Underpaid Tom Ridge is going to raise the terror alert. Time to force all 50 states to spend millions of dollars on extra security because of a rumor in New York. I’m sure it has nothing to do with the positive press Kerry received on the Sunday talk shows.
Better go buy that duct tape.
In the spirit of fighting ignorance, perhaps some of you folks could help me out here. As a disclaimer, I will state that I do tech support/IT work for a software company that makes statistical analysis programs, so please bear with me.
I have seen some talk bandied about the Board about how these terror alerts are somehow coinciding with major “events” associated with the Democratic bid for the Whitehouse. This seems a little more conspiracy theory that I am willing to sign off on, but I will keep an open mind.
It seems to me that this should be something that is easy to quantify and even create a predictive model for.
So here is my challenge:
Past-list for me the 1 to 1 coincidence of major Democrat events and terror alerts. Contrast this with major Republican events to show that they lack such alerts (i.e. the Democratic convention vs. State of the Union address etc.)
Future-list the anticipated future Democrat Champaign events and Republican events. We will check back later to analyze data as it relates to terror alerts.
The same thing as happened on this side of the pond . The government are spending millions of pounds on mailing everyone a booklet giving advice on what to do in case of a terrorist attack or major emergency. Most of this advice comes under the category of the bleeding obvious. They also have a web site that already has been spoofed :- http://www.preparingforemergencies.co.uk/ . It is quite a laugh.
There is a link on this spoof web-site that leads to the real web site, if anyone is at all interested.
I was wrong. The first report on CNN was the terror alert was going to be raised to Orange. They have now updated to indicate that only Washington will be raised. This makes sense: The Sunday morning news talked about an increased risk to New York, so raise the terror threat in Washington.
Here is a US spoof on the Bush Administration as well as the War on Terror.
Seriously. Any takers on my challenge?
Well the full list of target buildings is two in NYC, two in DC, and one in Newark. So what’s the problem?
So the threat potential holds through the Republican national convention. Does that mean that all protesters will be treated as terrorists? How will the cops make that distinction?
I was wondering who the first asshole would be to make a thread about this.
Is there ever a legitimate reason to raise the terror alert level? Assuming that terrorists are planning attacks on the US (or is that a conspiracy too?), and considering that we have intelligence people working around the clock gathering information, doesn’t it make sense that every so often they would get a lead worth pursuing? If they didn’t raise the terror alert out of fear of idiots like you claiming it was politically motivated, and there was an attack, what would you say then? Let me guess: “See, the system doesn’t work anyway!” Would you head up the commission investigating the intelligence failure? Better yet, why don’t you give us your solution? How should the government act when they get information that points to a possible attack? I came to this board liberal but ended up moving towards conservative after reading the endless, totally irrational, conspiracy-laden arguments from people like you. Get a grip. You give the legitimate left a bad name.
Wait a minute, you mean that the president is going to be attending the biggest political event, short of the election itself, and they are worried that there will be an increased chance of terrorism?!
I AM SHOCKED!
I said it before, you people are going fucking insane. Many of your “proofs” have the same credulity of someone defending psychic phenomona through shocking coincidence. This is silly.
The biggest political event short of the election itself happened last week Muad’Dib. Bush is just going to go hang out with the kids who weren’t cool enough to be invited to the real party. 
The thing is, though, a lot of things that out to be pretty $%^#ing obvious aren’t to too many people. I mean, how many stories do you hear about people who left their babies/small children in the hot car and they (suprise!) died, or people who took their snow mobiles onto thin ice and (suprise!) fell through and drown? You might be bright enough to see these things as obvious, but common sense isn’t really all that common.
They aren’t going to take you up on the challenge, because of the possibility (if not probability) that their claims will prove to be wrong. What fun would that be? :rolleyes:
Yeah, this is a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” call for the security people. If they say nothing, and something happens, they’ll be crucified for not warning anyone. If they publish the warning and nothing happens, they’ll be crucified for raising a “false alarm.” If they publish the warning and something happens, they’ll be crucified for not doing enough. If they have the info, don’t warn anyone, and nothing happens, sooner or later someone will discover that they had this info and did nothing, but were negligent. None of this, of course, addresses that it’s possible that something is in the works but gets called off or is in some other way prevented because there is an increased alert.
Here’s a question for the more conspiracy-minded: If you were in charge, and you had evidence that you considered credible that there was a potential large problem brewing, what would YOU do? On do you believe that there’s no possibility that terrorists have evil designs, and that the powers that be are making the whole thing up? Personally, I find that last scenario the least credible of all, but to each his own.
That’s part of the problem here. We already know how low the standards are for something to be “credible” to this administration. There’s little reason to believe anything they say without concrete evidence to back it up. Had they not already damned themselves with their own credulity vis a vis Iraq, they wouldn’t be in this fix.
You know, it just occured to me that claiming a high terror alert state during the Republican National Convention is a GREAT way to get Democrats and fence-sitters alive to watch the RNC.
I was planning on watching it anyway, but even if I weren’t… I’d definitely tune in on the off-chance that something really exciting might happen.
Way to play off of our sense of morbid curiosity, Dubya.
“…But we must understand that the kind of information available to us today is the result of the president’s leadership in the war against terror…”
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2713552
Well, I trust this will put to rest any scurillous rumors about the Bush admin. exploiting the situation for political gain!
Or does anyone have a plausible, alternative motivation for this perfectly extraneous glob of horseshit?
There is a big difference between exploiting it for political gain and engineering it.