Poll:should the govt. give details if it issues a warning on further attacts by terrorist (in respect of yesterday)

[Oalex]

I'm sure you all heard the alert issued by the govt. on a possible attacks this week by the terrorist.
I realy think that they do have detail, cause the report say that it came from many different credible sources. Now if they did, why just scare ppl. and not tell them what to look out for or where not to go. Some times it even gets me thinking if they acctually know anything or the FBI just wants to be able to say that it warned the American ppl., if anything did happen.
I belive that if they do have credible info, they should go ahead and tell ppl what that is, it doesn't make any sense just puting ppl on alert. Thats like saying "look out for anything (in particulat something that might happen this week), but go ahead and live your day 2 day life"

Whats your opinion?

 

[tcsenter]

<< I realy think that they do have detail, cause the report say that it came from many different credible sources. >>

If they say 'we have no specific details', that means they have no specific details. If they have specific details but do not want to release them because of security concerns or compromising their sources, they will state something to that effect.

 

[ToBeMe]

OK, what if their "info" was something along these lines........

"We have information from a credible source which says a major US or UK city or cities will be hit in the next several days by a crop duster spreading Small Pox."

What have they accomplished by sharing that detailed information?????? Everyone in every major US/UK city does not go to work for the next week or so and tries to leave those cities to head where?????? The panic by announcing something along those lines could easily cause more death than an act of terrorism which may or may not occur.......

 

[Moonbeam]

Ashcroft put everybody on high alert forgetting he already did that on the eleventh.

 

[Oalex]

ToBeMe:


<< "We have information from a credible source which says a major US or UK city or cities will be hit in the next several days by a crop duster spreading Small Pox." >>




<< What have they accomplished by sharing that detailed information?????? Everyone in every major US/UK city does not go to work for the next week or so and tries to leave those cities to head where?????? The panic by announcing something along those lines could easily cause more death than an act of terrorism which may or may not occur....... >>



Thats BS.
I ask you: what the they accomplish by just saying that its is very likly that there will be another terrorist attack, this week?

 

[ToBeMe]

<< ToBeMe:


<< "We have information from a credible source which says a major US or UK city or cities will be hit in the next several days by a crop duster spreading Small Pox." >>




<< What have they accomplished by sharing that detailed information?????? Everyone in every major US/UK city does not go to work for the next week or so and tries to leave those cities to head where?????? The panic by announcing something along those lines could easily cause more death than an act of terrorism which may or may not occur....... >>



Thats BS.
I ask you: what the they accomplish by just saying that its is very likly that there will be another terrorist attack, this week? >>



No.....THAT's BS! I never said they did accomplish anything by having another warning such as last night, but, what they didn't do is cause mass hysteria which could easily be worse for most than anything that occurs! You're assuming that I thought what was done was accomplishing something.......foolish boy.......I'm simply pointing out that giving out a statement such as mentioned above would be WORSE!

 

[Oalex]

ToBeMe:


<< I never said they did accomplish anything by having another warning such as last night, but, what they didn't do is cause mass hysteria which could easily be worse for most than anything that occurs! >>



So basically you are up for a vote on:
No, if there is no detail there should be no warning at all.
because that is what your are basically saying: (but somehow I feel you voted something else)

Now for instance you are the President and you are told that << "We have information from a credible source which says a major US or UK city or cities will be hit in the next several days by a crop duster spreading Small Pox." >>. Would you issue any warning? no warning? warning with details?
I would like to know what you'd do in that instance.

 

[tcsenter]

<< I ask you: what the they accomplish by just saying that its is very likly that there will be another terrorist attack, this week? >>

CYA. Obviously, they've given no information that might actually help anyone. But, nobody would think about it in those terms if there was a terrorist attack, and the Justice Department failed to warn anyone even though they had no specific details.

 

[Bulk Beef]

<< CYA. Obviously, they've given no information that might actually help anyone. But, nobody would think about it in those terms if there was a terrorist attack, and the Justice Department failed to warn anyone even though they had no specific details. >>


Exactly. If something were to happen, and it came to light down the road that there was some advance notice, however vague, these guys would be in a world of trouble.

 

[ToBeMe]

<< ToBeMe:


<< I never said they did accomplish anything by having another warning such as last night, but, what they didn't do is cause mass hysteria which could easily be worse for most than anything that occurs! >>



So basically you are up for a vote on:
No, if there is no detail there should be no warning at all.
because that is what your are basically saying: (but somehow I feel you voted something else)

Now for instance you are the President and you are told that << "We have information from a credible source which says a major US or UK city or cities will be hit in the next several days by a crop duster spreading Small Pox." >>. Would you issue any warning? no warning? warning with details?
I would like to know what you'd do in that instance. >>



I wouldn't issue anything until I had some kind of hard facts, then I would make a descion as to what would be the best way to alert citizens of the specific area(s) as quickly as possible, but never a broad sweeping alert across the nation(s) with any specific details until hard facts are asceretained as to the threat, and location! What you proposed to begin is that they give all details no matter how vague and all this would serve to do is cause mass hysteria.............can't you see this?????

 

[littlelee]

i think so after all how can you combat terrorism if people are unaware?

 

[shifrbv]

Exactly. If something were to happen, and it came to light down the road that there was some advance notice, however vague, these guys would be in a world of trouble.

I don't think so. I don't see anybody being criticized for the failures of 9/11 even though plenty of evidence has come out afterwards that agencies had known something was going to happen. There was even talk of Congressional hearings to be held shortly afterwards, but now that everybody's on the big government bandwagon, I doubt those will ever materialize.

I personally feel that telling people to be on alert every other day and that something is likely to happen without telling them anything else accomplishes nothing more than to create a psychological state of fear. Ashcroft is starting to look like the boy who cried wolf. Besides, if he has credible evidence, why get on TV and tell the public to essentially do his job? His people should know much better than I where the next attacks will likely come from. Unless they're not doing their jobs and have no clue over the average person in the US as to what might happen next. And I doubt that's likely with their new surveillance powers which they put to use immediately.

Besides, alot of it is common sense. If you live in a big city, you should already be on alert everyday since 9/11. If you work in tall buildings, the same. If you work in government buildings or a government capacity, the same. Defense people say their chances of nuking us right now is less than 5%. And rightly so because we have the ability to detect it unless it comes in an extremely thick, concrete reinforced with thick lead container into one of our harbors. And even that they might be able to detect. Therefore, the next attack will most likely be hit and run (truck bombs, airplane crashes, etc.) or bioterrorism. Many of the most dangerous targets should be on alert (nuke plants, chemical plants, etc.) If they're not, they deserve it. People in big cities just need to deal with it. Big is no longer safe anymore. Everyone should realize that.

 

[Oalex]

<< Exactly. If something were to happen, and it came to light down the road that there was some advance notice, however vague, these guys would be in a world of trouble. >>



To be perfectly honest, I do not see it imposible (from them) to be doing this for just that reason. Issue useless alerts (with no details) every now and then (almost every week. And when something does happen, they could go "WE TOLD YOU, we knew about it". And not have to face the shame of the 9/11. in respect of other countries and their own ppl, who went "Wow and they are supposed to have the best inteligenc team/tech in the world".

 

[veryape]

They have admitted that they do not have any exact information as to exactly what an attack will entail or even the exact location, just that they know one is emminent because of the surveilance they have over the radio waves and phone lines and such.

From what I heard on the radio this morning government officials said they heard many times over some listening source a few people use the same codeword and saying that the big event was going to happen in the next couple of days. That is all they know and that is why that is all they have told us. I think they are doing the right thing by telling us and I also think that if they did not the same people saying they shouldn't now would be saying they should have told us.

They cannot win no matter what they do and I do not think treating us like children and not telling us any info they have in the way of attacks would be foolish.

 

[Moonbeam]

The last warning was a fiasco, Bush goes on a months vacation after a 40% show for the prior 6 months. This time I find out it's me that needs to head for the outback, and AAA says there isn't a road to Austraila. Sh1t, I don't want to fly.

 

[tcsenter]

<< I don't see anybody being criticized for the failures of 9/11 even though plenty of evidence has come out afterwards that agencies had known something was going to happen. There was even talk of Congressional hearings to be held shortly afterwards, but now that everybody's on the big government bandwagon, I doubt those will ever materialize. >>

NUMEROUS articles, editorials, and pundits have strongly criticized the intelligence failure of 9/11. Granted, they never seemed to 'take' with the public, but not for lack of trying. This is a judgement call that could go either way, its rather strange that some would have the government error on the side opposite disclosure.

They had this information, and wanted to disclose it, on the chance it just might cause someone to be more cautious than they otherwise would, and it could save their life. That's now "bad", I guess.

 

[TheBlondOne]

I don't think they should give us more details. Those people are professionals and know exactly what NEEDS to be told to the American people and what does not. I trust them.

I don't think they're just trying to scare us, they want us to know that they know what's going on, and that's it.

If nothing else, they probably want to tell the terrorists: "We know you're up to something." That might make them think twice if they know America is on high alert.

--Sarah

 

[jjones]

i don't get it. we've got ppl saying the government isn't giving us enough information and others complaining that they're saying too much when they warn about the good likelyhood of an attack. they felt it was important enough to warrant notification. i don't think they're getting their jollies just because it's holloween time and they want to scare a few folks.