Crying wolf about "possible attacks" - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Stompy · 05-26-2004, 08:33 AM

Grrr, this is one of my biggest pet peeves against the media.

Either we get these false statement from our govt about how there will supposedly be another attack coming "soon", or we get a tape of Osama claiming that more attacks are to come.

Isn't it the position of the terrorist to strike fear into people? Well, no fear on this side, but instead a stabbing annoyance at the never ending jabbering of "blah blah more attacks to come, blah blah blah USA will fall, people will suffer, blah blah blah the next attack will make 9/11 look like Disney candy canes, blah blah". Either STFU or attack us. Pick one.

Every press release they make just makes them look weaker. Yeah, you gonna attack us? You've been saying that for the past 3 years.

Our govt seems like they're doing it to save face. Announce a possible strike every 6 months so when one happens you can say, "A HAH! We predicted this one!" Good for you, now explain why you let it happen.

I don't get it.

Either way, both sides need to cut it out because it's getting old.

aurigus · 05-26-2004, 08:38 AM

I kind of thought the same thing this morning.

My thoughts:

1. Fear = Power. They (govnt) keep us scared to keep us in line.

2. Same thing you said. This is going to come out every once in a while because they can't predict when it will happen next. So, they can say "well, we said it was going to happen". Plus, they are probably scared the same thing is going to happen to us as happened in Spain. A huge attack before election day, and Bush will most likely get voted out of office.

hrdwareguy · 05-26-2004, 09:20 AM

Man, you would have thought everyone adopted the John Kerry school of thinking.

First, people were bitching because there was chatter about 9/11 and no one informed the people about it.

Now when there is increased chatter and they tell us about it, people bitch because they don't want to hear it.

Let's make up our collective minds and be consistant about what we want.

Stompy · 05-26-2004, 10:09 AM

Eh? I think you misunderstood me.

There's a difference in giving information to the public based on factual intelligence in saying, "There WILL be an attack this summer and we're working on stopping it." as opposed to, "There might be an attack soon" two or three times yearly. Sorry, but that's not warning the public.

Even I could tell you, "There's gonna be an attack soon" every few months. It's just a really crappy way to cover things.

Let's say people wanted to know if they were gonna get fired.. there's a difference between wanting to know ahead of time and your boss coming in each and every morning saying, "You might get fired today."

Not Normal · 05-26-2004, 10:11 AM

Prison abuse scandal? Where? Here? No. There? Where? Gone!

hrdwareguy · 05-26-2004, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stompy
There's a difference in giving information to the public based on factual intelligence in saying, "There WILL be an attack this summer and we're working on stopping it." as opposed to, "There might be an attack soon" two or three times yearly. Sorry, but that's not warning the public.

That's what happened with 9/11. If I remember correctly, there was no definate factual info, only chatter. Then it happened and a lot of people threw a big fit because no one said anything about it. I don't remember hearing anything in which any intelligence said, "There will be 2 planes flying into the World trade Center on 9/11", now that would have been factual intelligence.

lurkette · 05-26-2004, 10:57 AM

Yeah, the administration is kind of caught between a rock and a hard place on this one. If they don't warn people and something happens their heads are going to roll. If they warn us and nothing keeps happenning, it looks like they're just trying to scare people. I am no fan of the Bush administration, but they are in a difficult position and I think they're doing the best they can on this one.

Stompy, how would you handle the situation? I'm not being a smartass, just curious about how you think it could be handled better to keep life as normal as possible while still keeping the public informed about possible attacks.

ARTelevision · 05-26-2004, 11:03 AM

Excellent question there, lurkette.

Stompy · 05-26-2004, 11:48 AM

They made an alert system for a reason. They should use it.

Now, if the media chose to jump all over it once it turned from yellow to orange, then that's a problem with the media moreso than a problem with those who decided to raise it.

In THIS case, they aren't raising the level. They feel this need to hold a press conference and draw media attention each time they notice "increased chatter". It's pointless.

If *I* were in charge and I noticed this "excessive chatter" that they speak of, I would simply raise the threat level to match the activity of said chatter. I think the alert system speaks for itself. The public knows that if you raise the alert level that something is going on.

Now, if the media chose to jump all over THAT, then that's a different story... but holding an unnecessary press conference each time you get a blip on your chatter monitor is a bit excessive and rather annoying.

Of course, no one can entirely predict when something happens and the public needs to also realize this. They might complain NOW that "Hey, we were never alerted before 9/11", but they should use their brain and pay attention to current events.

Had people paid more attention to what was going on in the world as opposed to being more concerned about the next American Idol or who Ben Affleck was banging (yeah yea, these were after 9/11, but I'm sure you get the point), they wouldn't need the govt to state the obvious: "Hey, we might get attacked sometime soon on US soil." I think this is apparent from how "shocked" everyone was on 9/11. Those who paid attention to what was going on in the world knew that something like this was gonna happen VERY soon. Those who didn't pay attention (most everyone else) had this whole "Why did they do this to us?! They must hate the fact that we're free!!" response.

seretogis · 05-26-2004, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stompy
They made an alert system for a reason. They should use it.

Now, if the media chose to jump all over it once it turned from yellow to orange, then that's a problem with the media moreso than a problem with those who decided to raise it.

In THIS case, they aren't raising the level. They feel this need to hold a press conference and draw media attention each time they notice "increased chatter". It's pointless.

If *I* were in charge and I noticed this "excessive chatter" that they speak of, I would simply raise the threat level to match the activity of said chatter. I think the alert system speaks for itself. The public knows that if you raise the alert level that something is going on.

Now, if the media chose to jump all over THAT, then that's a different story... but holding an unnecessary press conference each time you get a blip on your chatter monitor is a bit excessive and rather annoying.

Well written and good points in the above part of your post. I agree wholeheartedly -- feeding the media frenzy for death and destruction is not a good plan, and I really don't know what on earth they are thinking to do so. "There might be something bad happening somewhere, at some point within the next four months!!" does nothing to help anyone.

orange monkeyee · 05-26-2004, 01:11 PM

Put fear into group of people and tell them to buy monster spray so that the monster won't attack them. Only when they discover the monster in the closet was the same person selling the monster spray.

pan6467 · 05-26-2004, 08:22 PM

Let's say I were an "elected" leader that wanted to be kept in power, but issues that would get me elected weren't going my way:

- An economy very weak,
- a deficit that continues to grow like a forest fire with no end after I spent a surpluss like it was nothing,
- a war in 2 countries that have been plagued with scandals (from the reason we went to war, to how we treat the prisoners, to who truly is making money on it)
- my own party having dislike for me
- allies of the country being left high and dry (esp. after some PM's had to resign in disgrace after the reasons I gave for them to join the war were found to be false)
- Turning the biggest terroristic disaster on my country's soil from a world outcry of help and solidarity towards us into a hatred, loathing and fear of us
- allowing jobs to be shipped out overseas while giving huge tax breaks to the corporations that do it
- adding to the manufacturing job lists jobs at fast food places so that it looks like manufacturing jobs are increasing

Now with all those against me how would I get reelected?

Easy. FEAR. A small "terrorist" strike in the heartland during the summer. Maybe an amusement park or small metro like Milwaukee, Kansas City, Cleveland. Where the casualties be sufficient to induce panic and fear but not enough to really cause too much upheaval. Even throw out enough warnings and danger signs so as to be able to say "See warned you."

Then if that doesn't work and a week or so before the election it looks like I'm going to lose...... Break out the big guns, a massive attack right before the election so that I can call Martial Law and not have an election.

Course, I'm just a paranoid fuck with delusions of grandeur and NOONE like Bush would ever do anything like this. Right? Not to mention NONE of those issues in my hypothectical are happening to Bush.

Boo · 05-26-2004, 10:12 PM

IMO- Another attack is like finding WMD, it may take a while but it will happen. As for crying wolf, treat escalation as warning to open your eyes, evaluate your environment and prepare for an attack. Risk management applies to all areas of your life.

And ditto to the following.

Quote:

Originally posted by lurkette
Yeah, the administration is kind of caught between a rock and a hard place on this one. If they don't warn people and something happens their heads are going to roll. If they warn us and nothing keeps happenning, it looks like they're just trying to scare people. I am no fan of the Bush administration, but they are in a difficult position and I think they're doing the best they can on this one.

Stompy, how would you handle the situation? I'm not being a smartass, just curious about how you think it could be handled better to keep life as normal as possible while still keeping the public informed about possible attacks.

pan6467 · 05-26-2004, 10:37 PM

Truth of the matter is IF Bush were so anti-terrorist and wanting to keep us safe, why does he keep cutting fed funds to cities to make sure the police forces are kept strong?

My first step would be to spend a little of the Halib.... errr.... war fund.... ummmm Defense or Homeland Security budget on cities to keep their forces up to date and filled.

The first line of interior defense AGAINST ANY terrorist is going to be local law enforcement.

Instead he has allowed cities like NY, Cleveland, and others to have to make cuts in law enforcement.

Now does this make sense to anyone who truly believes Bush is trying his best?

As for the WMD comparison..... one bomb not even set off right with Sarin in it is not proof of all the WMD's we were told were there. Yet, I do believe there will be a terror attack this Summer.

What does piss me off about the "sarin" bomb is all the pundits on the news explaining why the sarin didn't do what it was supposed to. So next time the bad guys now know how to do it.

DJ Happy · 05-26-2004, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by pan6467
[B] - adding to the manufacturing job lists jobs at fast food places so that it looks like manufacturing jobs are increasing

Ha ha! Has he? See what I mean about manipulating statistics? Governments are geniuses at it. In the UK, they list all those on government sponsored training schemes and those on job-sharing schemes as being fully employed in order to reduce the unemployment figures. Crafty fuckers.

Also in the UK they made one blanket statement a while back that an attack on British soil was inevitable. They said it once and haven't harped on about it since, but everyone still remembers it and are suitably vigilant. Maybe that's the way to go about it.

Right, I'm off to see if I can get someone to manufacture me a Big Mac.

roachboy · 05-27-2004, 06:46 AM

check this out:

http://users.hol.gr/~barbanis/cavafy/barbarians.html

05-26-2004, 08:33 AM	#1 (permalink)
Stompy Banned from being Banned Location: Donkey	Crying wolf about "possible attacks" Grrr, this is one of my biggest pet peeves against the media. Either we get these false statement from our govt about how there will supposedly be another attack coming "soon", or we get a tape of Osama claiming that more attacks are to come. Isn't it the position of the terrorist to strike fear into people? Well, no fear on this side, but instead a stabbing annoyance at the never ending jabbering of "blah blah more attacks to come, blah blah blah USA will fall, people will suffer, blah blah blah the next attack will make 9/11 look like Disney candy canes, blah blah". Either STFU or attack us. Pick one. Every press release they make just makes them look weaker. Yeah, you gonna attack us? You've been saying that for the past 3 years. Our govt seems like they're doing it to save face. Announce a possible strike every 6 months so when one happens you can say, "A HAH! We predicted this one!" Good for you, now explain why you let it happen. I don't get it. Either way, both sides need to cut it out because it's getting old. __________________ I love lamp.

05-26-2004, 09:20 AM	#3 (permalink)
hrdwareguy "Officer, I was in fear for my life" Location: Oklahoma City	Man, you would have thought everyone adopted the John Kerry school of thinking. First, people were bitching because there was chatter about 9/11 and no one informed the people about it. Now when there is increased chatter and they tell us about it, people bitch because they don't want to hear it. Let's make up our collective minds and be consistant about what we want. __________________ Gun Control is hitting what you aim at Aim for the TFP, Donate Today

05-26-2004, 10:09 AM	#4 (permalink)
Stompy Banned from being Banned Location: Donkey	Eh? I think you misunderstood me. There's a difference in giving information to the public based on factual intelligence in saying, "There WILL be an attack this summer and we're working on stopping it." as opposed to, "There might be an attack soon" two or three times yearly. Sorry, but that's not warning the public. Even I could tell you, "There's gonna be an attack soon" every few months. It's just a really crappy way to cover things. Let's say people wanted to know if they were gonna get fired.. there's a difference between wanting to know ahead of time and your boss coming in each and every morning saying, "You might get fired today." __________________ I love lamp. Last edited by Stompy; 05-26-2004 at 10:12 AM..

05-26-2004, 10:57 AM	#7 (permalink)
lurkette My future is coming on Moderator Emeritus Location: east of the sun and west of the moon	Yeah, the administration is kind of caught between a rock and a hard place on this one. If they don't warn people and something happens their heads are going to roll. If they warn us and nothing keeps happenning, it looks like they're just trying to scare people. I am no fan of the Bush administration, but they are in a difficult position and I think they're doing the best they can on this one. Stompy, how would you handle the situation? I'm not being a smartass, just curious about how you think it could be handled better to keep life as normal as possible while still keeping the public informed about possible attacks. __________________ "If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." - Anatole France

05-26-2004, 11:03 AM	#8 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	Excellent question there, lurkette. __________________ create evolution

05-26-2004, 08:38 AM	#2 (permalink)
aurigus Insane	I kind of thought the same thing this morning. My thoughts: 1. Fear = Power. They (govnt) keep us scared to keep us in line. 2. Same thing you said. This is going to come out every once in a while because they can't predict when it will happen next. So, they can say "well, we said it was going to happen". Plus, they are probably scared the same thing is going to happen to us as happened in Spain. A huge attack before election day, and Bush will most likely get voted out of office.

05-26-2004, 10:11 AM	#5 (permalink)
Not Normal Psycho Location: NY, USA	Prison abuse scandal? Where? Here? No. There? Where? Gone!

05-26-2004, 11:48 AM	#9 (permalink)
Stompy Banned from being Banned Location: Donkey	They made an alert system for a reason. They should use it. Now, if the media chose to jump all over it once it turned from yellow to orange, then that's a problem with the media moreso than a problem with those who decided to raise it. In THIS case, they aren't raising the level. They feel this need to hold a press conference and draw media attention each time they notice "increased chatter". It's pointless. If I were in charge and I noticed this "excessive chatter" that they speak of, I would simply raise the threat level to match the activity of said chatter. I think the alert system speaks for itself. The public knows that if you raise the alert level that something is going on. Now, if the media chose to jump all over THAT, then that's a different story... but holding an unnecessary press conference each time you get a blip on your chatter monitor is a bit excessive and rather annoying. Of course, no one can entirely predict when something happens and the public needs to also realize this. They might complain NOW that "Hey, we were never alerted before 9/11", but they should use their brain and pay attention to current events. Had people paid more attention to what was going on in the world as opposed to being more concerned about the next American Idol or who Ben Affleck was banging (yeah yea, these were after 9/11, but I'm sure you get the point), they wouldn't need the govt to state the obvious: "Hey, we might get attacked sometime soon on US soil." I think this is apparent from how "shocked" everyone was on 9/11. Those who paid attention to what was going on in the world knew that something like this was gonna happen VERY soon. Those who didn't pay attention (most everyone else) had this whole "Why did they do this to us?! They must hate the fact that we're free!!" response. __________________ I love lamp. Last edited by Stompy; 05-26-2004 at 11:51 AM..

05-26-2004, 01:11 PM	#11 (permalink)
orange monkeyee Banned	Put fear into group of people and tell them to buy monster spray so that the monster won't attack them. Only when they discover the monster in the closet was the same person selling the monster spray.

05-26-2004, 08:22 PM	#12 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Let's say I were an "elected" leader that wanted to be kept in power, but issues that would get me elected weren't going my way: - An economy very weak, - a deficit that continues to grow like a forest fire with no end after I spent a surpluss like it was nothing, - a war in 2 countries that have been plagued with scandals (from the reason we went to war, to how we treat the prisoners, to who truly is making money on it) - my own party having dislike for me - allies of the country being left high and dry (esp. after some PM's had to resign in disgrace after the reasons I gave for them to join the war were found to be false) - Turning the biggest terroristic disaster on my country's soil from a world outcry of help and solidarity towards us into a hatred, loathing and fear of us - allowing jobs to be shipped out overseas while giving huge tax breaks to the corporations that do it - adding to the manufacturing job lists jobs at fast food places so that it looks like manufacturing jobs are increasing Now with all those against me how would I get reelected? Easy. FEAR. A small "terrorist" strike in the heartland during the summer. Maybe an amusement park or small metro like Milwaukee, Kansas City, Cleveland. Where the casualties be sufficient to induce panic and fear but not enough to really cause too much upheaval. Even throw out enough warnings and danger signs so as to be able to say "See warned you." Then if that doesn't work and a week or so before the election it looks like I'm going to lose...... Break out the big guns, a massive attack right before the election so that I can call Martial Law and not have an election. Course, I'm just a paranoid fuck with delusions of grandeur and NOONE like Bush would ever do anything like this. Right? Not to mention NONE of those issues in my hypothectical are happening to Bush. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" Last edited by pan6467; 05-26-2004 at 08:24 PM..

05-26-2004, 10:37 PM	#14 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Truth of the matter is IF Bush were so anti-terrorist and wanting to keep us safe, why does he keep cutting fed funds to cities to make sure the police forces are kept strong? My first step would be to spend a little of the Halib.... errr.... war fund.... ummmm Defense or Homeland Security budget on cities to keep their forces up to date and filled. The first line of interior defense AGAINST ANY terrorist is going to be local law enforcement. Instead he has allowed cities like NY, Cleveland, and others to have to make cuts in law enforcement. Now does this make sense to anyone who truly believes Bush is trying his best? As for the WMD comparison..... one bomb not even set off right with Sarin in it is not proof of all the WMD's we were told were there. Yet, I do believe there will be a terror attack this Summer. What does piss me off about the "sarin" bomb is all the pundits on the news explaining why the sarin didn't do what it was supposed to. So next time the bad guys now know how to do it. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" Last edited by pan6467; 05-26-2004 at 10:42 PM..

05-27-2004, 06:46 AM	#16 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	check this out: http://users.hol.gr/~barbanis/cavafy/barbarians.html __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite