

[Red Dawn]

Well until there is another attack on American soil I'm not going to spend much time criticizing our governments efforts to thwart terrorist attacks here in America. I mean how can you think they are not trying to do their best?

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Well until there is another attack on American soil I'm not going to spend much time criticizing our governments efforts to thwart terrorist attacks here in America. I mean how can you think they are not trying to do their best?

Have 180K+ troops guard the nation instead of sending them into a pointless war?

Actually, intelligence has improved a lot, not only in the US, the question is, what should your level of paranoia be? To trust what seems unlikely might save but it might also mean that you miss the real threats.

I simply believe that the system is flawed and that some intelligence is taken way to seriously because it supports a specific agenda. This is, of course, not limited to the US.

 

[XMan]

Have 180K+ troops guard the nation instead of sending them into a pointless war?

Oh, yeah, that'd go over like a lead balloon. You hear people griping about losing civil rights now, what would they say if we posted soldiers on every street corner in the country?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Well until there is another attack on American soil I'm not going to spend much time criticizing our governments efforts to thwart terrorist attacks here in America. I mean how can you think they are not trying to do their best?

Have 180K+ troops guard the nation instead of sending them into a pointless war?

Actually, intelligence has improved a lot, not only in the US, the question is, what should your level of paranoia be? To trust what seems unlikely might save but it might also mean that you miss the real threats.

I simply believe that the system is flawed and that some intelligence is taken way to seriously because it supports a specific agenda. This is, of course, not limited to the US.

Paranoia= Unreasoned Fear. I don't think it's being paranoid.

Regarding the troops. In America the Armed Service are not involved with Policing the country.

 

[Gaard]

Apparently, this threat was important enough to tell the population of America to be on the lookout. But unless I just haven't noticed, it wasn't important enough to raise the color coded threat alert.

 

[fjord]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Apparently, this threat was important enough to tell the population of America to be on the lookout. But unless I just haven't noticed, it wasn't important enough to raise the color coded threat alert.

That's just it. Ashcroft's pronouncements were meant for domestic consumption.

All politically motivated.

There was/is no serious attempt here to combat terror--just bogus PR on the campaign trail.

The message is: "America--How can you even think of not voting for Bush when we are just to be attacked again by terrorists. The Bush administration would be so much better at handling that sort of stuff. But focus on the impending attack, not at the bogus source of our info--and certainly not at our track record--please"

 

[Format C:]

Two million then? Would that do it?

 

[arsbanned]

In America the Armed Service are not involved with Policing the country.

Yet.

According to General Tommy Franks (Cigar Aficianado Dec. 2003), the possibility isn't farfetched at all.

I think the point that we are wasting resources on an unnecessary war is a good one.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Well until there is another attack on American soil I'm not going to spend much time criticizing our governments efforts to thwart terrorist attacks here in America. I mean how can you think they are not trying to do their best?

Have 180K+ troops guard the nation instead of sending them into a pointless war?

Actually, intelligence has improved a lot, not only in the US, the question is, what should your level of paranoia be? To trust what seems unlikely might save but it might also mean that you miss the real threats.

I simply believe that the system is flawed and that some intelligence is taken way to seriously because it supports a specific agenda. This is, of course, not limited to the US.

Paranoia= Unreasoned Fear. I don't think it's being paranoid.

Regarding the troops. In America the Armed Service are not involved with Policing the country.

I know that, however i do believe that the military is involved in national security.

Prevention requires manpower, if it has to do with national security the military is ALWAYS used AFAIK.

 

[NeoV]

Is it asking too much for the brand spanking new, and highly expensive department of homeland defense and the FBI/AG to be on the same page regarding the current threat assesments? Is that really asking too much?

Put a tent over this circus - this is just another example of how things are done in this administration. If I have to have another conservative tell me that I don't care about the people who were killed on 9/11, or that I don't like this country, or that I am supporting the terrorsts by questioning things this adminstration says, I'm going to punch them out.

Of course GW doesn't want to see another terror attack on US soil - no one is questioning that. However, when the AG and the head of the FBI hold a press conference and tell the country that a "90% complete" plan of attack is ready - this just hours after the HEAD OF HOMELAND SECURITY says that the chatter now is really no different than it has been - it scares the H out of me that these are the people in charge of keeping us safe.

 

[Format C:]

Ummm, you DO realize you're talking about government agencies right? Have you ever seen ONE that was streamlined, efficient, and performed its job well? Do you REALLY think anything would change if you fired the whole lot? If you do then I've got some Arizona beachfront property for ya cheap. Now, stop a minute and find the REAL reason for your disdain. That is if you have the guts.

 

[NeoV]

it's one thing if a field agent in the FBI doesn't have the same info that a guy in the field for the CIA has - that I understand. But how is it that Ashcroft and Mueller (sp?) had info that Ridge didn't have? How is it that their "source" is a laughing stock?

 

[Format C:]

Originally posted by: NeoV
it's one thing if a field agent in the FBI doesn't have the same info that a guy in the field for the CIA has - that I understand. But how is it that Ashcroft and Mueller (sp?) had info that Ridge didn't have? How is it that their "source" is a laughing stock?

Last I saw of what he said I believe it was "multiple credible sources", but of course we mustn't mention that and throw a wrench into such a good cross burning as we have going here must we?

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: Format C:
Ummm, you DO realize you're talking about government agencies right? Have you ever seen ONE that was streamlined, efficient, and performed its job well? Do you REALLY think anything would change if you fired the whole lot? If you do then I've got some Arizona beachfront property for ya cheap. Now, stop a minute and find the REAL reason for your disdain. That is if you have the guts.

No I haven't seen one that does its job well either. Good point. However I think there is at least one agency that we, or rather Americans, can do without. The U.S. Department of Education should be eliminated. They don't educate anyone and are a prime source of costs for schools nation wide. Axe em and give education policies into the hands of local teachers/parrents to decide what their kids should learn. That would do quite nicely.

 

[XZeroII]

Wow, this is too sad. Liberals blast the Bush Admin because they didn't take all threats seriously before 9/11, and now they all blast the Bush Admin for taking every threat too seriously. *shakes head*

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Wow, this is too sad. Liberals blast the Bush Admin because they didn't take all threats seriously before 9/11, and now they all blast the Bush Admin for taking every threat too seriously. *shakes head*

What threat?

There was no threat. There is no threat.

Do you not know how to read? Apparently, you don't.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Wow, this is too sad. Liberals blast the Bush Admin because they didn't take all threats seriously before 9/11, and now they all blast the Bush Admin for taking every threat too seriously. *shakes head*

Assuming there was a threat, please tell me how leaving the DHS out of the loop was taking it seriously.

 

[Format C:]

Originally posted by: Aelius
No I haven't seen one that does its job well either. Good point. However I think there is at least one agency that we, or rather Americans, can do without. The U.S. Department of Education should be eliminated. They don't educate anyone and are a prime source of costs for schools nation wide. Axe em and give education policies into the hands of local teachers/parrents to decide what their kids should learn. That would do quite nicely.

If you want to talk getting rid of federal agencies then I'm all for it. As far as I'm concerned 99% of 'em could go poof! and would never be missed. We havn't had a constitutional federal government in decades. For my part the Feds should be in charge of national security and smoothing over any differences that arise between the states and thats it. Screw all this other nonsense, including the Department of Homeland Security. Its just another waste of money and resources. We already have more than enough Federal agencies that are supposed to be watching out for us. Thats most of the problem right there. There's so damned many of them that every one thinks its some other one's responsibility and we, the people, end up getting the shaft because of it.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Wow, this is too sad. Liberals blast the Bush Admin because they didn't take all threats seriously before 9/11, and now they all blast the Bush Admin for taking every threat too seriously. *shakes head*

Assuming there was a threat, please tell me how leaving the DHS out of the loop was taking it seriously.

Purely politics!